HILLMAN & HILLMAN

In *Hillman & Hillman*, the Supreme Court of Tasmania was asked to determine whether a solicitor's firm, Hillman & Hillman, had breached its duty of care to its client, the plaintiff, by failing to advise on the implications of a particular clause in a contract for the sale of land. The dispute arose from the plaintiff's subsequent financial loss after entering into the contract without full understanding of the clause's effect.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the defendant firm had acted negligently in its professional capacity. Specifically, the Court had to consider whether a reasonably competent solicitor, in the circumstances, would have provided the advice that the plaintiff alleged was omitted. This involved an assessment of the scope of the duty owed by a solicitor to their client in conveyancing matters and the standard of care expected of legal practitioners.

Burchardt J found that the defendant firm had indeed breached its duty of care. The Court reasoned that the clause in question was unusual and had significant potential consequences for the client. A reasonably competent solicitor would have identified these potential consequences and provided clear advice to the client regarding them, particularly given the client's apparent lack of sophistication in property transactions. The failure to do so fell below the required professional standard. The Court ordered that the defendant firm was liable for the plaintiff's loss.