Legal Services Commissioner v Scroope - [2012] NSWADT 107

Administrative Decisions Tribunal

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Legal Services Commissioner v Scroope [2012] NSWADT 107
Hearing dates: 10 May 2012
Decision date: 04 June 2012
Jurisdiction: Legal Services Division
Before: The Hon Justice Haylen (Deputy President)
N Isenberg, Judicial Member
C Bennett, Non-Judicial member
Decision:
(1) That the conduct of the legal practitioner, Philip Scroope, in the preparation of the narrative bill of costs resulting in the charging of Ms Meng of grossly excessive costs, constitutes professional misconduct within the meaning of the Legal Professional Act 2004.
(2) The legal practitioner, Philip Scroope, is reprimanded.
(3) The practitioner, Philip Scroope, is fined the sum of $5,000. That sum is to be paid within 28 days of the date of this decision.
(4) The legal practitioner, Philip Scroope, shall pay the costs of the LSC.

Catchwords: PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT - charging of grossly excessive fees - acceptance of overcharging by firm - deficiencies in computerised costing system - senior solicitor accredited in personal injury work - high level of personal responsibility for file where grossly excessive costs charged - failure of supervision by responsible partner.
Legislation Cited: Evidence Act 1995
Legal Profession (Amendment ) Bill
Legal Profession (Amendment) Act 1987, No 263 of 1987
Legal Profession Act 2004
Cases Cited: D'Alessandro v Legal Practitioners Complaints Committee (1995) 15 WAR 198
De Pardo v Legal Practioners Complaints Committee and anor [2000] 170 ALR 709
Kenedy v Council of Incorporated Law Institute of NSW(1939) 13 ALJ 563
Law Society of New South Wales v Foreman (1994) 34 NSWLR 408
Legal Services Commissioner v Keddie [2012] NSWADT 106
Nikolaidis v Legal Services Commissioner [2007] NSWCA 130
Re R - A Practitioner of the Supreme Court [1927] SASR 58
The Council of the Law Society of New South Wales v Doherty [2010] NSWCA 177
Veghelyi v The Law Society of New South Wales [1995] NSWCA 483
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Legal Services Commissioner (Applicant)
Philip Scroope (Respondent)
Representation: Counsel
C Webster (Applicant)
J Ireland QC with T Lynch (Respondent)
L Muston (Applicant)
T A Williams (Respondent)

File Number(s): 092010

REASONS FOR DECISION

BACKGROUND

In December 2005 Philip James Scroope was employed by Keddies Lawyers ("the firm"), being an accredited specialist in personal injury law. Mr Scroope commenced employment with the firm in early 1998 and had worked continuously in the area of personal injury. In July 2002 he obtained accreditation from the Law Society's Accredited Specialist Programme. From approximately 2000, Mr Scroope's level of personal responsibility for matters within the firm had increased and the level of supervision had decreased.

In late September 2002, Ms Suang Ying Meng ("Ms Meng") was seriously injured in a motor vehicle accident and in October 2002 retained the firm to act for her in personal injury proceedings for the recovery of damages. Mr Scroope was said to have the day-to-day conduct of Ms Meng's matter. In December 2005, Ms Meng's matter was settled for $3, 525,000. On 21 December 2005, Mr Scroope provided Ms Meng with a narrative…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Legal Services Commissioner v Scroope and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2012] NSWADT 107
Decision Date: 04 June 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Queensland, the Legal Services Commissioner (LSC) brought a case against Philip Scroope, a legal practitioner, regarding allegations of professional misconduct. The primary issue was whether Scroope's conduct in preparing a narrative bill of costs resulted in grossly excessive charges to a client, Ms Meng. Scroope, a senior solicitor accredited in personal injury work, was held to have a high level of personal responsibility for the file in question. The court also examined the role of the responsible partner in supervising Scroope's work, especially given the deficiencies in the firm's computerised costing system.

The court had to determine if Scroope's actions constituted professional misconduct under the Legal Profession Act 2004. This involved assessing whether the excessive fees charged to Ms Meng were a result of Scroope's negligence or deliberate overcharging, and whether there was adequate supervision from the firm's partner. The court considered the extent to which Scroope's personal responsibility and the firm's systemic issues contributed to the misconduct.

In its decision, the court found that Scroope's conduct did indeed constitute professional misconduct. The court noted that Scroope accepted the overcharging, and his failure to challenge the grossly excessive costs was a significant factor. Additionally, the deficiencies in the firm's costing system and the lack of adequate supervision by the responsible partner were highlighted as contributing factors to the misconduct. Consequently, the court reprimanded Scroope and imposed a fine of $5,000, to be paid within 28 days. Scroope was also ordered to pay the LSC's costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) That the conduct of the legal practitioner, Philip Scroope, in the preparation of the narrative bill of costs resulting in the charging of Ms Meng of grossly excessive costs, constitutes professional misconduct within the meaning of the Legal Professional Act 2004.

(2) The legal practitioner, Philip Scroope, is reprimanded.

(3) The practitioner, Philip Scroope, is fined the sum of $5,000. That sum is to be paid within 28 days of the date of this decision.

(4) The legal practitioner, Philip Scroope, shall pay the costs of the LSC.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

Medium Neutral Citation:	Legal Services Commissioner v Scroope [2012] NSWADT 107
Hearing dates:	10 May 2012
Decision date:	04 June 2012
Jurisdiction:	Legal Services Division
Before:	The Hon Justice Haylen (Deputy President) N Isenberg, Judicial Member C Bennett, Non-Judicial member
Decision:	(1) That the conduct of the legal practitioner, Philip Scroope, in the preparation of the narrative bill of costs resulting in the charging of Ms Meng of grossly excessive costs, constitutes professional misconduct within the meaning of the Legal Professional Act 2004. (2) The legal practitioner, Philip Scroope, is reprimanded. (3) The practitioner, Philip Scroope, is fined the sum of $5,000. That sum is to be paid within 28 days of the date of this decision. (4) The legal practitioner, Philip Scroope, shall pay the costs of the LSC.
Catchwords:	PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT - charging of grossly excessive fees - acceptance of overcharging by firm - deficiencies in computerised costing system - senior solicitor accredited in personal injury work - high level of personal responsibility for file where grossly excessive costs charged - failure of supervision by responsible partner.
Legislation Cited:	Evidence Act 1995 Legal Profession (Amendment ) Bill Legal Profession (Amendment) Act 1987, No 263 of 1987 Legal Profession Act 2004
Cases Cited:	D'Alessandro v Legal Practitioners Complaints Committee (1995) 15 WAR 198 De Pardo v Legal Practioners Complaints Committee and anor [2000] 170 ALR 709 Kenedy v Council of Incorporated Law Institute of NSW(1939) 13 ALJ 563 Law Society of New South Wales v Foreman (1994) 34 NSWLR 408 Legal Services Commissioner v Keddie [2012] NSWADT 106 Nikolaidis v Legal Services Commissioner [2007] NSWCA 130 Re R - A Practitioner of the Supreme Court [1927] SASR 58 The Council of the Law Society of New South Wales v Doherty [2010] NSWCA 177 Veghelyi v The Law Society of New South Wales [1995] NSWCA 483
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Legal Services Commissioner (Applicant) Philip Scroope (Respondent)
Representation:	Counsel C Webster (Applicant) J Ireland QC with T Lynch (Respondent) L Muston (Applicant) T A Williams (Respondent)
File Number(s):	092010