Legal Services Commissioner v Wright

[2010] QSC 168

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:	Legal Services Commissioner v Wright [2010] QSC 168
PARTIES:	LEGAL SERVICES COMMISSIONER (applicant) v DIANE MARIE WRIGHT (respondent)
FILE NO/S:	SC No 6224 of 2009
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING  COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	21 May 2010
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	19 May 2010
JUDGE:	Chief Justice
ORDERS:	1. The application filed 12 June is dismissed. 2. Costs reserved.
CATCHWORDS:	PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – LAWYERS – COMPLAINTS AND DISCIPLINE – GENERALLY – where respondent solicitor refused to provide itemized bill on the basis that the party seeking the itemized bill was not a client or third party payer – where complaint lodged with Legal Services Commissioner – where Commissioner filed originating application seeking declarations that the complainant was a client of the respondent, a third party payer or otherwise entitled to apply for an assessment of the subject costs – where applicant submitted that an implied retainer arose between the complainant and respondent solicitor – whether complainant was a client of the respondent solicitor – whether complainant was a third party payer within the meaning of the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld)
Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld), s 301, s 302, s 332, s 335, s 443(1)(a)
Apple v Wily [2002] NSWSC 855, applied
COUNSEL:	A M Musgrave for the applicant M K Conrick for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Services Commission for the applicant D M Wright & Associates for the respondent

Introduction

1. CHIEF JUSTICE: The respondent solicitor, whose firm is D M Wright & Associates, acted for Mr Anderson in proceedings flowing from the breakdown of his de facto relationship with Ms Anderson. They included a proceeding in the District Court under Part 19 of the Property Law Act 1974 (Qld).

2. Mr Anderson and Ms Anderson reached an agreement which led to the making of a consent order in the District Court on 12 August 2008. That order provided for the sale of real property registered in Mr Anderson’s name, and the distribution of the net proceeds of sale in the proportions 75 per cent to Ms Anderson and 25 per cent to Mr Anderson.

3. The court order provided:

   “D M Wright and Associates will act on the Respondent’s (Mr Anderson’s) behalf in the conveyance of the sale of the property.”

4. Paragraph 4 of the order provides:

“4.

The Respondent and the Applicant shall do all things necessary to cause the proceeds of the sale of the property to be distributed as follows:

i)	To pay all costs, commissions and expenses of the sale;
ii)	To pay the amount required to discharge the mortgage number, 708631455 to Bananacoast Community Credit Union Limited;
iii)	To pay the Redland Shire Council all outstanding rates and charges owing in respect of the property;
iv)	To divide the balance 75% to the Applicant and 25% to the Respondent, by way of payment of same to the trust account of Dargan Kelly Lawyers and the trust account of D.M. Wright & Associates Solicitors.”