LEVINE & LEVINE

The parties to this proceeding were Levine & Levine, a firm of solicitors, and the respondent, who was a former client of the firm. The dispute concerned the firm's entitlement to charge professional fees for work undertaken on behalf of the respondent. The matter came before Hartnett J in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the solicitors had breached their duty to their client by failing to provide a costs agreement that complied with the requirements of the *Legal Profession Act 2004* (Vic). This failure, if established, would impact the firm's ability to recover the fees it had rendered.

Hartnett J reasoned that the *Legal Profession Act 2004* (Vic) imposed strict requirements on the form and content of costs agreements. The Court found that the agreement provided by Levine & Levine did not meet these statutory requirements, specifically in relation to the disclosure of information concerning the client's rights and the firm's obligations. Consequently, the Court held that the firm was not entitled to recover the full amount of its fees as claimed. The Court applied the principle that where a costs agreement is found to be non-compliant with the Act, the legal practitioner's entitlement to costs is limited to what is fair and reasonable, and in this instance, the Court determined that the firm had not established its entitlement to the full sum claimed.