MUNROE & MUNROE

The parties to this proceeding were Munroe & Munroe, a firm of solicitors, and their former client, Mr. John Munroe. The dispute concerned the firm's entitlement to charge their former client for work performed in relation to a family law matter. Mr. Munroe had engaged Munroe & Munroe to act for him in divorce and property settlement proceedings. The firm had provided services and rendered invoices, which Mr. Munroe disputed. The matter came before Berman J in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the firm had breached its duty to the client by failing to provide a costs agreement in writing, as required by the *Legal Profession Act 2004* (Vic). Specifically, the Court had to determine if the absence of a written costs agreement rendered the firm's claim for fees unenforceable, or if the firm could still recover costs on a quantum meruit basis for the work performed.

Berman J reasoned that the *Legal Profession Act 2004* (Vic) mandated that a law practice must not charge a client for legal costs unless a costs agreement is entered into in writing. His Honour found that no such written agreement existed between Munroe & Munroe and Mr. Munroe. Consequently, the firm was precluded from recovering costs under the Act. However, the Court also considered the equitable principle of quantum meruit, which allows for recovery of reasonable remuneration for services rendered where no express contract exists. His Honour determined that while the firm had breached the Act, the client had nonetheless received the benefit of the legal services provided.

Accordingly, Berman J ordered that Munroe & Munroe were not entitled to recover costs pursuant to the *Legal Profession Act 2004* (Vic). However, the Court allowed the firm to recover an amount on a quantum meruit basis for the reasonable value of the services rendered to Mr. Munroe.