Court of Appeal
New South Wales
Case Title: Scroope v Legal Services Commissioner Medium Neutral Citation: [2013] NSWCA 178 Hearing Date(s): 19 April 2013 Decision Date: 17 June 2013 Before: Bathurst CJ at [1];
Beazley P at [2];
Hoeben JA at [55]Decision: 1. Appeal allowed;
2. Set aside orders (1) and (3) made by the Tribunal;
3. Order 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 unsatisfactory professional conduct within the meaning of the Legal Profession Act 2004;
4. The practitioner, Philip Scroope, is fined the sum of $2,000. That sum is to be paid within 28 days of the date of this decision;
5. Order that the respondent pay the appellant's costs of the appeal.
[Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]
Catchwords: PROFESSIONS AND TRADES - lawyers - complaints and discipline - Legal Profession Act 2004, ss 496 and 497 - whether role in the preparation of a bill that overcharged a client constituted unsatisfactory professional conduct or professional misconduct Legislation Cited: Legal Profession Act 2004
Supreme Court Act 1970Cases Cited: D'Alessandro v Legal Practitioners Complaint Committee (1995) 15 WAR 198
De Pardo v Legal Practitioners Complaints Committee & Anor [2000] FCA 335; 170 ALR 709
Kennedy v Council of Incorporated Law Institute of New South Wales (1939) 13 ALJ 563
Law Society of New South Wales v Foreman (1994) 34 NSWLR 408
Re R (A Practitioner of the Supreme Court) [1927] SASR 58
The Law Society of the Australian Capital Territory v Lardner [1998] ACTSC 24
Veghelyi v The Law Society of New South Wales [1995] NSWCA 483Category: Principal judgment Parties: Philip Scroope (Appellant)
Legal Services Commissioner (Respondent)Representation - Counsel: Counsel:
T Lynch (Appellant)
C Webster SC; P Maddigan (Respondent)- Solicitors: Solicitors:
T A Williams (Appellant)
Office of the Legal Services Commissioner (Respondent)File Number(s): CA 2012/190511 Decision Under Appeal - Before: Haylen J, Deputy President; N Isenburg, Judicial Member; C Bennett, Non-Judicial Member - Date of Decision: 04 June 2012 - Citation: Legal Services Commissioner v Scroope [2012] NSWADT 107 - Court File Number(s): 092010
HEADNOTE
[This headnote is not to be read as part of the judgment]
The appellant, a legal practitioner employed by the legal practice Keddies, was found guilty of professional misconduct within the meaning of the Legal Profession Act 2004 by the Administrative Decisions Tribunal, Legal Services Division. This finding was based on the appellant's conduct in the preparation of a narrative bill of costs resulting in the charging of a client grossly…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Scroope v Legal Services Commissioner 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2013] NSWCA 178
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was to determine the appropriate characterisation of Mr Scroope's conduct. Specifically, the court had to decide whether the preparation of the narrative bill of costs, which led to the overcharging of the client, amounted to unsatisfactory professional conduct or professional misconduct as defined by sections 496 and 497 of the *Legal Profession Act 2004*.
The Court of Appeal reasoned that the practitioner's actions in preparing a bill that contained grossly excessive charges demonstrated a serious departure from the standard of conduct expected of a legal practitioner. The court found that such conduct fell within the definition of unsatisfactory professional conduct. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the orders of the Tribunal were set aside, and it was ordered that Mr Scroope's conduct constituted unsatisfactory professional conduct. Mr Scroope was fined $2,000, and the respondent was ordered to pay the appellant's costs of the appeal.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Appeal allowed;
2. Set aside orders (1) and (3) made by the Tribunal;
3. Order 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 unsatisfactory professional conduct within the meaning of the Legal Profession Act 2004;
4. The practitioner, Philip Scroope, is fined the sum of $2,000. That sum is to be paid within 28 days of the date of this decision;
5. Order that the respondent pay the appellant's costs of the appeal.
[Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]
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.