HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2009-04-08 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

LEGAL PRACTITIONERS GUARANTEE FUND

Mr BIGNELL (Mawson) (15:27): Can the Attorney-General inform the house about the professional conduct of former presidents of the Law Society and, in particular, their demands on the Legal Practitioners Guarantee Fund?

The Hon. M.D. Rann interjecting:

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON (Croydon—Attorney-General, Minister for Justice, Minister for Multicultural Affairs, Minister for Veterans' Affairs) (15:28): The Law Society. In the 1991 motion picture Point Break, Patrick Swayze plays a surfie who leads a gang of fellow surfies in a series of armed robberies.

Mr Griffiths interjecting:

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: The member for Goyder is right. An undercover FBI agent, played by Keanu Reeves, attempts to crack the case by joining the local surfies but gets drawn into the bank heists. The bandits wear masks of ex-presidents of the United States as a disguise. I am reminded about that movie in replying to this question because, instead of hiding behind the masks of ex-presidents, some ex-presidents of the Law Society tried to hold up the guarantee fund playing themselves.

I am of the opinion that, on the whole, South Australia's legal profession are decent, hard working people who make a grand contribution to the wellbeing of this state and do much work for poor people gratis or at a reduced rate. The state cannot do without them. Alas, from time to time, I encounter lawyers whose professional conduct is most disappointing.

Mrs Redmond: So, do you make a complaint about them?

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Recently, I came across an astonishing bill sent to the guarantee fund by former Law Society president, Andrew Goode.

Mrs Redmond interjecting:

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: I notice the member for Heysen interjects to try to stop this answer, and it will become obvious why she is doing that as I give this answer. By way of background, Mr Goode acts for a group of former clients of Magarey Farlam lawyers. As members would be aware, a supervisor and manager were appointed to wind up the firm and pay out what was left in the trusts.

As Attorney-General, I must authorise all payments made from the guarantee fund. Recently, I received a letter from the supervisor in which she sought my authorisation to pay an amount from the fund under the cost order. Andrew Goode, a former Law Society president and partner at Mellor Olsson, had submitted his accounts to the supervisor for acting as the solicitor for a group of former Magarey Farlam clients in the application. Mr Goode submitted his accounts in November 2007. As well as the usual charges for telephone calls to clients, attendances in court and meetings with counsel, these items were claimed for payment from the guarantee fund: proposals to issue media releases; the perusal of articles in newspapers—thousands of dollars; lobbying parliamentarians about the guarantee fund and the Legal Profession Bill; reading Hansards; providing copies of newspaper articles to clients—

Ms CHAPMAN: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

The SPEAKER: The deputy leader has a point of order.

Ms CHAPMAN: My point of order is that the legal practitioners bill is still under consideration before the house. These matters are the subject of that bill, and it is quite improper for the Attorney-General to start traversing issues in relation to the legal practitioners bill—the substance of which is being dealt with in the bill—and the continuing negotiations between the Attorney-General and members of this house and members of the Legislative Council. Bring in the Premier. It is a disgrace that you should try to do this. This bill is current.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. The bill is not currently before the house and, in any case, I do not think the Attorney is in anyway pre-empting debate on the bill. The Attorney-General.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Mr Goode billed the guarantee fund for providing copies of newspaper articles to clients; lobbying members of the Law Society to attend the annual general meeting in October 2007 and vote for a motion to be moved about Magarey Farlam by ex-presidents Goode and Howard; and—wait for it—watching Today Tonight. An amount of $13,215 was claimed for work done at the Law Society annual general meeting.

These costs were broken down to include: lobbying other legal practitioners to attend the meeting, including a charge of $37 by Andrew Goode for a memo to Mellor Olsson staff to attend the Law Society annual general meeting (a later follow-up email to staff was provided for free)—crikey, at least the blokes at the SAJC paid themselves for the memberships of the young people they recruited—attempting to arrange proxy votes; correspondence with Law Society officers; $555 for six telephone calls Andrew Goode had with Mr Chris Snow (not a client of Mellor Olsson but a former client of Magarey Farlam and lobbyist in this matter); preparation for argument at the meeting about payment from the guarantee fund; compiling newspaper reports; and obtaining comparative legislative provisions from other states for use at the meeting. The supervisor disallowed all these claims. So, $13,215 for stacking the Law Society annual general meeting!

For the record, at the AGM, 29 of the 40 members present voted in favour of a resolution put by Andrew Goode and seconded by his counsel David Howard, another former Law Society president. I do not know how many of those who attended were employees of Mellor Olsson. The resolution called upon me to convene a mediation to resolve the claims of the victims of Magarey Farlam lawyers. For $13,000 they could have convened the mediation themselves. An amount of $296 was charged for meetings and other communications with Nick Xenophon and members of his staff.

Here we have the reason that the member for Heysen is interjecting: at least $444 was charged to the guarantee fund for meetings and telephone conversations with the member for Heysen and her staff. Those telephone charges include one call made on 11 November 2007 between Andrew Goode and the member for Heysen which was described in the accounts as 'issues relating to politicians'. It must have been a bit like document H at the Petrov royal commission. The accounts reveal—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mrs Redmond interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: The accounts reveal that Andrew Goode and David Howard were assisting the member for Heysen in her attacks on the Legal Profession Bill including, indeed, reviewing her draft amendments to it before they were tabled in parliament. An amount of $333 was charged to the guarantee fund for reading her contributions to Hansard. The reading of my Hansard was not charged, I am pleased to say.

As my legal chum Whig Gowans told me, 'It's like charging the moneybox for the time it takes to prise it open.' I note that Mr Howard did not claim costs deemed inappropriate by the supervisor and I have no complaint with him about that. I have given Mr Goode and the Law Society president (Mr John Goldberg of Cowell Clarke) the opportunity to respond to my concerns before I gave this answer. Mr Goode explained that the initial claim he made was 'warts and all' by agreement with the supervisor's solicitor—warts and all.

Gee, I bet he would not have minded if it had all been paid, full tote odds. The agreement was that the supervisor would review the claim and offer a sum in settlement. He said that, as a consequence of a letter from the supervisor pointing out the problems with the claim, he found:

The material submitted inadvertently included a record of all the time which had been applied to the matter whether chargeable against the client or not.

He said an instruction he had given 'to excise categories which had no relevance to the claim on the fund (for example, lobbying parliamentarians, press releases to the media) was unfortunately not carried out'—but we will come to that; we will come to that eventually.

He said that on 25 June 2008, after the items were brought to his attention by the supervisor, he advised the supervisor that he would not be making any claim for lobbying parliamentarians, share issues, press and media releases or the Law Society AGM. In May 2008, six months after the claims were submitted, Mr Goode wrote to the supervisor's lawyer and referred to his claim as being warts and all, and 'with the expectation that the submission could be worked through and, hopefully, a reasonable settlement reached'.

Mr Goldberg says that he is 'satisfied that there was no impropriety in the manner in which Mr Goode submitted his claim for costs'. He says (Mr Goldberg at the Law Society) that any criticism of Mr Goode would be unfair and any suggestion that he sat idly by, allowing improper conduct to occur, is absolutely rejected. Well, 15 months after the claim was submitted, a reasonable settlement has not been reached. Of the $365,205.16 claimed by Mellor Olsson, the supervisor, with the concurrence of the Crown Solicitor's Office, recommends that I pay—wait for it—$131,856.24. This reduced amount was reached after the supervisor, her lawyer and the Crown Solicitor's Office spent many hours trawling through the hundreds of pages of accounts and correspondence with Mr Goode. From the disallowed claims mentioned above, Mr Goode's claim also included claims for costs that are not claimable and claiming at hourly rates above those available.

For the record, closer scrutiny of all former Magarey Farlam lawyers' costs claims by the supervisor and the Crown Solicitor's Office have revealed many other lawyers claiming much more than that to which they are lawfully entitled. Double, triple and quadruple charging by lawyers have been uncovered, as have claims for rates higher than those claimable, charges for attending court on dates when the matter was not in court, charges for work not related to the supervisor's application and inflated charges through unjustifiable overworking of matters.

Mr Martin Keith, another former Law Society president, for example, has claimed about $246,959 in counsel fees, which the supervisor and the Crown Solicitor's Office has had to spend a large amount of time assessing, but that is just as well, given that the amount deemed by the supervisor and the Crown to be claimable from the Guarantee Fund is only—wait for it—$106,511, which sum is more than $140,000 less than was claimed.

Such erroneous and excessive charging has greatly increased the burden on the supervisor and the Crown Solicitor's Office in assessing costs claims. Nevertheless, I am advised that it is fairly usual, unfortunately, for claims to be settled in this manner. Overcharging should not be a routine gambit with the Guarantee Fund or any other client or funder.

Mrs Redmond interjecting:

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Despite any industry standard approach, which I notice the member for Heysen tries to defend, I am concerned that everyday clients of Mellor Olsson and other Adelaide law firms may be given such inflated and erroneous accounts. Ordinary customers of lawyers do not have access to the legal teams that the Guarantee Fund and the government have to scrutinise the accounts. I urge clients to review all their legal accounts and, if in doubt, seek the advice of the Legal Practitioners Conduct Board.

I call upon Law Society ex-presidents to lift their game and the current president to lead the charge. I would like to have dealt with a few more Law Society luminaries today—Nick Niarchos, Rod Lindquist and, lastly, George Mancini, who starred in Ronald Robert Ironside v Regina in the Court of Criminal Appeal on 19 November—but those shall have to wait for another question time.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT