Better than ever again dealing with these unethical scum:
A Supreme Court judge has blasted Sydney law firm Brydens Lawyers for its "entirely cynical" behaviour in a court case brought against it by a former client with limited English skills.
www.smh.com.au
Judge blasts 'cynical' Sydney law firm in court battle over legal bill
A Supreme Court judge has blasted Sydney law firm Brydens Lawyers for its "entirely cynical" behaviour in a court case brought against it by a former client with limited English skills.
Brydens, which specialises in personal injury claims among other practice areas, was taken to court by a former client who wanted the firm to hand over an itemised bill for work it did for him in a District Court case.
Lee Hagipantelis, the principal of Brydens Lawyers.CREDIT
😛ETER RAE
The firm had provided Tan Thanh Le, a native Vietnamese speaker, with a lump sum bill for $304,688 but he wanted a breakdown to give to a costs assessor to determine the fairness and reasonableness of the fees.
Brydens had refused to provide an itemised bill on the basis Mr Le had asked for it after a 12-month time limit had expired. The firm also said it had lost his files, which was accepted by the Supreme Court.
In March Supreme Court justice Monika Schmidt
rejected Brydens' arguments and ordered the firm to hand over an itemised bill.
On Friday, Justice Schmidt
delivered a scathing second judgment ordering Brydens to pay Mr Le's costs of pursuing them in court. The costs order was made on an indemnity basis, which is higher than the costs usually awarded in litigation and would cover his entire legal bill.
"The approach which Brydens pursued in these proceedings in the circumstances, I consider, was entirely cynical," Justice Schmidt said.
Justice Schmidt said the firm was aware Mr Le had a "limited command of English" and should have consented to his application to have the costs assessed rather than fighting him in court.
She said Brydens had relied on "hopeless technical points" in fighting his application and
a separate Supreme Court decision in August 2015 had already rejected Brydens' arguments on the same issues.
"The result of Brydens' failures to abide by its statutory obligations was that Mr Le was unnecessarily put to the costs which he has incurred in these proceedings," Justice Schmidt said.
A solicitor at Brydens gave evidence in February that Mr Le's file had been lost sometime after December 2014 but no evidence was given by the firm's principal, Lee Hagipantelis.
In her earlier judgment in March, Justice Schmidt accepted the file had been lost but said she was
"satisfied that an inference must be drawn that the evidence which Mr Hagipantelis could have given ... would not have assisted Brydens' case".
Brydens acted successfully for Mr Le in a District Court case after he was injured in a forklift accident at work. He was awarded more than $1 million in compensation, although a significant amount had to be repaid by him to his workers' compensation insurer.
The firm sent Mr Le the lump sum bill in July 2013. He changed solicitors in mid-2014 and the new firm requested Brydens provide an itemised bill because the District Court had ordered Mr Le's employer to cover his legal costs and it was disputing the amount.
Two partners of the high-profile compensation law firm Bryden’s Law Office have been found guilty of professional misconduct for running advertisements.
www.bpclaw.com.au
Two partners of the high-profile compensation law firm Bryden’s Law Office have been found guilty of professional misconduct for running advertisements including those encouraging victims of the “Butcher of Bega” to contact the firm.
This morning, the Administrative Decisions Tribunal handed down its judgment against solicitors Robert Bryden and Bandeli “Lee” Hagipantelis.
A hearing on what penalty they will face will be held tomorrow.
In 2010, the firm had attempted to take the NSW government to the High Court to have its ban on personal injury advertising ruled invalid, but its application for special leave was dismissed.
In 2007 and 2008, Bryden’s ran print, radio and television advertisements, using the slogans “Winning is everything” and “If you don’t win, we don’t get paid”.
In March 2008, Bryden’s website said it had been instructed by a number of women who had been treated by the former obstetrician and gynaecologist Graeme Reeves, who was dubbed the “Butcher of Bega”.
“If you have been a patient of Mr Reeves and have suffered as a result you should call Bryden’s now as you have legal rights to compensation. Bryden’s are accepting a maximum of 50 clients for this action and the number of places is filling fast so don’t miss out.”
In August that year, the website was updated to say: “Bryden’s has now commenced work on behalf of dozens of women affected by the alleged negligence of former Doctor Graeme Reeves.”
It also said it was acting for a number of people who had taken the drug Fosamax in legal action against the manufacturer of these drugs in relation to their alleged failure to provide adequate warning labels.
In a hearing before the tribunal in April, the Legal Services Commissioner, Steve Mark, said each publication was a breach of the Legal Profession Regulation in relation to
personal injury advertising.
But Mr Bryden and Mr Hagipantelis said they never looked at their own website and claimed they had instructed the firm’s general manager to ensure all ads complied with the laws by getting them approved by the Law Society or the Office of the Legal Services Commissioner.
Mr Hagipantelis said he was of the “firm and clear belief” that his instructions about checking contents of proposed ads were being followed.
He said he did not know about the Fosamax ad, which was placed by his staff “without authority from either my partner or myself”.
The three-member tribunal found Mr Bryden and Mr Hagipantelis “demonstrated highly commendable endeavours to comply” with the regulations when they were introduced in 2002 and 2003, and the then general manager established a system designed to ensure that each new advertisement published was checked.
But this system was not maintained when a new general manager, Paul Brandalise, started in 2006.
The tribunal said the partners “left it entirely to him” to ensure the ads met the regulations.
“This, in our view, Mr Brandalise not being a lawyer, was a gross abdication of their responsibilities … it is telling that neither [Mr Bryden nor Mr Hagipantelis] seems to have looked at the firm’s website.”
In a written judgment, the tribunal also said: “We regret to have to say that neither, in our opinion, was an impressive witness. They seemed to us less than frank and overly defensive in seeking to justify as adequate the level of supervision they exercised in respect of the firm’s advertising.”
