National+Legal+Profession+Reform+Taskforce+Paper+-+....doc

精品文档，值得收藏！精品文档，值得下载！COAGNationalLegalProfessionReformDiscussionPaper:LegalCostsIntroductionAustraliaslegalmarketprimarilyservicestwobroadcategoriesofclient:retailconsumers,whotendtobeinfrequentpurchasersoflegalservices；andsophisticatedorinstitutionalclientswhogenerallyarerepeatpurchasersandexperiencedcommercialoperators.1Eachgrouphasdifferentlevelsoffamiliaritywithlegalprocessesanddifferentlevelsofbargainingpowerinrelationtolegalcosts.TheStandingCommitteeofAttorneys-Generalrecognisedthisinapprovingseparatecostsdisclosureandassessmentregimesforsophisticatedandretailclientsunderthenationallegalprofessionmodellegislation(ModelBill).Whilesophisticatedclientsusuallyareabletonegotiatetheirlegalcostsbasedonpreviousexperienceinsimilarmattersandcommercialdecisionsaboutthevalueoftheworktotheirbusiness,retailconsumersgenerallyhavelessexperienceorinformationwhenengagingalegalpractitionerorlawpractice.Thecomplexandspecialisednatureoflegalworkalsomeansthatretailconsumerscanhavelimitedcapacitytodeterminewhetherworkisnecessaryorvaluable.Thisinformationasymmetrycandisadvantageretailconsumersintheirrelationshipwiththeirlawyeroftenattimeswhenclientsareinastateofheightenedsensitivityandpressedtomakeurgentandsignificantlifedecisions.Thelackofmarket-basedorscientificmethodsforvaluinglegalcosts,andthecostsofchangingrepresentation,canresultinretailclientsbeingchargedmorethanreasonablecostsforlegalservices,orcreateaperceptionofovercharging.Clear,conciseandtimelycostsdisclosureisagoodbusinesspractice:itminimisesthepotentialformisunderstandingsatalaterstage,andthepossibilityofcomplaintsagainstlawyerswhereaclientfeelsheorshehasbeenchargedmorethanisfairandreasonable.Earlydiscussionsaboutcostshelptoeducateclientsabouthowthelegalprocessworks,andcanassistinfocusingthemonthedesiredoutcomeandthewaythemattershouldbeprogressedtoachieveit.Thisfacilitatesgreatercontrolbyclientsovertheirownlegalmattersandcanresultingreaterclarityaboutthesharedgoalsoftheclientandlawyer.Costsdisclosurealsobenefitsthelegalprofessionasawhole.Althoughcomplaintsaboutcostsdisclosureandoverchargingaremadeagainstasmallproportionoftheprofession,costscomplaintscontinuetobeaprimarygroundofcomplaintinallStatesandTerritories.Costscomplaintscanhaveadisproportionatelynegativeimpactontheprofessionsreputation,obscuringitspositivecontributiontothecommunity.Therefore,byreducingthepotentialfordisagreementsaboutlegalcosts,mandatorydisclosureservestheinterestsofthebroaderprofessionbyhelpingtomaintainpublicconfidenceinit.Regulatoryoversightoflegalcostscanalsobejustifiedbecauselawyersenjoyamonopolyontheprovisionofmostlegalservices.Independentreviewoflegalcoststhereforeisareasonablecounter-measuretothemaintenanceofrestrictionsinmarketcompetitionwithinthissector.Mandatorycostsdisclosurewasintroducedinthe1990stooff-setthederegulationoflegalfees,1Therearealsoasmallgroupofhigh-networthindividualswhodonotfallwithinthestatutorydefinitionofsophisticatedclient,butwhoareexperiencedcommercialoperators；andclientswhoprimarilyaccessthejusticesystemthroughlegalaidandcommunitylegalcentres.2whichprovidedmorefreedom,flexibilityandcompetitioninfeechargingforlegalpractitionersthantheprevioussystemofscalesofcosts.2However,whilebroadpublicinterestsrequirethatalllegalpractitionersshouldbesubjecttoageneralobligationtochargeonlyfairandreasonablelegalcosts,notallclientsrequirethesamelevelofconsumerprotection.TheTaskforceproposestomaintaintheexistingapproachthatallowssophisticatedclientstocontractoutofthemandatorycostsdisclosureandassessmentregimes.SCAGproposalsInApril2009,theStandingCommitteeofAttorneys-GeneralnotedanumberofNSWproposalstoconstrainoverchargingandexploitationofvulnerablelegalservicesconsumers,andaskedajointworkingpartytomakerecommendationsastotheiradoptioninthenationalmodellaw.Theproposalswereasfollows.StrengtheningtheexistingprovisionthatawrittendisclosuretoaclientmaybeinalanguageotherthanEnglishiftheclientismorefamiliarwiththatlanguage；Requiringlawpracticestoprovideperiodic,itemisedbillstoclientsinpersonalinjurymatters；Prohibitinglawpracticesfromseekingclientsauthoritiestodeductlegalcostsfromasettlementamountwithouthavingfirstinformedtheclientofthesettlementamountandissuedtheclientwithabill(whichmustbeitemisedinpersonalinjurymatters)；Providingthatabillorcoveringlettermustbesignedbyaprincipalofalawpractice(ratherthanalegalpractitionerorotherperson)；andProhibitinglawpracticesfromchargingexcessivecostsinalegalmatter,andprovidingafinancialpenaltyforbreachofthisprovisionwithoutareasonableexcuse.SCAGsubsequentlyreferredthesematterstotheTaskforceforconsiderationaspartofthisreformprocess.TheproposedlegislativeprinciplesThefollowinglegislativeprinciplesareproposedforthecostsregime.ThesewouldbeincludedintheNationalLaw,andwouldbecomplementedbyNationalRules.ObjectivesoftheschemeThepurposesofthisschemeareasfollows:toprovideforlawpracticestomakedisclosurestoclientsregardinglegalcosts；toregulatethemakingofcostsagreementsinrespectoflegalservices,includingconditionalcostsagreements；toregulatethebillingofcostsforlegalservices；toprovideamechanismfortheassessmentoflegalcostsandthesettingasideofcertaincostsagreements.CostsdisclosureBefore,orassoonaspracticableafter,givinginstructionstoactclientsshallreceivesufficientwritteninformationabouttheestimatedcostsoftheirmatter,andthemethodforcalculatingthatestimate,toreasonablyallowthemtomakeinformeddecisionsabouttheconductofthematter.Thisshallalsoincludedisclosureinrelationtocostswherealawpracticeintendstoretainanotherlawpracticeorexpertonbehalfoftheclient.2ALambandJLittrich,LawyersinAustralia(2007),215.3Anysignificantchangetoamatterpreviouslydisclosedmustbenotifiedtotheclientassoonasreasonablypossibleafterthelawpracticebecomesawareofthechange.Costsdisclosureshouldbepresentedinaconcise,clearandaccessibleformat.Legalpractitionersshouldtakereasonablestepstoensurethatclientsunderstandtheinformationdisclosed.Inaddition,consumersfromculturallyandlinguisticallydiversebackgroundsshouldnotbedisadvantagedascomparedtopeopleforwhomEnglishistheirfirstlanguage.Clientsmustbeinformedabouttheirrighttonegotiateacostsagreementandtochallengelegalcosts.Costsagreementsareenforceableasacontractbetweentheparties(andanyassessmentwillbyreferencetothecostsagreementifitisavalidagreementcomplyingwiththelegislation).Ifalawpracticefailstodiscloseanythingrequiredbythelegislation,theclientwillnotberequiredtopaylegalcostsuntiltheyhavebeenassessed.Thelawpracticemustnotcommenceormaintainproceedingstorecoverfeesuntilaftertheassessment.Sophisticatedclientsmaycontractoutofthemandatorycostsdisclosureandassessmentregimes.ReasonablenessLegalpractitionersandlawpracticesmayonlychargefairandreasonablecosts.Acostsagreementisprimafacieevidenceofwhatarefairandreasonablecosts.Legalcostsshouldbeproportionatetothecomplexityorimportanceoftheissuesandamountindispute.Lawpracticesandtheirclientsmayagreetoavarietyofmethodsforcalculatinglegalcosts.Thecourtsandtribunalsmaysetasidecostsagreements,inwholeorinpart,whicharenotfairorreasonable.Legalpractitionersandlawpracticesmustmakereasonableendeavourstoactpromptlyandtominimisedelayinthelegalprocessandmustnototherwiseworkinawaythatunnecessarilyincreasecostsinamatter.BillingAlawpracticemaynotseektorecoveritsfeesunlessithasprovidedaproperlypreparedbilltotheclient.Alawpracticemaynotchargeforthepreparationofbillsandclientsmayrequestanitemisedbill(atnoadditionalcost).Billsmustincludeanoticeaboutaclientsrighttochallengelegalcostsortohaveacostsagreementsetaside.4LiabilityofprincipalsforoverchargingPrincipalsoflawpracticesareresponsibleforthereasonablenessofbillsrenderedtoclients,andwillbepersonallyliableintheeventofthechargingofexcessivelegalcostsinmattersinwhichtheyhaveactedorwhichtheyhavesupervised.Alawpracticemaybeliableforthechargingofexcessivelegalcostsbyoneofitsprincipalsoroneofitsemployees.CostassessmentCostsassessmentsmustbeconductedinaccordancewithNationalRules.Determinationsofcostsassessorsareadmissibleindisciplinaryproceedingsasevidenceastothereasonablenessoflegalcosts.RegulatoryGuidelinesTheBoardshallissueNationalRulesdetailingactionsthatpractitionersarerequiredtotaketocomplywiththeselegislativeprinciples,andtogiveeffecttotheselegislativeprinciples.AbreachoftheNationalRuleswillbeconductcapableofconstitutingunsatisfactoryprofessionalconductorprofessionalmisconduct.Inthecaseoflawpractices,abreachwithoutreasonableexcusemayconstituteanoffence.DiscussionSeveraloftheseproposedlegislativeprinciplesarenotcurrentlyincludedintheModelBill.Thefollowingprovidesabriefdiscussionofthepolicyargumentsfortheirinclusioninanewcostsregime.LevelofdetailindisclosureAcriticismofthemandatorydisclosureregimeisthelackofguidanceaboutthelevelofdetailrequiredindisclosuredocuments.Itisarguedthatpractitionersareeitherlegallyrequiredto,orregularlyerronthesideof,cautionandprovidevoluminousdetailincostsdisclosuredocumentsforfearoffailingtomeettheirprofessionalobligations.Overwhelminglydetaileddisclosuredoesnotservetheinterestsofeitherpractitionerorclientandwasnotintendedwhentheregimewasintroduced.Theaimofcostsdisclosureistoprovidethepartieswithastartingpointfromwhichtobeginadialogueaboutcosts.Writtendisclosureshouldbeahigh-levelsummarytowhichtheclientcanreferwhenmakingdecisionsduringthecourseofalegalmatteritisnotexpectedtobeadetaileddocumentprovidingsubstantivelegaladviceonlegalrightsandoptions(althoughitshouldcomplementthatadvicewhenlaterprovided).Itshouldbemadeclearthatpractitionersareonlyrequiredtotakereasonablestepsinprovidingmandatorydisclosure.DisclosureinlanguagesotherthanEnglishTheModelBillcurrentlyprovidesthatwrittendisclosurestoaclientmaybeinlanguagesotherthanEnglishifaclientismorefamiliarwiththatlanguage.Amorepositiveobligationcouldimposedtoensurethatclientsfromculturallyandlinguisticallydiversebackgroundsunderstandtheinformationbeingdisclosed.Accordingly,inadditiontothisprovisionaboutwrittendisclosures,therecouldbeanadditionalrequirementthatalegalpractitionerbereasonablysatisfiedthattheclientunderstandsthecostsdisclosuregiven.Inpractice,thiswouldmeanthatwherenecessaryalegalpractitioner(or,wherethisisnotpracticable,theclient)wouldneedtoobtainatranslatortoexplainthecostsdisclosuretotheclient.5TheTaskforcedoesnotconsiderthisproposaltobeundulyonerousgiventhatthelegalpractitionerwouldinanycaseberequiredtoensurethatheorsheisabletocommunicateeffectivelywithaclientinordertoobtainongoinginstructionsinamatter.ProportionalityinassessingreasonablenessofcostsProportionalityoflegalcostsisalreadyenshrinedincertainareas.Forexample,section60oftheCivilProcedureAct2005(NSW)providesthat:inanyproceedings,thepracticeandprocedureofthecourtshouldbeimplementedwiththeobjectofresolvingtheissuesbetweenthepartiesinsuchawaythatthecosttothepartiesisproportionatetotheimportanceandcomplexityofthesubject-matterindispute.InSevenNetworkLtdvNewsLtd2007FCA1062,JusticeSackvillecommentedadverselyonthedisproportionateamountofthelegalfeesrelativetotheamountultimatelyindispute.3HisHonourhassubsequentlycommentedthatthereisanundeniablepublicinterestinthecourtsactivelyapplyingtheprincipleofproportionalitytoallformsoflitigation,whetherthestakesareveryhighorcomparativelylow.Ifthisisnotdone,judgescanhardlybesurprisedifthecivilcourtsarelargelyseenastheexclusivedomainofthewealthyandpowerful.4TheVictorianLawReformCommissiondiscussedtheissueofproportionalityinitsreport,CivilJusticeReview(2008).TheCommissionnotedcertaindifficultiesinapplyingtheprincipleofproportionalitytolegalcosts.However,itrecommendedthatnewprovisionsshouldbeenactedinrespectofcertainmatters,includingaparamountdutyonparties,legalpractitionersandlawpracticesinvolvedincivilproceedingstothecourttofurthertheadministrationofjustice；andthiswouldincludeadutytousereasonableendeavourstoensurethatthelegalandothercostsincurredinconnectionwiththeproceedingsareminimisedandproportionatetothecomplexityorimportanceoftheissuesandtheamountindispute.5LiabilityofprincipalsforoverchargingUndertheModelBill,billsmustbesignedonbehalfofthelawpracticebyalegalpractitionerorotheremployee,andanythingdonebyalegalpractitioneronbehalfofthelawpracticeisdeemedtohavebeendonebythelawpractice.TheModelBillalsodeemsanybreachoftheActbyalawpracticetohavealsobeencommittedbyaprincipalunlessheorsheestablishesthat:thepracticecontravenedtheprovisionwithouttheactual,imputedorconstructiveknowledgeoftheprincipal；ortheprincipalwasnotinapositiontoinfluencetheconductofthelawpracticeinrelationtoitsbreachoftheprovision；ortheprincipal,ifinthatposition,usedallduediligencetopreventthebreachbythepractice.TheModelBillalsoprovidesthatthechargingofexcessivelegalcostsinconnectionwiththepracticeoflawiscapableofbeingunsatisfactoryprofessionalconductorprofessionalmisconduct.However,thecommonlawstandardculpabilityforafindingofprofessionalmisconductappearstorequirethatthelegalpractitionerbepersonallyimplicatedintheconductthatisthesubjectofthecomplaint.63SevenNetworkLtdvNewsLtd2007FCA1062,8-10.4RSackville,TheC7Case:AChronicleofaDeathForetold,PaperpresentedtoNewZealandBarAssociationInternationalConference,15&16August2008.5VictorianLawReformCommission,CivilJusticeReviewReport(2008),Rec16.3.6SeethediscussioninNikolaidisvLegalServicesCommissioner2007NSWCA130.6Inpractice,difficultiescouldariseinidentifyingaparticularlegalpractitioneragainstwhomtobringanydisciplinaryproceedingswherealawpracticehasengagedinexcessiveovercharging.Forexample,inmanylegalpracticesthepreparationandprovisionofbillsmaybebrokenintomultiplesub-tasksundertakenbydifferentpeople,ofwhomsomemaybelegalpractitionersandsomemaynot.Itispossiblethatnoonelegalpractitionercouldbeidentifiedwhohasthenecessarylevelofpersonalculpabilityforafindingofprofessionalmisconductforchargingexcessivelegalcostsinconnectionwiththepracticeoflaw.Dependingonthecircumstances,itmightbepossibletobringdisciplinaryproceedingsforprofessionalmisconductonothergrounds,suchaswherealegalpractitionerfailstosupervisehisorherstaffinpreparingorsigningabill.However,anotherapproachwouldbetorequireprincipalsoflawpracticestotakeresponsibilityforthecontentofbillssenttoclients,includingthereasonablenessofthecostsinthem.TheTaskforceconsidersthisanappropriateoption,andproposesthattheNationalLawincludeprinciplestothiseffect(asoutlinedabove),whichcouldbecomplementedbyNationalRulesasdiscussedbelow.RequirementtoavoiddelayAnumberofreportsoncivillawreformshaveraisedconcernsaboutover-servicinganditsimpactontheoverallcostoflitigation.Oneproposalistheincreaseduseofcappedorfixedcostsorders7bycourts,butover-servicingisalsopotentiallyadisciplinarymatter.Anobligationonpractitionerstoexpeditethelegalprocesswouldbeconsistentwithpractitionersbroaderdutiestothecourtstoensurethattheadministrationofjusticeistimelyandefficientandthatcostsarereasonable.Itwouldalsoassistpractitionerstoresistrequestsfromclientsforunnecessaryorsurplusservices.ThiskindofobligationwasrecentlyrecommendedbytheVictorianLawReformCommission,whichrecommendedadutyonpartiestocivilproceedings,theirlegalpractitionersandlawpracticestousereasonableendeavourstoactpromptlyandtominimisedelay.8NationalRulesforlegalcostsUnderthenewregulatoryframework,theNationalLegalServicesBoardwillberesponsiblefordevelopinguniformNationalRules(ie,nationalbindingrules)inrelationtovariousareasoflegalprofessionregulation.TheTaskforceproposesthattheNationalRulesdealwiththefollowingmatters,andwouldbeinterestedintheviewsoftheConsultativeGroupandotherstakeholdersinrelationtotheproposals.Generally,theproposalsarebasedontherelevantprovisionsoftheModelBill,andothermeasuresthathavebeenidentifiedtoaddressconcernswithexistingregulation.UndertheModelBill,disclosurelargelyonlyappliestoretailclients(eg,individuals,familiesandsmallbusinesses)assophisticatedclientsareexcludedfromthecostsdisclosureregime.Therefore,thefollowingsuggestionsarebasedprimarilyonaddressingtheneedsofretailclients.7Orderswhichlimitthetotalamountofcostsrecoverableinthematterbyonepartyagainstanothertoaspecifiedcappedamount.Alternatively,courtsmightbegiventhepowertofixcostsataparticularrateforspecifiedpiecesofworkundertakenintheproceedings(egfilingfurtherandbetterparticulars).8VictorianLawReformCommission,CivilJusticeReviewReport(2008),Rec16.3.7CostsdisclosureTheNationalRulesshouldincludethefollowingmatters,whicharelargelybasedontheexistingModelBillprovisions.MandatorydisclosureWrittendisclosuremustbemadeinwritingbefore,orassoonaspracticableafter,thelawpracticeisretainedinthematter.Disclosuremustbemadetotheclientandanyassociatedthirdpartypayerfortheclient(totheextentrelevant).Thereshouldbeexemptionsfromthemandatorydisclosurerequirementswherethetotallegalcostsinthematterarenotlikelytoexceedacertainamount；9theclientisasophisticatedclientandhasagreedinwritingtowaivetherighttodisclosure；ortheclientisoneofacertainclassofclientforwhomtheBoardconsidersonreasonablegroundstobeasophisticatedclientorforwhommandatorydisclosureisotherwiseunnecessary.FormofdisclosureWrittendisclosurestoaclientmustbeexpressedinclearplainlanguage；maybeinalanguageotherthanEnglishiftheclientismorefamiliarwiththatlanguage；andifthelawpracticeisawarethattheclientisunabletoread,thelawpracticemustarrangefortherequiredinformationtobeconveyedorallytotheclientinadditiontoprovidingthewrittendisclosure.NatureofdisclosureThemandatorydisclosureshouldinclude:Thebasisonwhichlegalcostswillbecalculated,includingthethingstobebilledfor(egphotocopyingetc)；Theclientsrightsinrelationtocosts,includingtherighttonegotiatethebasisofcosts；receiveperiodicbillsfromthelawpractice；requestanitemisedbill；andbenotifiedofanysubstantialchangetothematterspreviouslydisclosed；Anestimateofthetotallegalcostsifreasonablypracticable,orelsearangeofestimatesofthetotallegalcostsandanexplanationofthemajorvariablesinthem；Therateofinterest(ifany)thatthelawpracticechargesonoverduelegalcosts；Theclientsrighttomakereasonablerequestsforprogressreports(whichmayincludeawrittenreportofthelegalcostsincurredtodateorsincethelastbill,atnocosttotheclient)；Theavenuesfordisputinglegalcosts,theprocessforfollowingthem,andanytimelimitsthatapplytoanysuchaction；Ifalawpracticeintendstoretainanotherlawpractice,abarristeroranexpertonbehalfofaclient,itmustdisclosethatpracticeorpersonscostsandbillingarrangements；10Iftherewillbeanupliftfee,thereshouldbedisclosureofthelawpracticeslegalcosts；theupliftfee(orthebasisofcalculationoftheupliftfee)；andthereasonswhytheupliftfeeiswarranted.9Currently,NSWandVictoriarequirecostsdisclosureinmatterswherelegalcostsarelikelytoexceed$750,whileotherjurisdictionshaveadopteda$1,500threshold.TheBoardshouldspecifytheappropriatemonetarythresholdinaNationalRule.10Thisproposalextendsthecurrentdisclosurefromlawpractices,toincludeanexpertretainedonbehalfoftheclient.TheNSWLegalFeesReviewPanelrecommendedthat:whereapractitionerproposestoretainathirdpartyexpert,otherthananotherlegalpractitioner；andthepractitionerexpectsthatthatexpertsfeeswillexceed$1,000,thepractitionershouldberequiredto:obtainanestimateoftheexpertsfees；providethatestimatetotheclient；andobtaintheclientsconsentpriortoretainingtheexpert.However,anexceptionshouldbeprovidedforurgentsituations:NSWLegalFeesReviewPanel,Report:LegalCostsinNSW(2005).