会员注册 | 登录 | 微信快捷登录 支付宝快捷登录 QQ登录 微博登录 | 帮助中心 人人文库renrendoc.com美如初恋!
站内搜索 百度文库

热门搜索: 直缝焊接机 矿井提升机 循环球式转向器图纸 机器人手爪发展史 管道机器人dwg 动平衡试验台设计

   首页 人人文库网 > 资源分类 > DOC文档下载

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

  • 资源星级:
  • 资源大小:126.00KB   全文页数:18页
  • 资源格式: DOC        下载权限:注册会员/VIP会员
您还没有登陆,请先登录。登陆后即可下载此文档。
  合作网站登录: 微信快捷登录 支付宝快捷登录   QQ登录   微博登录
友情提示
2:本站资源不支持迅雷下载,请使用浏览器直接下载(不支持QQ浏览器)
3:本站资源下载后的文档和图纸-无水印,预览文档经过压缩,下载后原文更清晰   

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

精品文档,值得收藏精品文档,值得下载COAGNationalLegalProfessionReformDiscussionPaperLegalCostsIntroductionAustraliaslegalmarketprimarilyservicestwobroadcategoriesofclientretailconsumers,whotendtobeinfrequentpurchasersoflegalservicesandsophisticatedorinstitutionalclientswhogenerallyarerepeatpurchasersandexperiencedcommercialoperators.1Eachgrouphasdifferentlevelsoffamiliaritywithlegalprocessesanddifferentlevelsofbargainingpowerinrelationtolegalcosts.TheStandingCommitteeofAttorneysGeneralrecognisedthisinapprovingseparatecostsdisclosureandassessmentregimesforsophisticatedandretailclientsunderthenationallegalprofessionmodellegislationModelBill.Whilesophisticatedclientsusuallyareabletonegotiatetheirlegalcostsbasedonpreviousexperienceinsimilarmattersandcommercialdecisionsaboutthevalueoftheworktotheirbusiness,retailconsumersgenerallyhavelessexperienceorinformationwhenengagingalegalpractitionerorlawpractice.Thecomplexandspecialisednatureoflegalworkalsomeansthatretailconsumerscanhavelimitedcapacitytodeterminewhetherworkisnecessaryorvaluable.Thisinformationasymmetrycandisadvantageretailconsumersintheirrelationshipwiththeirlawyeroftenattimeswhenclientsareinastateofheightenedsensitivityandpressedtomakeurgentandsignificantlifedecisions.Thelackofmarketbasedorscientificmethodsforvaluinglegalcosts,andthecostsofchangingrepresentation,canresultinretailclientsbeingchargedmorethanreasonablecostsforlegalservices,orcreateaperceptionofovercharging.Clear,conciseandtimelycostsdisclosureisagoodbusinesspracticeitminimisesthepotentialformisunderstandingsatalaterstage,andthepossibilityofcomplaintsagainstlawyerswhereaclientfeelsheorshehasbeenchargedmorethanisfairandreasonable.Earlydiscussionsaboutcostshelptoeducateclientsabouthowthelegalprocessworks,andcanassistinfocusingthemonthedesiredoutcomeandthewaythemattershouldbeprogressedtoachieveit.Thisfacilitatesgreatercontrolbyclientsovertheirownlegalmattersandcanresultingreaterclarityaboutthesharedgoalsoftheclientandlawyer.Costsdisclosurealsobenefitsthelegalprofessionasawhole.Althoughcomplaintsaboutcostsdisclosureandoverchargingaremadeagainstasmallproportionoftheprofession,costscomplaintscontinuetobeaprimarygroundofcomplaintinallStatesandTerritories.Costscomplaintscanhaveadisproportionatelynegativeimpactontheprofessionsreputation,obscuringitspositivecontributiontothecommunity.Therefore,byreducingthepotentialfordisagreementsaboutlegalcosts,mandatorydisclosureservestheinterestsofthebroaderprofessionbyhelpingtomaintainpublicconfidenceinit.Regulatoryoversightoflegalcostscanalsobejustifiedbecauselawyersenjoyamonopolyontheprovisionofmostlegalservices.Independentreviewoflegalcoststhereforeisareasonablecountermeasuretothemaintenanceofrestrictionsinmarketcompetitionwithinthissector.Mandatorycostsdisclosurewasintroducedinthe1990stooffsetthederegulationoflegalfees,1Therearealsoasmallgroupofhighnetworthindividualswhodonotfallwithinthestatutorydefinitionofsophisticatedclient,butwhoareexperiencedcommercialoperatorsandclientswhoprimarilyaccessthejusticesystemthroughlegalaidandcommunitylegalcentres.2whichprovidedmorefreedom,flexibilityandcompetitioninfeechargingforlegalpractitionersthantheprevioussystemofscalesofcosts.2However,whilebroadpublicinterestsrequirethatalllegalpractitionersshouldbesubjecttoageneralobligationtochargeonlyfairandreasonablelegalcosts,notallclientsrequirethesamelevelofconsumerprotection.TheTaskforceproposestomaintaintheexistingapproachthatallowssophisticatedclientstocontractoutofthemandatorycostsdisclosureandassessmentregimes.SCAGproposalsInApril2009,theStandingCommitteeofAttorneysGeneralnotedanumberofNSWproposalstoconstrainoverchargingandexploitationofvulnerablelegalservicesconsumers,andaskedajointworkingpartytomakerecommendationsastotheiradoptioninthenationalmodellaw.Theproposalswereasfollows.StrengtheningtheexistingprovisionthatawrittendisclosuretoaclientmaybeinalanguageotherthanEnglishiftheclientismorefamiliarwiththatlanguageRequiringlawpracticestoprovideperiodic,itemisedbillstoclientsinpersonalinjurymattersProhibitinglawpracticesfromseekingclientsauthoritiestodeductlegalcostsfromasettlementamountwithouthavingfirstinformedtheclientofthesettlementamountandissuedtheclientwithabillwhichmustbeitemisedinpersonalinjurymattersProvidingthatabillorcoveringlettermustbesignedbyaprincipalofalawpracticeratherthanalegalpractitionerorotherpersonandProhibitinglawpracticesfromchargingexcessivecostsinalegalmatter,andprovidingafinancialpenaltyforbreachofthisprovisionwithoutareasonableexcuse.SCAGsubsequentlyreferredthesematterstotheTaskforceforconsiderationaspartofthisreformprocess.TheproposedlegislativeprinciplesThefollowinglegislativeprinciplesareproposedforthecostsregime.ThesewouldbeincludedintheNationalLaw,andwouldbecomplementedbyNationalRules.ObjectivesoftheschemeThepurposesofthisschemeareasfollowstoprovideforlawpracticestomakedisclosurestoclientsregardinglegalcoststoregulatethemakingofcostsagreementsinrespectoflegalservices,includingconditionalcostsagreementstoregulatethebillingofcostsforlegalservicestoprovideamechanismfortheassessmentoflegalcostsandthesettingasideofcertaincostsagreements.CostsdisclosureBefore,orassoonaspracticableafter,givinginstructionstoactclientsshallreceivesufficientwritteninformationabouttheestimatedcostsoftheirmatter,andthemethodforcalculatingthatestimate,toreasonablyallowthemtomakeinformeddecisionsabouttheconductofthematter.Thisshallalsoincludedisclosureinrelationtocostswherealawpracticeintendstoretainanotherlawpracticeorexpertonbehalfoftheclient.2ALambandJLittrich,LawyersinAustralia2007,215.3Anysignificantchangetoamatterpreviouslydisclosedmustbenotifiedtotheclientassoonasreasonablypossibleafterthelawpracticebecomesawareofthechange.Costsdisclosureshouldbepresentedinaconcise,clearandaccessibleformat.Legalpractitionersshouldtakereasonablestepstoensurethatclientsunderstandtheinformationdisclosed.Inaddition,consumersfromculturallyandlinguisticallydiversebackgroundsshouldnotbedisadvantagedascomparedtopeopleforwhomEnglishistheirfirstlanguage.Clientsmustbeinformedabouttheirrighttonegotiateacostsagreementandtochallengelegalcosts.Costsagreementsareenforceableasacontractbetweenthepartiesandanyassessmentwillbyreferencetothecostsagreementifitisavalidagreementcomplyingwiththelegislation.Ifalawpracticefailstodiscloseanythingrequiredbythelegislation,theclientwillnotberequiredtopaylegalcostsuntiltheyhavebeenassessed.Thelawpracticemustnotcommenceormaintainproceedingstorecoverfeesuntilaftertheassessment.Sophisticatedclientsmaycontractoutofthemandatorycostsdisclosureandassessmentregimes.ReasonablenessLegalpractitionersandlawpracticesmayonlychargefairandreasonablecosts.Acostsagreementisprimafacieevidenceofwhatarefairandreasonablecosts.Legalcostsshouldbeproportionatetothecomplexityorimportanceoftheissuesandamountindispute.Lawpracticesandtheirclientsmayagreetoavarietyofmethodsforcalculatinglegalcosts.Thecourtsandtribunalsmaysetasidecostsagreements,inwholeorinpart,whicharenotfairorreasonable.Legalpractitionersandlawpracticesmustmakereasonableendeavourstoactpromptlyandtominimisedelayinthelegalprocessandmustnototherwiseworkinawaythatunnecessarilyincreasecostsinamatter.BillingAlawpracticemaynotseektorecoveritsfeesunlessithasprovidedaproperlypreparedbilltotheclient.Alawpracticemaynotchargeforthepreparationofbillsandclientsmayrequestanitemisedbillatnoadditionalcost.Billsmustincludeanoticeaboutaclientsrighttochallengelegalcostsortohaveacostsagreementsetaside.4LiabilityofprincipalsforoverchargingPrincipalsoflawpracticesareresponsibleforthereasonablenessofbillsrenderedtoclients,andwillbepersonallyliableintheeventofthechargingofexcessivelegalcostsinmattersinwhichtheyhaveactedorwhichtheyhavesupervised.Alawpracticemaybeliableforthechargingofexcessivelegalcostsbyoneofitsprincipalsoroneofitsemployees.CostassessmentCostsassessmentsmustbeconductedinaccordancewithNationalRules.Determinationsofcostsassessorsareadmissibleindisciplinaryproceedingsasevidenceastothereasonablenessoflegalcosts.RegulatoryGuidelinesTheBoardshallissueNationalRulesdetailingactionsthatpractitionersarerequiredtotaketocomplywiththeselegislativeprinciples,andtogiveeffecttotheselegislativeprinciples.AbreachoftheNationalRuleswillbeconductcapableofconstitutingunsatisfactoryprofessionalconductorprofessionalmisconduct.Inthecaseoflawpractices,abreachwithoutreasonableexcusemayconstituteanoffence.DiscussionSeveraloftheseproposedlegislativeprinciplesarenotcurrentlyincludedintheModelBill.Thefollowingprovidesabriefdiscussionofthepolicyargumentsfortheirinclusioninanewcostsregime.LevelofdetailindisclosureAcriticismofthemandatorydisclosureregimeisthelackofguidanceaboutthelevelofdetailrequiredindisclosuredocuments.Itisarguedthatpractitionersareeitherlegallyrequiredto,orregularlyerronthesideof,cautionandprovidevoluminousdetailincostsdisclosuredocumentsforfearoffailingtomeettheirprofessionalobligations.Overwhelminglydetaileddisclosuredoesnotservetheinterestsofeitherpractitionerorclientandwasnotintendedwhentheregimewasintroduced.Theaimofcostsdisclosureistoprovidethepartieswithastartingpointfromwhichtobeginadialogueaboutcosts.Writtendisclosureshouldbeahighlevelsummarytowhichtheclientcanreferwhenmakingdecisionsduringthecourseofalegalmatteritisnotexpectedtobeadetaileddocumentprovidingsubstantivelegaladviceonlegalrightsandoptionsalthoughitshouldcomplementthatadvicewhenlaterprovided.Itshouldbemadeclearthatpractitionersareonlyrequiredtotakereasonablestepsinprovidingmandatorydisclosure.DisclosureinlanguagesotherthanEnglishTheModelBillcurrentlyprovidesthatwrittendisclosurestoaclientmaybeinlanguagesotherthanEnglishifaclientismorefamiliarwiththatlanguage.Amorepositiveobligationcouldimposedtoensurethatclientsfromculturallyandlinguisticallydiversebackgroundsunderstandtheinformationbeingdisclosed.Accordingly,inadditiontothisprovisionaboutwrittendisclosures,therecouldbeanadditionalrequirementthatalegalpractitionerbereasonablysatisfiedthattheclientunderstandsthecostsdisclosuregiven.Inpractice,thiswouldmeanthatwherenecessaryalegalpractitioneror,wherethisisnotpracticable,theclientwouldneedtoobtainatranslatortoexplainthecostsdisclosuretotheclient.5TheTaskforcedoesnotconsiderthisproposaltobeundulyonerousgiventhatthelegalpractitionerwouldinanycaseberequiredtoensurethatheorsheisabletocommunicateeffectivelywithaclientinordertoobtainongoinginstructionsinamatter.ProportionalityinassessingreasonablenessofcostsProportionalityoflegalcostsisalreadyenshrinedincertainareas.Forexample,section60oftheCivilProcedureAct2005NSWprovidesthatinanyproceedings,thepracticeandprocedureofthecourtshouldbeimplementedwiththeobjectofresolvingtheissuesbetweenthepartiesinsuchawaythatthecosttothepartiesisproportionatetotheimportanceandcomplexityofthesubjectmatterindispute.InSevenNetworkLtdvNewsLtd2007FCA1062,JusticeSackvillecommentedadverselyonthedisproportionateamountofthelegalfeesrelativetotheamountultimatelyindispute.3HisHonourhassubsequentlycommentedthatthereisanundeniablepublicinterestinthecourtsactivelyapplyingtheprincipleofproportionalitytoallformsoflitigation,whetherthestakesareveryhighorcomparativelylow.Ifthisisnotdone,judgescanhardlybesurprisedifthecivilcourtsarelargelyseenastheexclusivedomainofthewealthyandpowerful.4TheVictorianLawReformCommissiondiscussedtheissueofproportionalityinitsreport,CivilJusticeReview2008.TheCommissionnotedcertaindifficultiesinapplyingtheprincipleofproportionalitytolegalcosts.However,itrecommendedthatnewprovisionsshouldbeenactedinrespectofcertainmatters,includingaparamountdutyonparties,legalpractitionersandlawpracticesinvolvedincivilproceedingstothecourttofurthertheadministrationofjusticeandthiswouldincludeadutytousereasonableendeavourstoensurethatthelegalandothercostsincurredinconnectionwiththeproceedingsareminimisedandproportionatetothecomplexityorimportanceoftheissuesandtheamountindispute.5LiabilityofprincipalsforoverchargingUndertheModelBill,billsmustbesignedonbehalfofthelawpracticebyalegalpractitionerorotheremployee,andanythingdonebyalegalpractitioneronbehalfofthelawpracticeisdeemedtohavebeendonebythelawpractice.TheModelBillalsodeemsanybreachoftheActbyalawpracticetohavealsobeencommittedbyaprincipalunlessheorsheestablishesthatthepracticecontravenedtheprovisionwithouttheactual,imputedorconstructiveknowledgeoftheprincipalortheprincipalwasnotinapositiontoinfluencetheconductofthelawpracticeinrelationtoitsbreachoftheprovisionortheprincipal,ifinthatposition,usedallduediligencetopreventthebreachbythepractice.TheModelBillalsoprovidesthatthechargingofexcessivelegalcostsinconnectionwiththepracticeoflawiscapableofbeingunsatisfactoryprofessionalconductorprofessionalmisconduct.However,thecommonlawstandardculpabilityforafindingofprofessionalmisconductappearstorequirethatthelegalpractitionerbepersonallyimplicatedintheconductthatisthesubjectofthecomplaint.63SevenNetworkLtdvNewsLtd2007FCA1062,810.4RSackville,TheC7CaseAChronicleofaDeathForetold,PaperpresentedtoNewZealandBarAssociationInternationalConference,1516August2008.5VictorianLawReformCommission,CivilJusticeReviewReport2008,Rec16.3.6SeethediscussioninNikolaidisvLegalServicesCommissioner2007NSWCA130.6Inpractice,difficultiescouldariseinidentifyingaparticularlegalpractitioneragainstwhomtobringanydisciplinaryproceedingswherealawpracticehasengagedinexcessiveovercharging.Forexample,inmanylegalpracticesthepreparationandprovisionofbillsmaybebrokenintomultiplesubtasksundertakenbydifferentpeople,ofwhomsomemaybelegalpractitionersandsomemaynot.Itispossiblethatnoonelegalpractitionercouldbeidentifiedwhohasthenecessarylevelofpersonalculpabilityforafindingofprofessionalmisconductforchargingexcessivelegalcostsinconnectionwiththepracticeoflaw.Dependingonthecircumstances,itmightbepossibletobringdisciplinaryproceedingsforprofessionalmisconductonothergrounds,suchaswherealegalpractitionerfailstosupervisehisorherstaffinpreparingorsigningabill.However,anotherapproachwouldbetorequireprincipalsoflawpracticestotakeresponsibilityforthecontentofbillssenttoclients,includingthereasonablenessofthecostsinthem.TheTaskforceconsidersthisanappropriateoption,andproposesthattheNationalLawincludeprinciplestothiseffectasoutlinedabove,whichcouldbecomplementedbyNationalRulesasdiscussedbelow.RequirementtoavoiddelayAnumberofreportsoncivillawreformshaveraisedconcernsaboutoverservicinganditsimpactontheoverallcostoflitigation.Oneproposalistheincreaseduseofcappedorfixedcostsorders7bycourts,butoverservicingisalsopotentiallyadisciplinarymatter.Anobligationonpractitionerstoexpeditethelegalprocesswouldbeconsistentwithpractitionersbroaderdutiestothecourtstoensurethattheadministrationofjusticeistimelyandefficientandthatcostsarereasonable.Itwouldalsoassistpractitionerstoresistrequestsfromclientsforunnecessaryorsurplusservices.ThiskindofobligationwasrecentlyrecommendedbytheVictorianLawReformCommission,whichrecommendedadutyonpartiestocivilproceedings,theirlegalpractitionersandlawpracticestousereasonableendeavourstoactpromptlyandtominimisedelay.8NationalRulesforlegalcostsUnderthenewregulatoryframework,theNationalLegalServicesBoardwillberesponsiblefordevelopinguniformNationalRulesie,nationalbindingrulesinrelationtovariousareasoflegalprofessionregulation.TheTaskforceproposesthattheNationalRulesdealwiththefollowingmatters,andwouldbeinterestedintheviewsoftheConsultativeGroupandotherstakeholdersinrelationtotheproposals.Generally,theproposalsarebasedontherelevantprovisionsoftheModelBill,andothermeasuresthathavebeenidentifiedtoaddressconcernswithexistingregulation.UndertheModelBill,disclosurelargelyonlyappliestoretailclientseg,individuals,familiesandsmallbusinessesassophisticatedclientsareexcludedfromthecostsdisclosureregime.Therefore,thefollowingsuggestionsarebasedprimarilyonaddressingtheneedsofretailclients.7Orderswhichlimitthetotalamountofcostsrecoverableinthematterbyonepartyagainstanothertoaspecifiedcappedamount.Alternatively,courtsmightbegiventhepowertofixcostsataparticularrateforspecifiedpiecesofworkundertakenintheproceedingsegfilingfurtherandbetterparticulars.8VictorianLawReformCommission,CivilJusticeReviewReport2008,Rec16.3.7CostsdisclosureTheNationalRulesshouldincludethefollowingmatters,whicharelargelybasedontheexistingModelBillprovisions.MandatorydisclosureWrittendisclosuremustbemadeinwritingbefore,orassoonaspracticableafter,thelawpracticeisretainedinthematter.Disclosuremustbemadetotheclientandanyassociatedthirdpartypayerfortheclienttotheextentrelevant.Thereshouldbeexemptionsfromthemandatorydisclosurerequirementswherethetotallegalcostsinthematterarenotlikelytoexceedacertainamount9theclientisasophisticatedclientandhasagreedinwritingtowaivetherighttodisclosureortheclientisoneofacertainclassofclientforwhomtheBoardconsidersonreasonablegroundstobeasophisticatedclientorforwhommandatorydisclosureisotherwiseunnecessary.FormofdisclosureWrittendisclosurestoaclientmustbeexpressedinclearplainlanguagemaybeinalanguageotherthanEnglishiftheclientismorefamiliarwiththatlanguageandifthelawpracticeisawarethattheclientisunabletoread,thelawpracticemustarrangefortherequiredinformationtobeconveyedorallytotheclientinadditiontoprovidingthewrittendisclosure.NatureofdisclosureThemandatorydisclosureshouldincludeThebasisonwhichlegalcostswillbecalculated,includingthethingstobebilledforegphotocopyingetcTheclientsrightsinrelationtocosts,includingtherighttonegotiatethebasisofcostsreceiveperiodicbillsfromthelawpracticerequestanitemisedbillandbenotifiedofanysubstantialchangetothematterspreviouslydisclosedAnestimateofthetotallegalcostsifreasonablypracticable,orelsearangeofestimatesofthetotallegalcostsandanexplanationofthemajorvariablesinthemTherateofinterestifanythatthelawpracticechargesonoverduelegalcostsTheclientsrighttomakereasonablerequestsforprogressreportswhichmayincludeawrittenreportofthelegalcostsincurredtodateorsincethelastbill,atnocosttotheclientTheavenuesfordisputinglegalcosts,theprocessforfollowingthem,andanytimelimitsthatapplytoanysuchactionIfalawpracticeintendstoretainanotherlawpractice,abarristeroranexpertonbehalfofaclient,itmustdisclosethatpracticeorpersonscostsandbillingarrangements10Iftherewillbeanupliftfee,thereshouldbedisclosureofthelawpracticeslegalcoststheupliftfeeorthebasisofcalculationoftheupliftfeeandthereasonswhytheupliftfeeiswarranted.9Currently,NSWandVictoriarequirecostsdisclosureinmatterswherelegalcostsarelikelytoexceed750,whileotherjurisdictionshaveadopteda1,500threshold.TheBoardshouldspecifytheappropriatemonetarythresholdinaNationalRule.10Thisproposalextendsthecurrentdisclosurefromlawpractices,toincludeanexpertretainedonbehalfoftheclient.TheNSWLegalFeesReviewPanelrecommendedthatwhereapractitionerproposestoretainathirdpartyexpert,otherthananotherlegalpractitionerandthepractitionerexpectsthatthatexpertsfeeswillexceed1,000,thepractitionershouldberequiredtoobtainanestimateoftheexpertsfeesprovidethatestimatetotheclientandobtaintheclientsconsentpriortoretainingtheexpert.However,anexceptionshouldbeprovidedforurgentsituationsNSWLegalFeesReviewPanel,ReportLegalCostsinNSW2005.

注意事项

本文(National+Legal+Profession+Reform+Taskforce+Paper+-+....doc)为本站会员(dingyx0101)主动上传,人人文库网仅提供信息存储空间,仅对用户上传内容的表现方式做保护处理,对上载内容本身不做任何修改或编辑。 若此文所含内容侵犯了您的版权或隐私,请立即通知人人文库网([email protected]),我们立即给予删除!

温馨提示:如果因为网速或其他原因下载失败请重新下载,重复下载不扣分。

copyright@ 2015-2017 人人文库网网站版权所有
苏ICP备12009002号-5