Trending Now
  • An LFJ Conversation with Rory Kingan, CEO of Eperoto
  • New York Enacts Landmark Consumer Legal Funding Legislation
Commercial Regulatory Issues Special Features

Immunity from Lawyer Malpractice – Uniquely Australian

February 27, 2023

Immunity from Lawyer Malpractice – Uniquely Australian

The following article was contributed by Valerie Blacker, a commercial litigator focusing on funded litigation, and John Speer, a lawyer in the Dispute Resolution and Litigation Team at Piper Alderman. While large class actions receive the lion’s share of media attention, litigation financiers also regularly fund litigation involving a single plaintiff. Given that solicitors are required to maintain professional indemnity insurance, they can be, in instances of negligence, an attractive prospect for financiers: they are well-resourced and have the capacity to satisfy any judgment awarded against them. The Brisbane Litigation team at Piper Alderman have brought successful professional negligence claims against our clients’ former solicitors involving both funded and unfunded arrangements.[1] This article discusses a common defense raised in these types of proceedings – the advocates’ immunity. The immunity in brief In Australia, the advocacy function is immune from a negligence claim.  The immunity applies to a lawyer’s work in the court room. The immunity is rooted in the public policy principle that there should be finality in litigation. It prevents unsuccessful parties from seeking to re-litigate disputes by way of a collateral attack on their lawyers’ performance in court. A barrister mainly appears in court, and a solicitor mainly performs legal work outside of court.[2] But why does it matter? If a lawyer has been negligent, shouldn’t the client be able to seek relief? Apparently not – in some jurisdictions. Despite having been abolished in the United Kingdom and even in New Zealand, advocates’ immunity remains firmly in place in Australia. Indeed, there were at least eighteen court actions in 2022 that have made reference to the immunity as a defense. Avenues for redress The immunity is often called upon by solicitors performing ‘out-of-court’ work, but which (so the argument goes) is so ‘intimately connected to the conduct of the case in court’. In two recent examples, the immunity applied to shield a solicitor for failing to present evidence that should have been presented (Golden v Koffel [2022] NSWCA 8), and was extended to protect a solicitor who had given faulty advice (Jimenez v Watson [2021] NSWCA 55). If a solicitor’s negligent work was actually done in court in the course of a hearing or was done out of court but which led to a decision affecting the conduct of the case in court, the alternative options for an aggrieved client are frankly inadequate. For example, (1) an unsuccessful party may apply for an order that his or her solicitor be made personally liable for the successful party’s costs in the litigation; (2) an aggrieved client can challenge a solicitor’s bills through an application to the court for a costs assessment; and (3) disciplinary action can be taken which can result in a fine, a reprimand or in a solicitor being disqualified from practice. At best these alternative options may reduce a client’s costs but none of them will truly compensate a client for the wrongs caused by a lousy solicitor. Narrowing the scope of the immunity In a more positive move, the Courts have now made it clear that the immunity does not extend to a solicitor’s work in bringing about a settlement agreement (as an agreement between parties to settle is not an exercise of judicial power).[3] It is also now possible to be compensated for the expense of engaging new lawyers.[4] NT Pubco Pty Ltd v Strazdins is also notable. The Court there held that a failure to advise clients to seek independent legal advice was held to be likely outside the immunity.[5] The relevant wrong in that case concerned a failure by solicitors to relay to their client comments made by the court at several interlocutory hearings that the client should have been pursuing a particular kind of relief in its litigation. That would be akin to failing to commence proceedings in time. That too should fall outside of the immunity as the aggrieved client’s cause of action was complete and whole before the proceedings were started and the negligent conduct was completely separate from the litigation. The primary justification for retaining the advocates’ immunity is to ensure the finality of judicial determinations. However, if a client brings a negligence suit against a former solicitor is that not also a separate proceeding that deals with a different issue? As Kirby J warned, upholding the immunity not only reduces equality before the courts, but is capable of breeding contempt for the law. His Honour questioned ‘why an anomalous immunity is not only preserved in Australia but now actually enlarged by a binding legal rule that will include out-of-court advice and extend to protect solicitors as well as barristers’.[6] In these circumstances, can the reasons traditionally given for the immunity still persuade, particularly when the rest of common law world has abolished it? At the risk of offending the doctrine and re-litigating this issue, perhaps we should continue the debate. About the Authors: Valerie Blacker is a commercial litigator focusing on funded litigation. Valerie has been with Piper Alderman for over 12 years. With a background in class actions, Valerie also prosecutes funded commercial litigation claims. John Speer is a lawyer in the Dispute Resolution and Litigation Team located in Brisbane, Prior to joining Piper Alderman John was an associate to the Honourable Justice B J Collier in the Federal Court of Australia, as well as to Deputy President B J McCabe in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. John has also worked as a ministerial adviser and chief of staff in the Parliament of Australia.   For queries or comments in relation to this article please contact John Speer | T: +61 7 3220 7765 | E:  jspeer@piperalderman.com.au [1] These matters resulted in a confidential settlement. [2] New South Wales and Queensland have a ‘split’ profession, meaning that the roles of barrister and solicitor are separated. [3] Attwells v Jackson Lalic Lawyers Pty Ltd (2016) 259 CLR 1,  [5], [38], [39], [45], [46], [53]. [4] Legal Services Commissioner v Rowell [2013] QCAT OCR207-12. [5] [2014] NTSC 8 at [134] and [137]. [6] D’Orta-Ekenaike v Victoria Legal Aid (2005) 223 CLR 1, 109 [346].

Commercial

View All
Case Developments Commercial

Pogust Goodhead Seeks Interim Costs Payment

By John Freund |

Pogust Goodhead, the UK law firm leading one of the largest group actions ever brought in the English courts, is seeking an interim costs payment of £113.5 million in the litigation arising from the 2015 Mariana dam collapse in Brazil.

According to an article in Law Gazette, the application forms part of a much larger costs claim that could ultimately reach approximately £189 million. It follows a recent High Court ruling that allowed the claims against BHP to proceed, moving the litigation into its next procedural phase. The case involves allegations connected to the catastrophic failure of the Fundão tailings dam, which resulted in 19 deaths and widespread environmental and economic damage across affected Brazilian communities.

Pogust Goodhead argues that an interim costs award is justified given the scale of the proceedings and the substantial expenditure already incurred. The firm has highlighted the significant resources required to manage a case of this size, including claimant coordination, expert evidence, document review, and litigation infrastructure. With hundreds of thousands of claimants involved, the firm maintains that early recovery of a portion of its costs is both reasonable and proportionate.

BHP has pushed back against the application, disputing both the timing and the magnitude of the costs being sought. The mining company has argued that many of the claimed expenses are excessive and that a full assessment should only take place once the litigation has concluded and overall success can be properly evaluated.

The costs dispute underscores the financial pressures inherent in mega claims litigation, particularly where cases are run on a conditional or funded basis and require sustained upfront investment over many years.

Case Developments Commercial

Litigation Capital Management Faces AUD 12.9m Exposure After Class Action Defeat

By John Freund |

Litigation Capital Management has disclosed a significant adverse costs exposure following the unsuccessful conclusion of a funded Australian class action, underscoring the downside risk that even established funders face in large-scale proceedings.

An article in Sharecast reports that the AIM-listed funder revealed that the Federal Court of Australia has now quantified costs in a Queensland-based class action brought against state-owned energy companies Stanwell Corporation and CS Energy. The court ordered costs of AUD 16.2 million in favour of each respondent, resulting in a total adverse costs award of AUD 32.4 million. The underlying claim was dismissed earlier, and the costs decision represents the next major financial consequence of that loss.

While LCM had after-the-event insurance in place to mitigate adverse costs exposure, that coverage has now been exhausted. After insurance, an uninsured balance of AUD 19.9 million remains. LCM expects to contribute AUD 12.9 million of that amount directly, with the remaining balance to be met by investors in its Fund I vehicle.

The company has emphasized that the costs awarded were standard party-and-party costs, not indemnity costs, and stated that the outcome does not reflect adversely on the merits of the claim or the conduct of the proceedings. Nonetheless, the market reacted sharply, with LCM’s share price falling by more than 14% following the announcement.

LCM also confirmed that it has already lodged an appeal against the substantive judgment, with a two-week hearing scheduled to begin in early March. In parallel, the funder is considering whether to challenge the costs quantification itself, alongside an appeal being pursued by the claimant. The company noted that discussions with its principal lender are ongoing and that its previously announced strategic review remains active, with further updates expected in the coming months.

Commercial

Avoiding Pitfalls as Litigation Finance Takes Off

By John Freund |

The litigation finance market is poised for significant activity in 2026 after a period of uncertainty in 2025. A recent JD Supra analysis outlines key challenges that can derail deals in this evolving space and offers guidance on how industry participants can navigate them effectively.

The article explains that litigation finance sits at the intersection of law and finance and presents unique deal complexities that differ from other private credit or investment structures. While these transactions can deliver attractive returns for capital providers, they also carry risks that often cause deals to collapse if not properly managed.

A central theme in the analysis is that many deals fail for three primary reasons: a lack of trust between the parties, misunderstandings around deal terms, and the impact of time. Term sheets typically outline economic and non-economic terms but may omit finer details, leading to confusion if not addressed early. As the diligence and documentation process unfolds, delays and surprises can erode confidence and derail negotiations.

To counter these pitfalls, the piece stresses the importance of building trust from the outset. Transparent communication and good-faith behavior by both the financed party and the funder help foster long-term goodwill. The financed party is encouraged to disclose known weaknesses in the claim early, while funders are urged to present clear economic models and highlight potential sticking points so that expectations align.

Another key recommendation is ensuring all parties fully understand deal terms. Because litigation funding recipients may not regularly engage in such transactions, well-developed term sheets and upfront discussions about obligations like reporting, reimbursements, and cooperation in the underlying litigation can prevent later misunderstandings.

The analysis also underscores that time kills deals. Prolonged negotiations or sluggish responses during diligence can sap momentum and lead parties to lose interest. Setting realistic timelines and communicating clearly about responsibilities and deadlines can keep transactions on track.