Trending Now
Commercial Regulatory Issues

Looks Dubious – The Third Ground to Restrain a Lawyer from Acting

April 5, 2023

Looks Dubious – The Third Ground to Restrain a Lawyer from Acting

The following piece was contributed by Valerie Blacker, commercial litigator focusing on funded litigation, and Amelia Atkinson, litigation and dispute resolution lawyer at Piper Alderman. Strata Voting Pty Ltd (In Liq) v Axios IT Pty Ltd and Anor[1] is a funded single plaintiff action. It involved a recent examination of the Court’s power to prevent a lawyer from acting in proceedings for a conflict of interest. The authors represented Strata Voting in its successful defense of the restraint application. The Third Ground Less frequently invoked than the first and second grounds (misuse of confidential information and breach of fiduciary duty), the third category upon which to restrain a lawyer in a position of conflict from acting in a matter is known as the “inherent jurisdiction” ground. The Court can restrain lawyers from acting in a particular case as an incident of its inherent jurisdiction over its officers and control of its processes.[2] The jurisdiction is enlivened where there is an objective perception that a lawyer lacks independence such that the Court is compelled to interfere and remove the lawyer from acting in the matter. In other words, the position of the lawyer makes the Court uneasy. The test for intervention is whether a fair-minded, reasonably informed member of the public would conclude that the proper administration of justice, including the appearance of justice, requires that a legal practitioner should be prevented from acting.[3] Axios’ failed application The jurisdiction to enjoin a solicitor from acting is to be regarded as exceptional, and to be exercised by the court with caution. That was the basis on which his Honour Judge Dart of the South Australian Supreme Court dismissed the application brought to restrain Piper Alderman from acting for the liquidators. Here, Piper Alderman is acting for the company in relation to a dispute which was in existence before the winding up commenced.  The liquidator retained Piper Alderman to continue acting for the company for the purpose of the litigation, the subject of the existing dispute. The supposed conflict was said to have arisen from a proof of debt which Piper Alderman lodged for about $47,000 in fees incurred prior to the administration. The argument was that Piper Alderman’s impartiality was impaired by the fact that unless the litigation is successful, Piper Alderman will not be paid its outstanding fees because there will be no funds in the winding up to do so. Axios contended that “the conduct of the solicitor was so offensive to common notions of fairness and justice that they should, as officers of the Court, be restrained from acting”. However, his Honour considered the firm’s status as creditor to be unremarkable. Even in a case where a substantial sum (over $830,000) was owed to lawyers by their insolvent client,[4] there was no risk to the proper administration of justice. As everyone knows, solicitors routinely act in matters where they are owed money including conditional costs agreements, risk share arrangements, contingency fee arrangements and agreements that include uplift fees, to name a few. The restraint application in Strata Voting was unsurprisingly and swiftly[5] dismissed with costs. Conclusion If an opposing party asserts that a lawyer should be restrained from acting for the opponent, it is necessary for a clear case to be made that the lawyer is in a position where he is fixed with an interest of such a nature that he may fail in his overriding duty to the court. It requires proof of facts, and not mere speculation as to motive. The risk to the due administration of justice has to be a real one. Otherwise, a litigant ought not to be deprived of the lawyer of his choice. — 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. Amelia Atkinson is a litigation and dispute resolution lawyer at Piper Alderman with a primary focus on corporate and commercial disputes. Amelia is involved in a number of large, complex matters in jurisdictions across Australia. For queries or comments in relation to this article please contact Amelia Atkinson | T: +61 7 3220 7767 | E:  aatkinson@piperalderman.com.au [1] Unreported, Supreme Court of South Australia, Dart J, 23 January 2023 (Strata Voting). [2] Kallinicos & Anor v Hunt [2005] NSWSC 118 at [76] (Kallinicos). [3] Ibid. [4] Naczek & Dowler [2011] FamCAFC 179, [84]. [5] In a 5-page judgment.
Secure Your Funding Below
Secure Your Funding Sidebar

Commercial

View All
Case Developments Commercial

Siltstone vs. Walia Dispute Moves to Arbitration

By John Freund |

Siltstone Capital and its former general counsel, Manmeet (“Mani”) Walia, have agreed to resolve their dispute via arbitration rather than through the Texas state court system—a move that transforms a high‑stakes conflict over trade secrets, opportunity diversion, and fund flow into a more opaque, confidential proceeding.

An article in Law360 notes that Siltstone had accused Walia of misusing proprietary information, diverting deal opportunities to his new venture, and broadly leveraging confidential data to compete unfairly. Walia, in turn, has denied wrongdoing and contended that Siltstone had consented—or even encouraged—his departure and new venture, pointing to a release executed upon his exit and a waiver of non‑compete obligations.

The agreement to arbitrate was reported on October 7, 2025. From a governance lens, this shift signals a preference for dispute resolution that may better preserve business continuity during fundraising cycles, especially in sectors like litigation finance where timing, investor confidence, and deal pipelines are critical.

However, arbitration also concentrates pressure into narrower scopes: document production, expert analyses (especially of trade secret scope, lost opportunity causation, and valuation), and the arbitrators’ evaluation. One point to watch is whether interim relief—protecting data, limiting competitive conduct, or preserving the status quo—will emerge in the arbitration or via court‑ordered relief prior to final proceedings.

Case Developments Commercial

ASB Agrees to NZ$135.6M Settlement in Banking Class Action

By John Freund |

ASB has confirmed it will pay NZ$135,625,000 to resolve the Banking Class Action focused on alleged disclosure breaches under the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act (CCCFA), subject to approval by the High Court. The settlement was announced October 7, 2025, but ASB did not admit liability as part of the deal.

1News reports that the class action—covering both ASB and ANZ customers—alleges that the banks failed to provide proper disclosure to borrowers during loan variations. As a result, during periods of non‑compliance, customers claim the banks were not entitled to collect interest and fees (under CCCFA sections 22, 99, and 48).

The litigation has been jointly funded by CASL (Australia) and LPF Group (New Zealand). The parallel claim against ANZ remains active and is not part of ASB’s settlement.

Prior to this announcement, plaintiffs had publicly floated a more ambitious settlement in the NZ$300m+ range, which both ASB and ANZ had rejected—labeling it a “stunt” or political gambit tied to ongoing legislative changes to CCCFA.

Legal and regulatory observers see this deal as a strategic move by ASB: it caps its exposure and limits litigation risk without conceding wrongdoing, while leaving open the possibility of continued proceedings against ANZ. The arrangement still requires High Court consent before going ahead.

Commercial

What’s the Smartest Growth Strategy for Law Firms in 2025? Client Service

By Kris Altiere |

The following article was contributed by Kris Altiere, US Head of Marketing for Moneypenny.

The legal sector is already operating against a backdrop of economic unpredictability, rising client expectations, and fast-moving advances in technology. For firms of all sizes, but especially small and mid-sized practices, the pressing question is: what’s the smartest and most sustainable path to growth?

The answer isn’t a new practice management system or a radical shift in service lines. It’s something more fundamental yet far more powerful: client service.

And not the kind that gets lost in endless phone menus or delegated to faceless chatbots. We’re talking about human-led, AI-supported service that’s fast, personal, and friction-free. In today’s legal market, client service isn’t just an operational necessity. It’s a growth strategy.

Trust as the new currency of growth

Clients navigating complex legal challenges are often anxious, risk-averse, and under pressure. In that environment, trust becomes the currency that drives engagement and retention.

It’s no longer enough for firms to offer technically sound legal advice at competitive rates. Clients want to feel heard, supported, and valued throughout their journey. Firms that can embed this into every interaction, whether it’s the initial consultation or a late-night update, are the ones that win loyalty, referrals, and long-term revenue.

This plays to the strengths of small and mid-sized firms. With leaner teams and flatter hierarchies, they’re often more agile and capable of delivering the personal, tailored support clients crave. A partner who picks up the phone, knows the client’s name, and understands the case context instantly builds credibility. In 2025, that credibility is the bridge between staying relevant and achieving meaningful growth.

Smart tech, human empathy

Yes, AI is everywhere. But the firms using it most effectively are those that integrate it where it adds real value while also keeping the human touch where it matters most.

AI can streamline administrative work, speed up intake, and automate repetitive tasks like document review or appointment scheduling. But it can’t replace the reassurance of a lawyer who listens carefully to a client in distress, or the receptionist who ensures urgent calls are routed to the right person immediately.

The winning formula is balance: let AI handle the heavy lifting, while people deliver the moments that build trust. Imagine a litigation funder using AI to flag cases requiring immediate attention, while a trained case manager provides the nuanced support clients need. Or a family law practice using chatbots for document collection but ensuring sensitive discussions are handled by a real lawyer with empathy and tact.

That combination of efficiency plus empathy is what cuts through the noise.

Service as a growth engine

When client service is done well in law firms, it doesn’t just fix problems it drives growth. Every answered call, prompt update, or thoughtful follow-up is a touchpoint that builds brand equity and deepens relationships. 

Great client service is about being reactive, for example, answering questions, but also it is about being proactive, through spotting patterns, identifying sales opportunities, and deepening client relationships. Your service team becomes a source of insight and influence. And often, they’re the difference between a one-time transaction and long-term loyalty.

Take funding conversations as an example. A firm that keeps clients informed on timelines, explains financing options clearly, and checks in regularly is positioning itself not just as a legal advisor but as a trusted partner. That kind of proactive, client-focused service often creates opportunities for cross-referrals and repeat work.

And thanks to modular, scalable tools—from virtual receptionist to live chat—these capabilities are no longer exclusive to the Am Law 100. Boutique firms and regional practices now have access to the same client service infrastructure as the industry’s largest players.

Connection builds resilience

With margins tight and competition fierce, the strongest legal practices in 2025 will be those that build loyalty through connection. That doesn’t mean over-promising or relying on outdated customer care models. It means meeting people where they are, and offering support that’s proactive, consistent and personal.

It also means supporting teams. When lawyers and staff are backed by smart systems that free them to focus on meaningful work, morale improves. And in a small or mid-sized firm, morale directly fuels performance.

Client service is where growth, loyalty and operational resilience meet. For practices looking to thrive this year, the message is clear: don’t see service as a back-office function. See it as a growth engine, a brand differentiator, and one of the most valuable assets a law firm has.

Because in a market full of uncertainty, the one thing that’s certain is this: customers will always remember how you made them feel. And that feeling might just be the difference between surviving and scaling.