Trending Now
Commercial Regulatory Issues

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.

Commercial

View All
Commercial Regulatory Issues

Who Could Regulate the Litigation Funding Industry after the CJC Review?

By Harry Moran |

As funders and law firms await the outcome of the Civil Justice Council’s (CJC) review of litigation funding later this summer, industry experts are opining not only on the potential direction any future regulation could take, but what body would be in charge of this new oversight function.

In an insights post from Shepherd and Wedderburn, Ben Pilbrow looks ahead to the CJC review of litigation funding and poses the question that if some form of regulation is inevitable, who will act as the regulator for these new rules? Drawing upon two previous reports that reviewed the funding of litigation, Pilbrow points out that historically there have been two main bodies identified as the likely venues for regulation of third-party funding: the courts or the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA).

Analysing the comparative pros and cons of these institutions as prospective regulators, Pilbrow highlights that each one has two core contrasting qualities. The courts have the requisite expertise and connection to litigation funding yet lacks ‘material inquisitive powers’. On the other hand, the FCA does not have the aforementioned ‘inherent connection to the disputes ecosystem’, but benefits from being an established regulator ‘with considerable enforcement powers’.

Exploring options outside of these two more obvious candidates, Pilbrow suggests that utilising one of the existing legal regulators may be viable due to the fact they are all ‘largely staffed by lawyers but have regulatory powers.’ However, Pilbrow notes that these legal regulators may have common flaw that would stop them taking on this new role. That flaw being the comparatively small size of these organisations, with the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) still only boasting 750 employees despite being the largest of these legal regulators.

Concluding his analysis, Pilbrow suggests unless the government opts for an expanded system of self-regulation under an industry body such as the Association of Litigation Funders, the most likely outcome is for the FCA’s remit to be expanded to include the regulation of litigation funding.

The full article from Ben Pilbrow can be read on Shepherd and Wedderbun’s website.

Commercial Deals

Omni Bridgeway Announces Final Payment for Acquisition of its Europe Business

By Harry Moran |

In an announcement posted on the ASX, Omni Bridgeway announced that it had completed the final payment for the acquisition of the Omni Bridgeway Europe (OBE) business that took place in 2019. The litigation funder confirmed that 5,213,450 fully paid ordinary shares had been ‘issued in satisfaction of the fifth and final tranche of variable deferred consideration’ to complete the acquisition.

Highlighting the progress of the business over the past six years, Omni Bridgeway said that the European business ‘has been successfully integrated into the global operations of the group, creating the most diversified legal asset management platform globally, covering all relevant civil and common law jurisdictions and all relevant areas of law.’ 

The announcement also revealed that OBE has ‘achieved the defined five-year KPIs in full’, whilst the management team ‘has been fully retained.’

Commercial Deals

Burford Capital CEO Says Litigation Finance Market is ‘Booming’

By Harry Moran |

With the global economy and financial markets in a current state of uncertainty, the stability of litigation funding as an uncorrelated asset class for investors is attracting wider attention than ever.

In an interview with Bloomberg TV, Christopher Bogart, CEO of Burford Capital discussed the current state of the litigation finance market, explained why third-party funding is attractive to clients and investors alike, and addressed the common critiques that are levelled at the industry.

On the enduring appeal of litigation funding to corporate clients, Bogart said that for many CEOs and CFOs the truth is that their companies are “spending too much money today on legal fees”. He went on to say that money spent by companies on legal fees is “not doing anything that advances their core undertaking”, and as a result, “the ability to offload that to somebody like us [Burford] is very valuable.”

When asked about why the litigation finance market is thriving during the global economic uncertainty, Bogart highlighted that all of Burford’s “cash flows come entirely out of the outcome of litigation results and those are independent of what’s happening in the market, independent of what’s happening in the broader economy.” In terms of the future of litigation funding and the potential for the market to continue to grow, Bogart pointed out that between legal fees and litigation judgments there is a “multi-trillion dollar a year global market” and that whilst the industry is already “booming”,  there is still “a lot of room to run here” for litigation funders.

In response to a question on the criticisms of litigation funding and the suggestion that funders may look to prolong the duration of cases, Bogart pointed out that Burford is just like any other investment firm that is “looking for high quality assets that are going to produce a reasonable return in a short period of time.” Bogart emphatically rejected what he described as “false concerns” by opponents of third-party funding, and stated plainly: “we’re absolutely not in the business of being interested in prolonging duration or in bringing forward things that are not ultimately going to yield a good result for our shareholders”.

The full interview can be found on Burford Capital’s website.