Property Settlements
Divorcees Beware: Negligent Lawyers Cannot Be Sued in Australia
In what can only be described as a remarkable Supreme Court judgment, a Judge has found that a family law lawyer, a Mr Andrew Goddard from Goddard Elliott lawyers , who negligently advised his mentally incapacitated client resulting in a breathtakingly unjust property settlement,  cannot be sued due to Australia’s archaic advocates’ immunity laws.
This decision was made despite finding that Mr Andrew Goddard was extremely negligent in his representation of his client, resulting in a $900,000 shortfall. In a remarkable twist that defies logic, the client was ordered to pay a further $68,000 in legal costs to Goddard Elliott lawyersï»ż.
–A JUDGE said today he found it “deeply troubling” that a law firm can avoid paying $675,000 to a mentally incapacitated client that it negligently advised because of an ancient law that protects lawyers from being sued.
Justice Kevin Bell found that Goddard Elliott lawyers were negligent in preparing the case of client Paul Fritsch and as a result he only received less than a third of his share of a marital pool of $4.3 million.
In his Supreme Court judgment, Justice Bell said Mr Fritsch was entitled to substantial compensation from the Glen Waverley law firm but the Common Law “advocates’ immunity” shielded the firm for paying for their negligent handling of his case.
“Goddard Elliott is not liable to pay damages for the loss its negligence caused to Mr Fritsch, a conclusion to which I am driven and find deeply troubling,” Justice Bell said.
Family Court lets wealthy wife keep the lot
IT is taken as given that when a man gets divorced after 21 years he’s going to lose a chunk of whatever fortune he has made to his ex-wife.
What, though, if it’s the wife who has made all the money? Does she lose half too?
Not in every case, according to a recent judgment of the Family Court, which has allowed a wife to keep the bulk of the $4 million in assets she holds in her name, while leaving the husband with pretty much nothing.
The judgment, known as Stiller and Power, was made in September but has only now come to light. It concerns a Brisbane couple, described as “intelligent and creative” who got married in 1991, when both were 53. Each had “a reasonable level of unencumbered assets” including properties held in their own names before they tied the knot.
Collaborative Practice Law – a Cheaper Divorce Option
Divorcing Australians are increasingly using a US style of property settlement negotiation to avoid costly court battles, legal experts have said.
It follows the launch of new guidelines in March this year by Commonwealth Attorney-General Robert McClelland, for something called collaborative practice law.
Director of Consensus Family Lawyers in Canberra, Juliette Ford, said it meant that both parties negotiated through their lawyers.
‘The solicitors commit to the process by signing agreements promising not to go to court,” she said.
”Should negotiations fail, both party’s solicitor must cease acting. This provides incentive to the parties and their representatives to resolve disputes through collaboration.”
Law Council of Australia president Catherine Gale said collaborative law begun in Australia in 2005 and its popularity had steadily been growing.
