SA woman embroiled in Australia's most expensive divorce wants to accept $800,000 settlement, court told
A WOMAN embroiled in Australia's most expensive divorce wants to settle her claim against four lawyers who allegedly overcharged her - and continue suing a fifth.
A WOMAN embroiled in Australia's most expensive divorce wants to settle her claim against four lawyers who allegedly overcharged her - and continue suing a fifth.
Lawyers for the woman, who cannot be named, today told the Supreme Court the nature of their client's eight-year, $4.12 million battle with law firm Donaldson Walsh had changed.
They said the woman had reached an $800,000 accord with four of the firm's partners and now sought damages solely against former Donaldson Walsh partner Alan Branch.
In July 2010, The Advertiser revealed the woman had asked the Supreme Court to intervene in a $4.12 million bill, issued by Donaldson Walsh Lawyers firm for its services.
She said that represented part of the $26 million she and her estranged husband had spent on their divorce proceedings since 2005.
The woman asserted Donaldson Walsh staff had generated 23,000 documents and 480,000 computer files about her case, filling 182 archive boxes.
She claimed that in March 2008, she was told her outstanding legal fees totalled $650,000.
The woman said she terminated her dealings with the firm in April 2008, but one month later, learnt it had $926,653.93 of her money in its trust account.
She said she needed the court's help because of "what appear to be discrepancies'' in her account statements.
In its defence papers, Donaldson Walsh firm denied it had been unfair or unreasonable.
It said the woman was "fully informed'' that "not all lawyers charged on the same basis''.
It claimed she wanted to "maximise the chance of a successful outcome'' of her divorce.
She was therefore charged for "the level of legal resources needed to conduct the matter thoroughly''.
In November 2012, the court heard Donaldson Walsh partners Karl Luke, Alastair Donaldson, William Esau and John Walsh had offered to settle the woman's case out of court.
They said they would each pay her $200,000 and give evidence at trial against their former business partner, Alan Branch.
They said Mr Branch bore responsibility for the $4.12 million bill because he was the principal on the woman's case.
Mr Branch filed papers citing unfairness, saying he had suffered from illness and should not be left to bear the bill alone.
At the time, Judge Robert Lunn said the woman would have to argue the "settling partners" could be "disjoined" from the case before responsibility for the bill was split.
Four days later, in the middle of a hearing over the case, Judge Lunn announced his retirement from the bench.
"(This matter) will need to be heard before someone else because I'm not coming back to do it,'' he said.
"I've resigned. Today is my last day.
"This has already had a lot of twists and turns, and I'm not volunteering to come back to it.''
Today, lawyers for the woman told Judge Graham Dart that they supported the "disjoinder" of Mr Luke, Mr Donaldson, Mr Esau and Mr Walsh.
They asserted there was no reason, at law, why their client could not accept the $800,000 settlement and pursue "any remaining refund" from Mr Branch.
The hearing continues.
###