RSL NSW president’s firm launches legal action against veterans

The Wollongong law firm owned by RSL NSW president Mick Bainbridge and fellow director Paul James is suing at least 13 veterans in a flurry of claims lodged in the weeks leading up to Christmas.

Statements of claim lodged by James on behalf of Operational Legal Australia [OLA] during December allege that the veterans failed to pay for legal services provided by the firm and owed various amounts under $20,000.

NSW RSL president Mick Bainbridge (left), Premier Chris Minns and Paul James, NSW RSL board member and Bainbridge’s business partner.Credit: Facebook

In each case seen by the Herald, the ex-clients disputed the amounts invoiced and many had withdrawn their instructions to the firm. One client had threatened six months ago to report OLA to the legal regulator, claiming that some charges on his bill were inflated or had not occurred.

“Your firm has not acted in my best interests as a client, did not deliver clear and timely advice or deliver legal services as promptly, diligently and competently as possible,” he wrote.

OLA was registered by Bainbridge, a former commando, 10 days before he was admitted as a solicitor in 2019. It promotes itself as a veteran-owned, veteran-friendly law firm under the slogan “expertise, experience, empathy”.

Tasmanian senator Jacqui Lambie described Bainbridge and James as “unethical cowboys” in a speech made under parliamentary privilege last year, accusing them of exploiting veterans by overcharging them and providing incompetent legal advice.

NSW state RSL president Mick Bainbridge during last year’s ANZAC day dawn service in Martin Place.Credit: Kate Geraghty

On Tuesday morning, she sent a third volume of complaints to the Legal Services Commissioner, building on allegations she submitted in November that the firm padded invoices and charged clients for work not performed.

Her complaint also alleged that the RSL heavyweights “rorted” the financial assistance scheme for the Royal Commission into Veteran Suicide by charging solicitors’ rates for work they had outsourced to a private investigator, and “reverse engineered” their billing to ensure clients were charged the maximum amount that they could claim back under the scheme.

One veteran, a former officer with the Australian army, told Lambie that OLA’s $14,000 invoice included hundreds of dollars for phone calls that the veteran doubted were reasonable fees. She also questioned whether the law firm had actually submitted her claim for incapacity.

The veteran alleged that OLA staff assured her the claim had been submitted, but after three weeks with no confirmation from the Department of Veterans Affairs that it had been received, the veteran submitted it herself and received confirmation of receipt within 48 hours.

She then withdrew authority for the firm to act on her behalf, a decision that OLA acknowledged in a letter that had “X” where her name should have been and was stamped with the signature block of a solicitor who no longer worked at the firm.

The Herald has chosen not to identify Lambie’s informants as they provided information confidentially.

A second veteran said he was invoiced $12,000 after he ceased his engagement with OLA, though $8000 of work had not been performed. OLA agreed to reduce his fee to $4410 when he threatened to report the firm to the regulator.

A third veteran said he received several angry phone calls from Bainbridge and James after he terminated their services in June, including one in which they told him they would send him a large invoice if he did not continue to be represented by them.

He subsequently received an invoice for $2766.60, though he claimed never to have signed a costs agreement and had understood that there would be no fees without a lump-sum payment. James told him that OLA would have invoiced him when he received his payout, but given that he had terminated the firm’s engagement it was entitled to charge him for time already spent.

He replied to the firm by email that he was disappointed to receive the invoice. “No schedule of rates were provided to me and the formal engagement with OLA was for my involvement in the Royal Commission only,” he wrote. “I know you have been paid for these hours as I confirmed this with the Attorney-General’s Department.”

The firm did not press the invoice after he complained to the regulator. James told the veteran that the solicitor who originally worked on his case had been terminated for misconduct.

OLA was a finalist in the 2024 National Veteran Employment Awards. Bainbridge will present at a Leading in the Law Summit in Sydney next month.

Bainbridge and James did not respond to questions related to their legal action. A lawyer replied on their behalf to questions about their charging practices but marked the response “not for publication”.

Lambie said it was unconscionable for OLA to have served their former clients just before Christmas.

“These veterans went to OLA because they thought veteran lawyers would do the right thing by them,” Lambie said.

“They agreed not to charge them until their claims came through. Instead, they did nothing and then sued those vulnerable veterans.

“To say I am disgusted by this behaviour is a huge understatement.”

Wollongong Local Court has already delivered several default judgments in favour of OLA.

One ex-client said the court notification had come as a shock as the firm had not suggested it was contemplating legal action and the veteran was still hoping the disputed invoice items could be resolved amicably.

“They’re forgetting the fact that they’re dealing with suicidal veterans,” the veteran said.

Other ex-clients could not afford to pay the amounts they had been billed until their compensation claims had been settled. They had asked OLA if a tripartite agreement could be made with their new lawyers and believed the firm was considering this request when they received their court notifications.

NSW RSL members unanimously voted at their state congress in October to lobby the government to reinstate funding for the Defence and Veterans Legal Service, so veterans lodging compensation claims did not have to pay for legal support that consumed a large portion of their payouts.

Start the day with a summary of the day’s most important and interesting stories, analysis and insights. Sign up for our Morning Edition newsletter.