KHQ Lawyers

Cost Court agree I was over charged $71k – After what I felt was the worst possible outcome in the legal proceeding where I had KHQ Lawyers represent our family in a Victorian Supreme Court Case against one of the BIG FOUR BANKS I requested the assistance Cost Lawyer to check over the fees charged. We were getting charged higher than what was in the Cost disclosure statement provided and our files withheld.

I was also getting calls from a KHQ consultant claiming debt of outstanding fees and threats.

I commenced Costs Court proceedings against KHQ Lawyers, in which I was the Applicant, and claimed: • The Applicant engaged the KHQ Lawyers (Respondent law firm) to act on his behalf on or about 20 February 2020 in relation to the Supreme Court proceeding (S ECI 2019 05783) he was involved in against a Bank until the retainer ended on or about 29 July 2023. • The Respondent provided an initial costs agreement and disclosure statement on 20 February 2020 estimating total legal costs in the amount of $10,000 excluding GST including disbursements. • After this estimate was provided, the document noted "From commencement until completion of a concluded trial might cost approximately $100,000 to $150,000." • In terms of counsel fees, the Respondent provided counsel's disclosure on 9 March 2022 estimating counsel's costs in the amount of $180,675.00, and again on 20 July 2022, estimating counsel's costs in the amount of $68,750.00. • The Applicant was ultimately charged $501,965.09. • The Applicant notes the Respondent failed to comply with s174 (1)(b) of the LPUL, as an update to the initial estimate of total legal costs was never provided to the Applicant. At no point was the Applicant informed that his costs would amount to over $500,000. • The Respondent has breached its main costs disclosure obligation and as a result the costs agreement is automatically void pursuant to s178 of the LPUL. It is submitted that fair and reasonable rates apply for the purpose of calculating reasonable costs, rather than the rates noted in the invoices or costs agreements.

[Name Removed] from KHQ Lawyers also engaged cost lawyer to fight the claim and the costs I had to incur. KHQ lawyers was unsuccessful.

Costs Court in the proceeding, which was resolved on 16 May 2024: • KHQ’s total legal costs were reduced from $501,976.09 to $430,000, a reduction of $71,976.09. • The Court ordered KHQ to reimburse my costs of assessment, amounting to $27,255.40 after I spent $58,921.02 with cost lawyer • Since I had already paid KHQ $435,537.35, KHQ was ordered to pay me $32,792.15 ($5,536.75 + $27,255.40).

Reference : Supreme Court No S ECI 2023 03092.

I am disgusted with my KHQ Lawyers experience – In October 2022 [Name Removed] of KHQ Lawyers was appointed as Administrator of my Late Grandmother's Estate. As of the time of writing this review, the said Estate is still not finalised. When [Name Removed] was appointed as Administrator there was little work to be done, the major asset had previously been sold, Estate funds were transferred to the KHQ Trust account. Seemingly, [Name Removed] basically only needed to read the Court Findings, Review the Estate File, Attend to the usual Duties AND make Final Distributions... Well nearly 16 months into KHQ/[Name Removed] as Administrator and the Estate is NOT FINALISED!

KHQ have already charged the Estate in excess of $14,000.00 and have indicated that the remaining $22,000.00 in Estate funds will also be chewed up by KHQ for fees and services.

In addition to the inexcusable and expensive "GO SLOW" on my Late Grandmother's Estate, i have found [Name Removed] to be extremely arrogant, dismissive and ignorant. When clear and obvious mistakes were made by [Name Removed], l would email to raise and rectify the error, [Name Removed] would charge for reading my email, but seemingly ignore the matter i was raising.

[Name Removed] also devised a "Plan" to (unnecessarily) mislead the Australian Taxation Office. I say "Unnecessarily" because there is NO CGT APPLICABLE to my Late Grandmother's (former) home, but [Name Removed] suggested that there is/or might be.... To avoid the CGT (which was never applicable) [Name Removed] wrote to beneficiaries outlining a plan to declare that the "Estate Funds" were "Beneficiary Funds" and declare to the ATO that the deceased had no tax returns to file.

Many of my concerns have been raised by email to [Name Removed] (Managing Director of KHQ) but he fails to respond to my correspondence. It appears to me that KHQ have no process for adequately dealing with complaints and/or issues that might arise between a KHQ Lawyer and a client (or in my case a Representative of a Beneficiary).

All in all l cannot think of anything pleasant or satisfactory when it comes to my dealings and experience with KHQ Lawyers, [Name Removed] and/or [Name Removed].

With there being a tremendous number of Lawyers "Out There" to choose from, I would suggest that prospective clients seek an alternate to KHQ Lawyers.