How many lawyers does it take to run a court case? Too many, says one Federal Court judge.
In a scathing judgment in a bankruptcy case, Justice Steven Rares has taken aim at big law firms throwing a barrage of lawyers at cases and said "it is time that the profession recognised that costs should be kept to a minimum".
Justice Rares made the remarks after lawyers acting for a bankruptcy trustee estimated his costs for a case including a final two-day hearing at $239,485.
This included the work of four solicitors from law firm Piper Alderman and a junior barrister in Sydney.
Having five lawyers working on the case involved "a degree of waste and unnecessary duplication of effort that I cannot comprehend," Justice Rares said.
He said many legal tasks could be done more efficiently and cost-effectively by a barrister – a specialist advocate who appears in court – than solicitors in law firms who instruct barristers on behalf of clients.
But he said it appeared to have become a "general model" in Australia for multiple solicitors in big firms to perform preparatory work originally intended to be done primarily by a barrister, such as drafting court documents.
Justice Rares noted all but the most junior solicitor involved in the case charged more than the barrister.
The Piper Alderman partner charged the most, at $605 an hour, compared with $400 an hour charged by the barrister.
"Litigation should be conducted as quickly, inexpensively and as efficiently as possible," Justice Rares said.
He said drafting court documents and presenting evidence and arguments in court should be allocated to the barrister "who appears at the trial or other hearing".
"However, that is not how larger law firms tend to approach modern litigation, as is exemplified in the [cost] estimates for this case," he said.
He stressed he was not taking aim at the Piper Alderman partner involved in the case and said "I am not suggesting that this is an isolated situation".
Justice Rares said it was of "vital importance" that barristers did work such as finalising court documents, known as pleadings, so that it was not "duplicated unnecessarily" by multiple solicitors.
His comments will be welcomed by the city's junior barristers, whose work is at risk of being cannibalised by big firms.
In March, the NSW Bar Association's senior vice-president, Arthur Moses, SC, said in a speech in Sydney that the bar had "an array of talented, experienced and hardworking junior counsel who are more cost effective than law firms".
But NSW Law Society president Pauline Wright, representing the state's solicitors, said barristers and solicitors each had their own strengths and "solicitors have a direct relationship with their clients and intimate knowledge of the file".
"The drafting of pleadings has always been a role performed by solicitors often with input by counsel, but sometimes without," Ms Wright said, adding it depended on the complexity of the case.
"Hourly rates largely depend on the level of experience of the individual practitioner, whether a barrister or a solicitor."