In some ways that catch helped bring Fatty Vautin out of QLD and NSW and propel him into the broader Australian consciousness, part of a journey that sees him today as a household name. It has been a long road, a road few would have imagined with Paul Vautin’s hilariously inauspicious start on TV (check it out here).
Just don’t ask Mohammad Tariq what he thinks of Fatty. Mr Tariq suffered head injuries in a car accident in 2007 and was ripped off by his law firm - Keddies Lawyers – who charged him $60 for sending him a welcome letter and $49 for reading a thank-you card he sent them. When Mr Tariq became aware that Fatty Vautin was paid a handsome sum to represent Keddies Lawyers in its advertising, he was understandably aggrieved and sent the Channel 9 star the following email:
Mr Paul Fatty Vatin,
I believe that you are supporting Keddies lawyers to promote their business that means more Mentally ill peoples will be their victims and all will suffer. The minute I hear you promoting Kedies on 2GB, See the sign post with your Picture I get agitated, it aggrevates my medical condition … I am sick and tired of hearing your voice, seing your picture.
But Fatty made it clear when he became aware of Mr Tariq’s plight in mid-2009 that he had no intention of ending his relationship with the firm, telling the Sydney Morning Herald:
the blokes who own it I’ve got a lot of respect for, they’re good people.
Well, we think it’s time for Fatty to reassess his opinion of Keddies Lawyers; he needs to drop this catch before it’s too late.
Tackling The Dodgy Approaches
Some of the juicy bits:
The only expert evidence that has been served in either claim is that of Mary Whelan, expert costs consultant, on behalf of the Plaintiffs. Based on her findings… [the first Plaintiff, Mr Goritsas] would be entitled to the sum of $35,598.25 plus interest and [the second Plaintiff, Mrs Goritsas] to the sum of $39,753.40 plus interest.
The same individuals were charged $48,215.25 and $51,600.40 respectively for Keddies’ legal services. Together, they paid $99,815.65 when, according to an expert briefed in the matter, they should have only paid just $24,464. Overcharging by 300%? Time to drop the ball, Fatty!
The affidavit continues:
Judgment has been handed down in two matters. The first is the matter of Starve Bazdarov … in favour of the Plaintiff against [Keddies] in the total sum of $238,679.89 plus costs plus indemnity cost from 17 March 2011…Before Mr Bazdarov’s case was conducted he informed me that Mr Barakat… one of the Defendants approached him at his home in an attempt to settle the matter … [offering him] $50,000 to drop the proceedings against Keddies… Mr Barakat did not seek my permission.
As any first-year law student will tell you, solicitor conduct rules forbid approaches by lawyers to individuals known by the lawyer to be represented by another lawyer in circumstances like those above. But this didn’t stop Keddies from allegedly making a very similar approach to Mr and Mrs Goritsas. According to Mr Firth’s affidavit:
The Plaintiffs’ daughter … received unsolicited approaches from a person acting on behalf of [Keddies] … who provided her with a Deed of Settlement and Release between her parents and Keddies.
It is alleged that other approaches were made to at least 4 other clients of Mr Firth. In cricketing terms, it’s a bit like the Pakistani cricketers who surreptitiously met with a bookmaker and pre-arranged to bowl certain deliveries in exchange for payments. It’s just not cricket. Or rugby. Fatty Vautin can do better, we think.
But can Keddies? Apparently not.
Blatant, Momentary Glancing Overcharger
Examples of overcharging included a three-line letter Judge Curtis held could be read in a “momentary glance”, but which cost Ms Liu $87 for 12 minutes work by a senior lawyer. She also paid $435 for a senior lawyer to draft a pro forma costs agreement the judge found should have cost $18 because it only required her name to be typed in. The “most blatant” example of overcharging was a charge for $130.50 for reading an abbreviation of the word “received” in reply to an email Keddies had already charged for, Judge Curtis found.
It is uninspriring stuff even by Keddies’ standards, which, you will of course recall, includes female cop-bashing. It’s not rugby, we tell you!
But where does this leave Keddies’ new owner Slater & Gordon? Well, we know that some of the cash-component of Slaters’ $35million acquisition would be retained by Slaters for “up to 30 months” beginning at the date of the purchase in October last year. We therefore presume that Keddies has a major financial incentive to settle all the remaining claims being brought by Mr Firth within the next two years. Supposing it can’t, we imagine Slaters will retain some of the cash it still holds in respect of the acquisition, but it’s unclear whether that amount will be enough to cover all liabilities (for example Mr Bazdarov alone was awarded nearly $250,000, plus costs).
We thought we would drop Slaters’ largest shareholder a line on the issue. Sydney-based Slater & Gordon partner Kenneth Fowlie owns a staggering $19.8million in Slaters scrip (makes you wonder how much he has charged clients over the years), so we sent him the following email:
——– Original Message ——–
Subject: Request for Comment
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 06:24:06 -0500
From: news@firmspy.com
To: <kfowlie@slatergordon.com.au>Hi Ken,
We’re hoping to secure a comment from you on the issues plaguing Keddies at the moment. Given your 19+mil shareholding in Slaters, do you have any concern about the prudence of the Keddies acquisition? Will you be flogging your shares off any time soon?
Regards,
FS
No word from Mr Fowlie. Do you think it’s time for Fatty to move on? Share your comments below!
Send the Firm Spy your news and views!
Loading...
If the overcharging allegations are true. What a disgraceful outfit -to rip off the people that can’t afford lawyers, that need the most protection. I don’t care for fatty’s affiliation. The rest of us get a bad name because of a few clowns.
In light of this material how can the ADT’s decision in Legal Services Commissioner v Roulstone [2011] NSWADT 269 possibly be justified?
I’m not sure that the overcharging is 300%. Maybe 150%. The costs assessor could have been using rates for awarding costs after a judgment is handed down (party-party costs). Normally, under those rates, even if the fees were reasonably incurred, a party would typically get about 50 to 60% back. Even with indemnity costs (which are awarded when the losing side act with more than the usual level of bastardry it’s only 75%.
But still, $49 for a thank you card: That is way below the belt…
I am becoming increasingly disappointed with the FS spelling and grammar. I assume you want fatty “to” drop Keddies, not “do” drop Keddies. Perhaps the appeal will have greater success when made in English.
Cheers – fixed. Note that the post went up at 1:47am in the middle of Xmas party season!
I f***ing love FS’ lines “will you be flogging your shares off anytime soon”
Not sure how reliable Firth’s evidence on over-charging can be, although he reportedly charges his clients $700+ per hour for his services. That being the case, one wonders just how much of the $250,000 Mr Bazdaraov will actually see of his judgment.