AR v ZE LCRO 83/2012 (6 May 2016) [pdf, 109 KB]
...pre 1 July fees. I can only assume that Mr NS’s statements reflect Ms ZE’s views, both at the time, and now. That being the case, Ms ZE acted to protect the firm’s fees. [80] The amount at issue in relation to the sale was $57. Ms ZE was protected for her fees on the purchase by the solicitor’s lien she had over the file. That would have been required by any new lawyer instructed by Mr and Mrs AR although Ms ZE suggested that may not have been the case. [81] Ms ZE did n...