RI v Hart LCRO 158 / 2011 (13 July 2012) [pdf, 160 KB]
...disciplinary proceedings is the civil standard of proof of applied flexibility.1 RI’s allegations of intent and premeditation simply cannot be proved and are not accepted. [46] RI also asserts that the payment of $15,000 to Mr Hart was a contingency fee which should be repaid following the unsuccessful activity by Mr Hart. [47] In the letter of engagement, dated 28 April 2006, the sum of $15,000 is expressed to be a “retainer” to “meet the cost of the legal services provi...