LCRO 175/2022 OP v VN (10 October 2023) [pdf, 315 KB]
...and that, because there was no evidence that Mr VN had actually done any work on that matter, the payment should be refunded. [73] Now, for the first time, he asserts that it was an additional payment for Mr VN’s representation of him in the legally-aided 2017 criminal proceedings. [74] I can find no reference to any record of this proposition ever being put to Mr VN. I consider it to be both opportunistic and disingenuous for Mr OP to be raising this argument at this time....