When Structure Fails

A $30,000 Debt That Turned Into a $300,000 Lesson

Published: 11 July 2024 | Reviewed: 3 December 2025

(2-minute read)

The shock most Australians never expect:

A simple debt. An undefended case. An estimate of $3,900–$6,400.
Years later, almost $300,000 in legal fees.
The original debt?
Just $30,000.

This is not an overseas scandal.
It is a real New South Wales Court of Appeal decision.

For many Australians, this case is the clearest example of what happens when the traditional model has no structural boundaries, no timing gate, and no separation of roles.

The Case: Hartnett TAS Hartnett Lawyers v Bell [2023] NSWCA 244

In this real decision, a solicitor acted for the mortgagee, Ms Gwendoline Deakin-Bell, to enforce a $30,000 mortgage over a West Ballina property left to Mr Bell as executor of the mortgagor’s estate.

What should have been a simple matter drifted into:

• some 20 invoices

• a 25% uplift fee

• charges that approached the entire value of the property

• years of delay

• resistance to providing itemised bills

• attempts to stop the client from challenging the fees

The NSW Court of Appeal ultimately ordered the solicitor to repay over $250,000 in fees to the estate.

The Court described the charges as excessive, unjustified, and out of proportion to both the debt and the work.

This is a textbook example of what structural drift looks like once it grows unchecked.

How Costs Spiralled Out of Control

This case shows how quickly a matter can escalate when the same lawyer controls the:

• strategy

• timing

• preparation

• scope

• billing

With no structural separation, every additional step feels “normal”,
even when the matter is simple, undefended, or nearly complete.

The client cannot see which work is necessary, which is premature, or when the matter shifts from “advice” into “preparation”.

The result is not misconduct in every case,
it is the structural vulnerability that creates these outcomes.

The Court’s Intervention

To correct the drift, the Court of Appeal had to:

• examine years of invoices

• reconstruct the legal work

• consider proportionality against the original debt

• assess the 25% uplift

• return hundreds of thousands to the estate

This level of scrutiny is rare, expensive, and slow, and it happened only after the estate had shouldered the burden.

The lesson is simple and sobering:

When structure fails, oversight arrives too late.

What Australians Should Learn from This Case

This decision is a reminder that even in routine legal matters:

• costs can escalate past all expectations

• simple cases can become financially destructive

• clients rarely see the drift until it is too late

• the court may intervene, but the delay and stress fall on the client

It also reinforces why boundaries, timing control, and separation of roles matter more than promises or experience alone.

Why This Matters for Business Owners and Families Alike

Most people assume their matter is “too simple to go wrong.”

This case proved the opposite.

When structure is absent:

• a modest debt becomes a major legal expense

• an undefended matter becomes years of work

• a low starting estimate becomes a six-figure bill

• the client is left chasing transparency after the damage is done

It is not about blaming practitioners.
It is about recognising the structural conditions that allow this escalation to happen.

The Broader Truth

You should never have to:

• supervise your lawyer like a project manager

• question every step to protect your budget

• investigate your own invoices

• fight for itemised bills

• challenge fees after the money is gone

Legal safety should come from structure, not from constant vigilance.

This case shows what happens when the structure is missing.

If You Want to Proceed Safely

See how Clean Law’s safeguards prevent structural drift before it begins:

• Smart Discovery Package — advice without pressure to litigate

• Escrow: Money, Timing & Authority — payment only for the stage you approve

• Why Two Lawyers Often Cost Less — because you fund one path, not both

• Client Protection Principles — structural safeguards built for Australians

By Nicky Wang
Principal Solicitor
Legal Liaison Ltd (trading as Clean Law)
Prepared in accordance with public-interest governance,
annual Law Society trust-account audits, and ACNC-reported standards.

Disclaimer: This page is intended to provide general information only and is not legal advice. The contents may not reflect the most current legal developments and do not take into account your individual circumstances. You should not act or refrain from acting on the basis of this information without obtaining legal advice tailored to your situation.