Sydney Lawyer Found Liable for Extensive Overcharging by NSW Supreme Court
A prominent Sydney lawyer has been found liable for extensive overcharging by the New South Wales Supreme Court after billing a local council for more than thirty hours of work within a single twenty-four hour period. The extraordinary billing practices were attributed to Redenbach Legal and its principal, Keith Redenbach, a former partner at major law firms Norton Rose Fulbright and Maddocks.
Impossible Hours and Spiralling Legal Fees
The Broken Hill City Council initiated court action against Redenbach and his firm after his legal fees for litigation against architecture firm Allen, Jack + Cottier exceeded ten million dollars. The dispute concerned botched renovations to the Broken Hill Civic Centre. As the legal battle dragged on for nearly eight years, council officials became increasingly alarmed as legal costs spiralled dramatically, ultimately far surpassing the one-point-five-million-dollar settlement secured from the architects.
The court discovered that on at least six separate days during 2018 and 2019, Redenbach billed the council for more than twenty-four hours of work. This included specific days where he claimed thirty-one-point-twelve hours, thirty-four-point-five hours, and even thirty-six hours of work. In one particularly egregious three-day period, he billed the council for one hundred and three hours of work, which Justice Elisabeth Peden bluntly described as 'impossible'.
Unconvincing Explanations and Judicial Criticism
Redenbach denied any dishonesty, insisting he had not intentionally submitted false invoices nor acted with reckless indifference to accuracy. Under cross-examination, the veteran lawyer of thirty years claimed his handwritten time sheets were muddled due to an 'operator error' and time zone issues. He even maintained he had worked all billed hours while home sick after a hospital stay, stating he was 'on my sick bed doing it with boxes being delivered to my home'.
Justice Peden found Redenbach's explanations, including attributing errors to a glitch, to be 'incredible' and 'unsatisfactory'. She wrote in her decision: 'I do not accept Mr Redenbach's version of most events. Mr Redenbach was a thoroughly unimpressive witness who despite claiming he had no interest in prolonging the hearing, appeared to intentionally refuse to respond to simple questions. Mr Redenbach gave self-serving evidence and even evidence which I consider was false.'
Financial Repercussions and Additional Charges
The overcharging was identified after the litigation against the architects was settled and Redenbach prepared the final bill of costs. During the lengthy legal proceedings, his hourly rate climbed steeply from three hundred and ninety dollars to four hundred and eighty dollars, and eventually to seven hundred and fifty dollars per hour. His firm had loaded its bill with a twenty-five percent 'success' fee of approximately two-point-one million dollars and almost one million dollars in rate 'adjustments'.
Justice Peden disallowed both add-ons and ruled that about two-point-four million dollars in trust funds had been 'misapplied'. She declared the firm misled the council over its fee estimates, holding it liable for five hundred and four thousand, six hundred and ninety-eight dollars in damages.
Court Orders Substantial Compensation
The court ordered significant financial restitution. Justice Peden stated that Redenbach personally owes the council one-point-five million dollars in compensation, on top of more than seven hundred and fifty thousand dollars his law firm must pay in restitution. The architects, Allen, Jack + Cottier, settled in 2022 and agreed to pay four-point-five million dollars of the council's legal costs, which was less than half of what Redenbach ultimately charged.
When council staff queried Redenbach's charges for travel time between Sydney and Broken Hill, where he had opened a practice, they received what were described as 'defensive and petulant' responses. In one email, Redenbach wrote: 'We do not appreciate the constant attempts to haggle with our costs when we are actually already giving massive discounts. We also note we are entitled to charge uplifts and increase our costs, and to date have not done so for several years. And yes, I am completely and utterly sick and tired of the constant emails on our costs.'
Ongoing Legal Disputes and Council Response
The council revealed that since the start of the litigation, Redenbach had lodged complaints with the ACT Law Society about the council's solicitors and had initiated eight separate NCAT proceedings alleging they gave improper instructions to continue the litigation against him. The Daily Mail has contacted Redenbach for comment regarding the court's findings and the substantial compensation orders.
This case highlights serious concerns about legal billing practices and the accountability of legal professionals when handling public funds. The NSW Supreme Court's ruling serves as a stark reminder of the judicial system's role in addressing and rectifying financial misconduct within the legal profession.
