- 1300 267 711
- Australia Wide
You paid a professional to get it right. A solicitor to run your case. An accountant to set up your structure. A financial adviser to protect your future. They held themselves out as competent, you relied on that competence, and they got it wrong. Now you’re wearing the consequences — a lost case, a tax bill that shouldn’t exist, an investment portfolio in ruins.
Last updated: April 2026
On This Page:
Here’s what most people don’t realise: you can recover those losses. Every solicitor, accountant, and financial adviser in Australia is required to hold professional indemnity insurance. That insurance exists precisely for this situation. The money is there. You just need to know how to pursue it.
At Boss Lawyers, we have pursued professional negligence claims against law firms and accounting firms in Brisbane and across Queensland. We know how these claims work — from the inside out.
It usually starts with a sinking feeling. You review a document and notice something that doesn’t look right. You receive a letter from the ATO that makes no sense. You discover your solicitor missed a critical deadline and your case has been struck out. You realise your accountant set up the wrong corporate structure and it’s created a tax liability that shouldn’t exist.
The types of professionals who can be sued for negligence include:
Many people hesitate to pursue these claims. They feel intimidated — particularly when it involves suing a law firm. They assume it will be too difficult, too expensive, or that the professional will simply deny everything. Some don’t even realise they have a claim at all.
The reality is different. Professional indemnity insurance exists for exactly this purpose. These are not claims where you are chasing an individual who may not have the means to pay. Behind every negligent professional is an insurer with a policy that responds to exactly this type of claim. That changes the economics entirely.
Professional negligence is not simply a professional making a mistake. It is a professional failing to exercise the degree of care and skill that a reasonably competent professional in that field would exercise in the same circumstances.
In Queensland, professional negligence claims are governed primarily by the Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld) (CLA), alongside the general law of negligence. To succeed in a professional negligence claim, you must establish four elements:
Section 9 of the CLA sets out the standard of care — a professional is negligent if they fail to take precautions against a risk of harm that a reasonable person in their position would have taken, having regard to the probability that the harm would occur, the likely seriousness of the harm, the burden of taking precautions, and the social utility of the activity.
Section 22 of the CLA provides a defence for professionals who can demonstrate that they acted in a manner widely accepted by peer professional opinion as competent professional practice. This is Queensland’s statutory equivalent of the Bolam test. However, this defence has limits — the court is not bound by peer opinion if it considers that the opinion is irrational or unreasonable.
The distinction between a mere mistake and actionable negligence is important. Not every error gives rise to a claim. A solicitor who exercises reasonable judgment on a difficult point of law, and turns out to be wrong, has not necessarily been negligent. But a solicitor who drafts pleadings so deficient that they are struck out as unsalvageable — that crosses the line.
Claims against solicitors and law firms are among the most common professional negligence actions. Solicitors owe their clients a duty to exercise reasonable care and skill in the conduct of their retainer. When they fall below that standard, the consequences can be devastating.
Common examples of solicitor negligence include:
We acted for a client who had engaged a law firm to handle a commercial dispute. The firm’s solicitors drafted the pleadings — the foundational court documents that set out the client’s claim. Those pleadings needed to properly articulate the cause of action, the material facts, and the relief sought. They didn’t.
The pleadings were so fundamentally deficient that when the opposing party challenged them, a District Court judge described them as unsalvageable. The opposing party’s application to strike out the pleadings succeeded, with costs awarded against our client. The commercial dispute — which had genuine merit — was lost. Not on its merits, but because the solicitors couldn’t draft a competent statement of claim.
The financial consequences were catastrophic. Our client suffered significant losses flowing from the failed litigation and ultimately became bankrupt.
When the client came to us, we took a two-stage approach. First, we addressed the bankruptcy. We proposed a composition with creditors under section 73C of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) — a mechanism that allows a bankrupt person to put a proposal to their creditors to pay a proportion of their debts in full satisfaction. The creditors approved the composition, and the bankruptcy was annulled. That gave our client their life back — they could hold directorships again, obtain credit, and move forward.
Then we pursued the negligent law firm for professional negligence. The claim sought to recover the losses our client suffered as a direct result of the deficient pleadings — including the value of the underlying commercial dispute that was lost, the costs orders made against them, and the consequential losses flowing from the bankruptcy itself.
This case illustrates several critical points about solicitor negligence claims:
Solicitor negligence claims have a unique complexity that doesn’t apply to other professional negligence actions: the “case within a case” requirement.
To recover damages for a solicitor’s negligence in conducting litigation, you must prove not only that the solicitor was negligent, but that if the solicitor had not been negligent, you would have succeeded in the underlying case. In other words, you effectively have to litigate the original case all over again — within the professional negligence proceedings — and demonstrate that it would have been won.
This means solicitor negligence claims require careful analysis at the outset. There is no point pursuing a negligence claim against your former solicitor if the underlying case was always going to fail regardless. At Boss Lawyers, we assess this threshold question honestly before recommending you commit resources to a claim. If the underlying case had no reasonable prospects, we will tell you that — even if it’s not what you want to hear.
Accountants owe their clients a duty of care to exercise reasonable skill and diligence. This extends to tax advice, the establishment of corporate structures, asset protection planning, auditing, and financial reporting. When accountants get it wrong, the consequences are often measured in substantial, unexpected tax liabilities.
Common examples of accountant negligence include:
We acted for a client who engaged an accounting firm to establish a corporate structure for asset protection purposes. The structure required shares to be held in a particular way to achieve the intended tax and asset protection outcomes. It was not complicated — but it needed to be done correctly.
Due to an administrative error by the accountant’s staff, the wrong information was recorded on the ASIC register regarding the shareholding structure. The shares were registered incorrectly, creating an ownership structure that was different from what had been agreed and intended.
The error sat there, undetected, until the ATO reviewed the client’s affairs. The incorrect shareholding created a significant tax liability that would never have arisen had the structure been set up correctly. Our client was facing a substantial and unexpected tax bill through no fault of their own.
Boss Lawyers was engaged and took a two-pronged approach. First, we brought an application in the Supreme Court of Queensland for rectification of the ASIC register under section 1322 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). Section 1322 gives the court power to make orders declaring that an act, matter, or thing purporting to have been done under the Act is not invalid by reason of a contravention of the Act, or to rectify registers. The application was successful — the ASIC register was rectified to reflect the correct shareholding, and the tax liability was resolved.
Then we pursued the accounting firm for professional negligence. The claim sought to recover our client’s losses — including the legal fees incurred in bringing the Supreme Court rectification application, barrister’s fees, and all associated costs. The accountant’s professional indemnity insurer responded to the claim, and the losses were recovered in full.
This case demonstrates several important principles:
Financial advisers hold a position of significant trust. Clients rely on their expertise to make decisions about investments, superannuation, insurance, and retirement planning. When that advice is negligent, the financial consequences can be life-altering.
Since the Future of Financial Advice (FOFA) reforms, financial advisers operating under an Australian Financial Services Licence (AFSL) are subject to a statutory best interests duty under section 961B of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). This duty requires the adviser to act in the best interests of the client in relation to the advice given. A failure to comply with this duty can ground both regulatory action and a civil claim for damages.
Common examples of financial adviser negligence include:
A recurring pattern we see is the adviser who recommends a product not because it suits the client, but because it generates a commission or volume bonus for the adviser. The FOFA reforms were designed to address this, but it still occurs. When it does, the adviser has breached both their statutory obligations and their common law duty of care.
Professional negligence is not limited to lawyers, accountants, and financial advisers. Any professional who holds themselves out as having particular skill and expertise, and who is engaged on the basis of that expertise, owes a duty of care to their client. Other common professional negligence claims include:
Understanding the legal framework is important if you are considering a professional negligence claim. Each element must be established on the balance of probabilities.
The existence of a duty of care is usually straightforward in professional negligence claims. When you engage a professional — whether by signing a retainer, a letter of engagement, or simply by instructing them and paying their fees — they owe you a duty to exercise reasonable care and skill. The duty arises from the professional relationship and the reasonable reliance you place on their expertise.
In some cases, a duty of care can extend beyond the immediate client. A valuer who prepares a report knowing it will be relied upon by a lender owes a duty to that lender, not just to the person who commissioned the report. The scope of the duty depends on the circumstances.
Section 9 of the Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld) codifies the standard of care. A professional breaches their duty if they fail to take precautions against a foreseeable risk of harm that a reasonable person in their position would have taken. The court considers:
For professionals, this is assessed against the standard of a reasonably competent practitioner in that field. A solicitor is measured against what a reasonably competent solicitor would have done. An accountant is measured against a reasonably competent accountant.
Section 11 of the CLA requires the claimant to establish both factual causation and that it is appropriate for the scope of the negligent person’s liability to extend to the harm caused. Factual causation requires you to show that the harm would not have occurred but for the professional’s negligence. Scope of liability involves a normative judgment about whether it is appropriate for the defendant to be held liable for the type of harm that occurred.
In solicitor negligence claims, causation is where the “case within a case” requirement bites. You must prove that, but for the solicitor’s negligence, the underlying case would have succeeded. In accountant negligence claims, you must prove that, but for the accountant’s error, the tax liability (or other loss) would not have arisen.
You must prove that you suffered a quantifiable financial loss as a result of the professional’s negligence. This can include:
In Queensland, the Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld) imposes a six-year limitation period for professional negligence claims. The limitation period generally runs from the date the cause of action accrues — which is the date the loss is first suffered.
In professional negligence cases, the date of accrual is not always obvious. The negligent act may have occurred years before the loss manifests. An accountant may have set up the wrong structure in 2018, but the tax liability may not crystallise until the ATO reviews the client’s affairs in 2023. The question of when the limitation period begins to run depends on when the loss was first suffered — not when the negligent act occurred or when the client discovered the error.
There are also provisions relating to discoverability — situations where the claimant did not know, and could not reasonably have known, that they had suffered loss due to negligence. These provisions can extend the limitation period in certain circumstances, but they are complex and should not be relied upon as a reason to delay.
The practical advice is simple: if you suspect a professional has been negligent and you have suffered a loss, get legal advice immediately. Evidence degrades over time. Witnesses’ memories fade. Documents are lost or destroyed. The earlier you act, the stronger your position.
A professional facing a negligence claim will typically raise one or more defences. Understanding these defences is important in assessing the strength of your claim.
Under section 23 of the CLA, if the claimant’s own negligence contributed to the loss, damages may be reduced to reflect the claimant’s share of responsibility. For example, if a client failed to provide their accountant with accurate information, and that failure contributed to the incorrect structure being established, the accountant may argue contributory negligence.
Section 22 provides a defence where the professional acted in a way that was widely accepted by peer professional opinion as competent practice. This is a significant defence, but it has limits. The court is not bound by peer opinion and can reject it if the opinion is irrational. Moreover, the opinion must be “widely accepted” — a minority view held by a handful of practitioners is unlikely to suffice.
Part 2 of the CLA provides for proportionate liability in certain claims, including claims for economic loss arising from a failure to take reasonable care. Where proportionate liability applies, each defendant is liable only for the proportion of the loss that reflects their responsibility. This can be relevant where multiple professionals contributed to the loss — for example, where both a solicitor and a barrister were negligent in the conduct of litigation.
A defendant will invariably check whether the limitation period has expired. If you are outside the six-year period, the claim may be statute-barred regardless of its merits. This is why we emphasise the importance of acting promptly.
In rare cases, a professional may argue that the client voluntarily assumed the risk of loss. This defence is difficult to establish in a professional negligence context, because the entire reason the client engaged the professional was to obtain expert guidance — not to assume the risk themselves.
One of the most important practical aspects of professional negligence claims is professional indemnity (PI) insurance. In Queensland and across Australia:
This is critical because it means there is an insurer standing behind the professional — an insurer with the resources to pay a claim. Professional negligence claims are not like suing an individual who may be impecunious. The insurance is there for exactly this purpose.
When a claim is made against a professional, the PI insurer typically takes over the conduct of the defence. The insurer appoints solicitors, makes decisions about whether to defend or settle, and pays any judgment or settlement within the policy limits. This is why many professional negligence claims resolve through negotiation — the insurer conducts a commercial assessment and, where liability is clear, will often settle to avoid the costs of a trial.
From our experience, once a well-prepared professional negligence claim is notified to the insurer and the evidence of breach, causation, and loss is clearly presented, there is a strong commercial incentive for the insurer to engage in meaningful settlement negotiations.
Boss Lawyers is a boutique commercial litigation and insolvency firm in Brisbane. We have direct, hands-on experience pursuing professional negligence claims against both law firms and accounting firms. This is not theoretical for us — we have done it, and we know what it takes to succeed.
What sets us apart:
With over 17+ years of combined experience and having acted for more than 3,000 clients, Boss Lawyers brings the depth of experience and the practical approach that professional negligence claims demand.
Yes. If your solicitor failed to exercise reasonable care and skill, and that failure caused you to suffer a financial loss, you may have a professional negligence claim. Common examples include missed deadlines, deficient pleadings, failure to advise on material risks, and conflicts of interest. Your former solicitor’s professional indemnity insurance will typically respond to the claim, meaning there is a funded defendant to pursue. You should seek independent legal advice as soon as you suspect negligence, as limitation periods apply.
In Queensland, the general limitation period for professional negligence claims is six years under the Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld). The period runs from the date the cause of action accrues — typically when the loss is first suffered, which may be later than the date of the negligent act. There are limited extensions for discoverability in some circumstances, but you should not rely on these. If you suspect negligence, seek advice promptly.
You must establish four elements: (1) the professional owed you a duty of care; (2) the professional breached that duty by falling below the standard of a reasonably competent practitioner; (3) the breach caused your loss (factual causation and scope of liability under sections 11 of the Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld)); and (4) you suffered quantifiable financial loss. For solicitor negligence claims involving litigation, you must also prove the “case within a case” — that the underlying matter would have succeeded but for the negligence.
Yes. Legal costs incurred as a direct consequence of the professional’s negligence are recoverable as part of your loss. This includes costs of rectification proceedings (such as applications to rectify the ASIC register), costs thrown away in failed litigation due to solicitor negligence, and the costs of pursuing the professional negligence claim itself (subject to the usual costs rules). Barrister’s fees and expert fees incurred in mitigating the effects of the negligence are also recoverable.
Professional indemnity (PI) insurance is mandatory insurance that professionals such as solicitors, accountants, and financial advisers are required to hold. It provides cover for claims arising from their professional negligence. When you bring a professional negligence claim, the PI insurer typically takes over the defence and is responsible for paying any judgment or settlement within the policy limits. This is important because it means you are not relying on the individual professional’s personal assets — there is an insurer with the capacity to pay your claim.
The “case within a case” test applies when you claim that your solicitor’s negligence caused you to lose litigation that you would otherwise have won. To recover damages, you must prove not only that your solicitor was negligent, but that if they had not been negligent, you would have succeeded in the underlying case. This effectively requires the court to determine the outcome of the original case as part of the negligence proceedings. It adds complexity to solicitor negligence claims and means that a careful assessment of the merits of the underlying case is essential before pursuing the claim.
If you believe a professional’s negligence has caused you financial loss, contact Boss Lawyers for a direct, practical assessment of your position. We will tell you honestly whether your claim has merit, what it’s likely worth, and what the process involves.
Call us on 1300 267 711 or visit us at Level 27, Santos Place, 32 Turbot Street, Brisbane QLD 4000.
This is general information only and is not legal advice. You should obtain professional advice specific to your circumstances.
