Why Lisa Wilkinson’s eye-watering legal bill could backfire on her – as court reveals how she ran up $1.8m in fees fighting Bruce Lehrmann in court

Lisa Wilkinson’s $1.8million itemised legal bill has been laid bare in a series of eye-watering invoices from her lawyers.

And while she dropped the bill on Network Ten, she could still be left thousands of dollars out of pocket.

The television host won a bid in the Federal Court in February to have Ten cover about a year’s worth of legal fees after she hired her own team to defend her in Bruce Lehrmann’s defamation case.

Wilkinson opted out of using Ten’s lawyers due to a relationship breakdown with her employer that left her feeling as though the network did not care enough about her reputation to represent her properly 

Her firm of choice was Gillis Delaney Lawyers, where the supervising partner charges $750 per hour, and top defamation barrister Sue Chrysanthou SC, who charges $8,000 per day.

Following a case management hearing before Justice Michael Lee on Monday, a bundle of documents tendered to the court showed itemised invoices from Gillis Delaney to Wilkinson between February 2023 and May 2024.

Gillis Delaney sent the monthly invoices to Wilkinson, who then forwarded them to Network Ten for payment – but a letter from Ten’s lawyers last Friday, also released by the court, reveals the network disputes ‘every entry in the bundle’.

Among the thousands of charges in the invoices, the documents show Wilkinson was charged $214 for two phone calls by her lawyers, $1,430 for a ‘general time task’ watching court proceedings and $550 for a review of a screenshot of text messages.

Spotlight complaint and personal PR

According to the invoices, Wilkinson has billed Ten for issues outside the Lehrmann matter – including a formal complaint she lodged against Network Seven’s Spotlight program, and personal publicity issues involving her celebrity agent Nick Fordham.

Wilkinson’s complaint to the Australian Communications and Media Authority was over an episode of Spotlight last June which featured a recorded meeting between her and a Channel Ten producer, Ms Higgins and her partner David Sharaz.

The group could be heard gossiping about federal MPs, Parliament House staffers and journalists during the five-hour conversation, and it was highly embarrassing for Wilkinson and Ten.

Also included in the bill was a combined amount for more than $3,000 for Wilkinson’s lawyers to attend court dates for Lehrmann’s rape case in Toowoomba, Queensland, which did not form part of the defamation proceedings in NSW.

Another issue outlined in a letter from Ten’s lawyers, Thomson Geer, included an associate at Gillis Delaney charging $650 per hour, despite a previous costs agreement for $450 per hour.

There were also duplications of time entries for invoices in February and May 2023, and February 2024, according to the letter, and there was no costs agreement with Ms Chrysanthou.

Ten also pointed out that Wilkinson’s invoices began on October 19, 2022, even though Mr Lehrmann would not launch defamation proceedings until four months later, on February 7, 2023, and she hired her lawyers seven days later.

Why Lisa Wilkinson could be left out of pocket 

Justice Lee had ordered Network Ten cover costs that were ‘reasonably incurred’ by Wilkinson, which means the broadcaster would not be required to pay for anything outside the Lehrmann matter.

The broadcaster also argued it should not have to pay duplicate legal fees, where Wilkinson’s lawyers were in court but did not need to be because Ten’s lawyers ran that portion of the case.

However, the invoices show Wilkinson racked up hefty fees on tasks the broadcaster argues were either duplicates, or not directly related to the Lehrmann case.

In the letter last Friday, Ten said the fact Wilkinson had three solicitors present in court, along with two counsel, during case management hearings and the trial was ‘not reasonable’.

Ten asked Wilkinson to omit sections of the invoice that were common to both parties.

In court on Monday, Network Ten’s lawyer Zoe Graus said they had not been able to distinguish what tasks were duplications and which were not.

‘There are certainly costs which we do not dispute are recoverable by Ms Wilkinson,’ she said.

‘It’s more a matter of being able to identify those costs on a line item basis.’

She said, ideally, invoices would specify whether the task was in relation to a duplicate task or not.

Justice Lee said ‘two sensible solicitors’ with two highlighters could go through the invoices and work out which expense belongs where by referencing a timeline.

If Ten does not pay those fees, it is likely Wilkinson will have to cough up the money herself.

How Lisa racked up an $1.8million bill

According to the letter, Wilkinson’s costs as per the invoices actually amount to $1.6million – which is $200,000 less than she suggested.

Wilkinson’s lawyers charged roughly $82 for reading an email, $120 for a phone call, about $700 for a video call, and hundreds of thousands of dollars for court appearances.

The invoices from Gillis Delaney included thousands of entries for drafts, reviews, meetings and phone calls, which were all billed at the hourly rate of the lawyer who completed the task.

A managing partner charged $715 for a call with senior counsel about affidavit evidence, and there was a further $1,400 for a meeting in Ms Chrysanthou’s chambers.

A teleconference call cost $1,072, an affidavit draft cost $1,215, and an item called ‘preparation generally for hearing’ was billed at $2,288.

Ms Chrysanthou’s costs, which were sent as invoices to Gillis Delaney before they were sent to Wilkinson, were substantially higher.

One invoice from May 2023 included a $3,200 charge for four hours’ worth of reviewing material and drafting defence, $600 for conferring with client, and a further $1,000 for 1.25 hours of reviewing material and preparing evidence.

Ms Chrysanthou’s invoice between October 2023 and May 2024 alone amounted to more than $405,000.

Wilkinson’s lawyers have been ordered to file any additional material in relation to her claim by June 21.

The defamation case 

Lehrmann suffered a massive legal loss against Ten and Wilkinson in April when Justice Lee found he had, on a balance of probabilities, raped Brittany Higgins in Parliament House in March 2019.

He had sued for defamation over a February 2021 episode of The Project, during which Ms Higgins aired her rape claims for the first time in an interview with Wilkinson.

The former Liberal staffer, who had denied the assault claims, wasn’t named in the broadcast but claimed friends and colleagues were able to identify him as Ms Higgins’ rapist.

As the loser of the trial, Lehrmann is expected to cough up 90 per cent of Ten and Wilkinson’s costs for the successful truth defence, and 70 per cent of the costs associated with running the failed qualified privilege defence.

However, it is unlikely Lehrmann will be able to pay the multi million-dollar bills.

If Lehrmann goes bankrupt and the bills are unpaid, Network Ten will have to cover its own costs, and Wilkinson’s reasonable costs.