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 itemized legal bill worth $1.8 million has been exposed in a series of eye-watering invoices from her lawyers.

And even though she dropped the bill on Network Ten, she was still able to leave 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 costs after hiring her own team to defend her in Bruce Lehrmann’s defamation case.

Wilkinson chose not to use Ten’s lawyers due to a relationship breakdown with her employer, which left her feeling that the network did not care enough about her reputation to represent her properly.

Her favorite firm was Gillis Delaney Lawyers, where the supervising partner charges $750 per hour, and Sue Chrysanthou SC, a defamation lawyer, who charges $8,000 per day.

Following a case management hearing before Judge Michael Lee on Monday, a bundle of documents tendered to the court showed itemized 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 on the invoices, the documents show that Wilkinson was charged $214 for two phone calls by her lawyers, $1,430 for a “general time duty” while monitoring court proceedings and $550 for viewing a screenshot of text messages.

Complaint in the spotlight and personal PR

According to the invoices, Wilkinson billed Ten for matters outside the Lehrmann case, including a formal complaint she made against Network Seven’s Spotlight programme, and personal publicity issues involving her celebrity agent Nick Fordham.

Wilkinson’s complaint to the Australian Communications and Media Authority related to 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.

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

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

Another issue outlined in a letter from Ten’s lawyers, Thomson Geer, involved an employee at Gillis Delaney charging $650 per hour, despite a previous cost agreement of $450 per hour.

There were also duplicate time entries for invoices in February and May 2023 and February 2024, the letter said, and there was no cost 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

Judge Lee had ordered Network Ten to cover costs ‘reasonably incurred by Wilkinson’, meaning the broadcaster did not have to pay for anything outside of the Lehrmann case.

The broadcaster also argued that it did not have to pay double legal fees while Wilkinson’s lawyers were in court, but that this was not necessary as Ten’s lawyers were handling that part of the case.

However, the invoices show that Wilkinson received significant compensation for tasks that the broadcaster said were either duplicative or not directly related to the Lehrmann case.

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

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

On Monday, Network Ten’s lawyer Zoe Graus told the court they had been unable to distinguish which tasks were duplication 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 per line item.”

She said that invoices would ideally specify whether the task involved duplication or not.

Judge Lee said “two sensible lawyers” could use two highlighters to go through the invoices and work out which costs go where, using a timeline.

If Ten doesn’t pay those fees, Wilkinson will likely have to come up with the money himself.

How Lisa earned a $1.8 million bill

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

Wilkinson’s attorneys charged about $82 to read an email, $120 for a phone call, about $700 for a video call and hundreds of thousands of dollars for court hearings.

Gillis Delaney’s invoices contained thousands of entries for drafts, reviews, meetings, and phone calls, all of which were billed at the hourly rate of the attorney who completed the job.

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

A conference call cost $1,072, an affidavit cost $1,215, and an item called “preparation generally for a hearing” was billed at $2,288.

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

One invoice from May 2023 included a charge of $3,200 for four hours’ worth of material review and defense preparation, $600 for client consultation, and another $1,000 for 1.25 hours of material review and preparing evidence.

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

Wilkinson’s attorneys have been instructed to submit all additional material related to her claim by June 21.

The defamation case

Lehrmann suffered massive legal damages against Ten and Wilkinson in April when Judge Lee found that, on the balance of probabilities, he had raped Brittany Higgins at Parliament House in March 2019.

He had sued for defamation over a February 2021 episode of The Project, in which Ms Higgins first made her rape allegations in an interview with Wilkinson.

The former Liberal staffer, who had denied the allegations, was not named on 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 pay 90 percent of Ten and Wilkinson’s costs for the successful defense of the truth, and 70 percent of the costs associated with pursuing the failed qualified defense of privilege .

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

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