Costs Order and its Deterrent Effect"Where costs are incurred improperly or without reasonable cause, or are wasted through undue delay or any other misconduct or failure of a lawyer", there is a possibility that a costs order will be made against the personally liable lawyer. The court has statutory and inherent jurisdiction to make a costs order against solicitors. The court's jurisdiction to make costs orders against a legal professional personally is supported by its supervisory jurisdiction over lawyers in their capacity as officers of the court, and so as to ensure that the lawyer diligently observes his or her duty to the court to conduct dispute with fairness. In the case of White Industries (Qld) Pty Ltd v Flower & Hart (a company), Goldberg J made the following observation: Misconduct by a solicitor which will revive the jurisdiction to order costs against the solicitor. "Although the primary object of the court's jurisdiction is compensatory rather than punitive, lawyers will want to avoid the costs and negative impact on their reputation caused by the costs order. This will, of course, have a deterrent aspect and may help to discourage conduct misleading or deceptive conduct by lawyers. However, the deterrent effect of the personal costs order in restraining legal practitioners from engaging in misleading or deceptive conduct appears to be doubtful. DiscretionThe language of the Act does not oblige the court to make a costs order against a lawyer if prescribed circumstances arise, the court may refuse to make an order, which may be based on a number of considerations discretion of the court, which exercises its discretion sparingly. Furthermore, the common servility of lawyers towards their clients and the nature of the costs order, which could easily be avoided by various means, could also compromise the deterrent aspect of the sentence. to expenses. It should be noted that the jurisdiction of the court to award costs an order against a lawyer personally is distinct from the disciplinary jurisdiction of the court and, therefore, misconduct resulting in an order involving personal costs may also justify disciplinary sanctions. Therefore, to this end, the Lawyer Personal Costs Order can, in my humble opinion, be better understood as a supplementary jurisdiction to deter lawyers from unlawful conduct, including misleading and deceptive conduct, the primary purpose of which is focuses on compensation.