Port Moody Lawyer: Court reduces Coquitlam Law Firm’s bill.
Lawyers, like most people, are human. As such, we are prone to mistakes, errors of judgment, or suggesting an ‘octagon’ as a solution when a ‘circle’ will suffice. This happens. It is not malicious nor to pad one’s bill. Rather, it is typically a product of inexperience, miscommunication, poor mentorship, or something akin to same.
Were you, as a client of a law firm, aware that you had the legal right to dispute a bill from said law firm in the BC Courts?
In this recent case, a Coquitlam law firm had its bills reduced for a Wills and Estates matter (re the Wills, Estates, and Succession Act) by an ex-client for providing advice that may have been competent but was deemed by the Court as a unnecessary. The client had retained the Coquitlam law firm to litigate an estate file where her uncle - who did not have children of his own - passed away leaving a large estate to be distributed amongst his living family members. The client, the deceased uncle’s niece, sought to protect her rights and hired the law firm. Unfortunately, as the file progressed, the client grew frustrated with the Coquitlam law firm and terminated her retainer.
Once she hired a new firm, her file was concluded efficiently and competently.
Despite same, the Client was issued a bill from the Coquitlam law firm for roughly $19,000 for services rendered. The client brought forward an assessment of the Coquitlam law firm’s account under s. 71 of the Legal Profession Act, S.B.C. 1998, c. 9 [LPA]. She sought to pay $0.00.
Ultimately, after its review, Master Muir reduced the bill by roughly $7,000 stating as follows:
[90] I agree that in this case, the time spent and the results obtained are the driving factors on this review. The real issue is what work was necessary and proper or subsequently authorized by Donna.
[91] The efforts of DBM LLP can be broken down into objectives.
[92] DBM LLP prepared and filed a notice of dispute. They prepared a response to Gordon and Michael’s August 10, 2018 notice of application for a grant of probate, which although flawed, nevertheless, could have been successful. The probate application was adjourned due to DBM LLP successfully arguing that the BGH records were required.
[93] In my view, the steps taken to that point in the retainer were reasonably necessary and proper in order to conduct the litigation. I calculate those fees on the June 27, 2019 account to be $5,612.50.
[94] DBM LLP did not pursue the BGH records, instead, they went ahead with drafting an extensive settlement offer, which was essentially useless. Although Donna did subsequently authorize revisions to that draft settlement offer, it was a path that she was not interested in pursuing and ultimately refused to agree with. This work would not have been necessary had DBM LLP diligently pursued production of the BGH records.
[95] DBM LLP obtained a second notice of dispute. That too would have been unnecessary had it obtained production of the BGH records.
[96] DBM LLP prepared an application response on behalf of Donna to Gordon and Michael’s November 15, 2019 notice of application for their appointment as co-administrators. The production of BGH records went essentially by consent. DBM LLP was not successful in its opposition to the balance of the relief sought in the application.
[97] It is reasonable to assume, in my view, that Mr. Friesen’s clients might have pursued this application in response to an application that DBM LLP brought to obtain production of the BGH records. It appears to have been reasonable to have administrators appointed at least to have Robert’s house sold. I have concluded, therefore, that the fees incurred from November 1, 2019 onwards were reasonably necessary and proper in order to conduct the litigation. I calculate those fees on the December 17, 2019 account to be $4,550.
If you have been given a bill which you deem unreasonably high or for work that you did not instruct and/or do not find necessary, please contact TRI-CITY LEGAL at your earliest opportunity.