ANOTHER DISHONEST LAWYER
BIT THE DUST
During my years in the practice of law, I met
dishonest lawyers who ripped off their clients when it came to billing their
clients for their services. I am going
to tell you of a Toronto lawyer whom I didn`t meet but an unfortunate woman had
the misfortune of having that lawyer representing her.
A Toronto
judge has drastically reduced the 92-year-old woman’s six-figure legal bill
after the judge realized that her lawyer
was unable to explain how he reached the amount he claimed as his bill. Superior Court Justice
Edward Morgan reduced the client`s legal bill to $26,000.
The judge
said, “None of the respondent’s (lawyer`s) figures are credible; he was obviously making
it all up as he went along,” Superior Court Justice Edward Morgan wrote in a
July decision about the fee that the woman`s lawyer Lawrence Sax charged
92-yearold Eileen Newell.
The judge
also chastised the hearings officer at the Toronto assessment office, who had
originally adjudicated the dispute over the legal bill, finding she
demonstrated “inexplicable animus” toward Newell.
With
Morgan’s decision, Newell saw the $165,000 fee — which worked out to about
$2,200 an hour for what her lawyer claimed was 75 hours of work handling the
sale of a commercial building — cut down to just over $26,000.
Newell had
first taken her case against Sax to the assessment office, which handles
disputes between lawyers and clients over their legal bills. Morgan was
critical of the handling of Newell’s file by assessment officer Angelique
Palmer.
“The
assessment officer states candidly that ‘the solicitor determined what his fees
should be based on criteria that could not be demonstrated or explained to the
court,’” Morgan wrote.
“Despite the
shortcomings of Sax’s account and of his evidence in support of it, the
assessment officer upheld the account as fully payable.
“While it is
hard to fathom how this could occur, the assessment officer’s reasons do give
some insight. ”Palmer had noted in her decision that Newell, who was 91 at the
time her bill was being assessed, did not attend the assessment hearing,
although she was represented by a lawyer throughout the proceedings.
Despite the
fact that the applicant’s (client) non-attendance caused no delay in the
proceeding, the assessment officer seems to have taken umbrage at the fact that
the applicant was not present.
“In fact,
she (assessment officer) devoted four paragraphs in her reasons for decision to
a discussion of the ‘failure of the client to appear at the hearing,’” Morgan
wrote.
“In the
course of these paragraphs, the assessment officer was highly critical of the
applicant. Counsel for the applicant submits that she exhibited what can only
be described as an inexplicable animus toward the applicant.
“From a
reading of the assessment officer’s reasons for decision, I am compelled to
agree.”
Morgan said
Palmer “admonished” Newell’s lawyer at the assessment hearing for not
submitting a doctor’s note for why she could not attend.
“In doing
so, she effectively treated the applicant like a child in school whose teacher
is skeptical that she really stayed home with a cold,” Morgan wrote.
“The
assessment officer then stated that she was drawing an adverse inference from the
applicant’s non-attendance the ‘adverse’ nature of the inference apparently
being that a 91year-old litigant sending a lawyer to represent her rather than
personally sitting through a litigious proceeding could only be explained by
the 91-year-old having something to hide.”
A
spokesperson for the Ministry of the Attorney General declined to comment on
Palmer’s behalf.
At the
assessment hearing, Palmer did reduce by 20 per cent Sax’s overall bill of
$187,000, which included fees, taxes and disbursements, noting a “deficiency in
the degree of responsibility to the client.”
Palmer had
found he should have kept a record of the actual time spent working on Newell’s
case, and should not have transferred the fees from the proceeds of the sale of
the commercial building without first getting Newell’s authorization.
Newell
declined to comment to the Star through her lawyer, Robert Tanner, who
represented her at the assessment hearing and in the case before Morgan.
Sax, who was
called to the bar in 1957, intends to appeal, his lawyer David Sloan said.
Regarding
Sax billing Newell for 75 hours of work, Morgan found there was “clear evidence
in the record of false and extravagant time estimates and time that is
attributable to other old files.”
He said Sax
had also admitted during testimony that he included unbillable tasks, such as
looking for files in his storage system. Morgan reduced the number of hours to
50.
He also set
Sax’s rate at $450 an hour, noting that Sax had testified at one point that his
rate was $650 an hour, and then at another point said it was $850 an hour.
He also took
issue with Palmer limiting cross-examination of Sax to only questions that were
in direct response to what Sax raised in his testimony.
“That, of
course, is not the law, and effectively cut off applicant’s counsel from a
large part of what he legitimately would have covered in his
cross-examination,” Morgan said.
Finally, the
judge ordered Sax to pay Newell $48,500 in costs for the assessment hearing and
subsequent court hearing.
My
suggestion to my readers is tell the lawyer you want to know what his or her
hourly rate will be and get it in writing before you do business with him or
her.
No comments:
Post a Comment