Shental Louise Ferguson Client v. Shawn Sidhu Law Corporation and Diamond and Diamond Lawyers, 2024 BCSC 129

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Ferguson v. Shawn Sidhu Law Corporation, 2024 BCSC 129 Date: 20240129 Docket: S235658 Registry: Vancouver Between: Shental Louise Ferguson Client And Shawn Sidhu Law Corporation and Diamond and Diamond Lawyers Law Firms Before: Registrar Gaily Reasons for Decision Counsel for the Client, Shental Ferguson: R. Fang Counsel for the Law Firm, Shawn Sidhu Law Corporation: S. Sidhu Counsel for the Law Firm, Diamond and Diamond Lawyers: No appearance Place and Date of Hearing: Vancouver, B.C. January 19, 2024 Place and Date of Judgment: Vancouver, B.C. January 29, 2024 Table of Contents Background and

Summary of LPA Proceedings .. 5 Discussion and Legal Principles .. 12 (

a) The Complexity, Difficulty or Novelty of the Issues Involved . 13 (

b) The Skill, Specialized Knowledge and Responsibility Required of the Lawyer 13 (

c) The Lawyer’s Character and Standing in the Profession .. 14 (

d) The Amount Involved . 14 (

e) The Time Reasonably Spent 15 (

f) Whether the Hourly Rate was Reasonable . 17 (

g) The Importance of the Matter to the Client 17 (

h) The Result Obtained . 17 Disposition .. 18 Costs .. 19 Introduction [ 1 ] Shental Ferguson (the “Client”) commenced this proceeding under the Legal Profession Act , S.B.C. 1998, c. 9 [ LPA ], to review the bills of her former lawyers, Shawn Sidhu Law Corporation (the “Law Firm” or Mr. Sidhu) and Diamond and Diamond Lawyers (“Diamond”). At the hearing, the Client advised that she was only proceeding with the review of the bill rendered by the Law Firm on February 10, 2023 (the “2023 Bill”).

[ 2 ] The evidence before me at the LPA review included the affidavits of Kendra Dunning, a legal assistant with Bisbicis Law Corporation (“BisLaw”), made on November 28, 2023 (the “Dunning Affidavit”), and of Jasleen Johal, a paralegal with the Law Firm, made on September 29, 2023 (the “Johal Affidavit”). Ms. Johal was cross-examined on her affidavit by Regina Fang, the Client’s counsel. The affidavits of two lawyers with Diamond, Richard Chang and Jevin Sran, made on December 8 and on September 25, 2023 respectively (the “Chang Affidavit” and the “Sran Affidavit”), were also included in the hearing record. Mr.

Sidhu did not provide his own affidavit of justification (although he was ordered to at a pre-hearing conference (“PHC”) in this matter), but he testified and was cross-examined by Ms. Fang. [ 3 ] At the LPA hearing, Ms. Fang objected to Mr. Sidhu tendering a book of documents, which he submits are the supporting documents for the 2023 Bill and are “referenced” in the Johal Affidavit. Mr. Sidhu asserted the documents were provided to Ms. Fang through SecureDocs on August 3, 2023. Ms. Fang denied receiving the documents from Mr.

Sidhu in August 2023 and asserted that he had only advised her about the documents on January 17, 2024, two days before the LPA review. The documents in the binder are not detailed pre-bills, but are the materials in the Client’s file (the “Client File Binder”). Despite the irregularity in filing, I admitted the Client File Binder. Only a few of the documents in the Client File Binder were identified at the hearing and I have placed no evidentiary weight on the majority of the documents because they were not spoken to by either Mr. Sidhu or Ms.

Johal. [ 4 ] On December 21, 2018, the Client was injured in a motor vehicle accident and she retained the Law Firm under a contingency fee agreement dated Dec. 28, 2018 (the “CFA”). In September 2019, the Law Firm entered into an association agreement with Diamond, but the Client did not execute a new retainer agreement. On June 3, 2020, Mr. Chang of Diamond filed the Client’s notice of civil claim (“NOCC”) commencing an action seeking damages for injuries she sustained in the accident (the “MV Action”). [ 5 ] The Client terminated the CFA in August 2020 when she retained BisLaw. On September 2, 2020, Mr.

Chang provided BisLaw a pre-bill estimating Diamond’s fees and disbursements, including taxes, were just under $5,000.00. The Law Firm did not provide a separate pre-bill to BisLaw estimating its fees at this time.

BisLaw paid Diamond for the disbursements incurred and in October 2020, the Client’s file was transferred to BisLaw from the Law Firm using the SecureDocs program (the file was not sent by Diamond). [ 6 ] On October 18, 2022, at the end of the second day of trial, the Client settled her MV Action; the terms of the settlement were not before me at the LPA hearing. [ 7 ] On November 18, 2022, the Law Firm rendered a bill for $18,995.50 for work on the Client’s file prior to the termination of the CFA (the “2022 Bill”).

The amount claimed was based on 33.92 hours at an hourly rate of $500 (as was provided under the CFA, discussed below), plus applicable taxes. On February 10, 2023, after the Client had commenced LPA proceedings, the Law Firm issued the 2023 Bill, in which the fees it claimed on the 2022 Bill were reduced to $9,540.72, including taxes (based on 11.79 hours at $500 per hour for “lawyer time”, and 17.49 hours at $150 per hour for “paralegal time”). On March 6, 2023, Diamond issued a bill for its fees of $4,805.67, including taxes (the “Diamond Bill”).

The 2023 Bill and the Diamond Bill are attached to the revised appointment the Client filed on November 9, 2023. I was advised at the LPA hearing that the Client had settled the Diamond Bill and it was no longer subject to review. [ 8 ] As detailed below, I find that the Law Firm’s 2023 Bill should be substantially reduced. Based on the evidence before me at the LPA review, I find that the Law Firm has failed to establish that the fees it claims were reasonably necessary and proper to the conduct of the proceeding.

Considering the circumstances, as well as the factors set out in s. 71(4) of the LPA , I find that a fair fee commensurate with the work performed by the Law Firm under the CFA to the date of its termination is $2,000, inclusive of disbursements and applicable taxes. Because I have reduced the 2023 Bill by more than 1/6 th , pursuant to s. 72(1) (

a) of the LPA , the Law Firm must pay the Client’s costs of the LPA review. Background and

Summary of LPA Proceedings [ 9 ] When the accident occurred on December 21, 2018, the Client was a passenger in a car driven by Dawn Seabrook, who I understand is related to the Client’s spouse. Ms. Seabrook’s car was struck by a car driven by Philip Guthrie near an intersection in Surrey, B.C. [ 10 ] The Client was employed at a Shoppers Drug Mart with Mr. Sidhu’s spouse, and it is through this work connection that she retained the Law Firm. Mr. Sidhu testified that he had a very busy personal injury practice and was carrying 2500 active files at the time the Client retained him. [ 11 ] Mr.

Sidhu testified that the Client was very concerned about money, and that he spent time assisting her secure litigation financing as she was concerned about paying her ongoing daily expenses as she was on leave from her work. Evidence of the Client’s litigation financing by BridgePoint Financial Services Inc. (“BridgePoint”) and Exquisite Estates Inc. was included in the hearing record (Dunning Affidavit, Ex. B, pp. 12-19; and Chang Affidavit, Ex. A). Mr.

Sidhu testified that the Client was keen to settle her claim with the Insurance Corporation of B.C. (“ICBC”) quickly because she needed money. [ 12 ] The CFA is short (four paragraphs on one page); it is signed by both the Client and Mr. Sidhu. It is exhibited to both the Dunning Affidavit (Ex.

F) and the Johal Affidavit (Ex. 2). The CFA provides that the Client agreed to pay the Law Firm 27% of the total amount recovered if a settlement was reached 85 or more days before trial, or 33 1/3% of the total amount recovered if a settlement was reached 84 or less days before trial or a judgment was awarded (para. 1). The third paragraph of the CFA provides that either party “can terminate this contract” and that if the CFA “is terminated by the Client, the Client will pay [the Law Firm] $500 per hour for services rendered plus disbursements, GST and PST.

This amount is to be paid upon termination of the contract …” (the “Termination Clause”). [ 13 ] Mr. Sidhu testified at the hearing that he learned that provisions of the Termination Clause are unenforceable and he had revised the Law Firm’s contingency fee agreements, but he did not say when he revised them. It is not disputed that the Client did not enter into a revised retainer agreement with the Law Firm.

[ 14 ] Mr. Sidhu’s evidence was that when the Client retained him, she “needed a lot of attention” and he spent time talking to her, gathering medical and employment information from her, and setting up her claim. At the LPA review, Mr. Sidhu testified that he helped the Client find a family doctor, Dr. Mandeep Gill, and requested records from this doctor. However, Mr. Chang attests that on the intake form completed by the Law Firm when the Client retained it, which was in the Client’s file provided to him, the Client advised that Dr. Gill was her doctor (Chang Affidavit, paras. 7-8, Ex. C).

The CL22, ICBC Insurance Claim Application completed by the Client on December 28, 2018 also indicates that her attending doctor is Dr. Mandeep Gill (Dunning Affidavit, Ex. X). [ 15 ] Approximately nine months after the parties entered into the CFA, on September 16, 2019, the Law Firm entered into an association with Diamond (Johal Affidavit, para. 7). Mr. Sidhu said that he connected with Diamond through a mutual friend (a paralegal in Toronto) and that they came in to assist him with his personal injury files on a fee-splitting basis (he denied it was on a referral basis). Mr.

Sidhu’s evidence about the association or merger of the Law Firm with Diamond and, in particular, the effect it had on his existing clients and the pursuit of their claims, was surprisingly vague. [ 16 ] The evidence of Ms. Johal, who was working with Mr. Sidhu at the time, about the association with Diamond was also vague. In her affidavit, she attested that on September 16, 2019, the Law Firm and Diamond “began working in association on [the Law Firm’s] personal injury files” and that after the association, Diamond “adopted [the Law Firm’s] employees in the merger” (para. 7).

She attested that from the “time of the association until August 15, 2020, the [Client] continued to correspond with both of our offices” and that, “during this time, [the Law Firm’s] staff were being transitioned under the control of [Diamond] lawyers” and that “going forward [Diamond] proceeded to correspond and run the day-to-day working of the [Client’s] file” (para. 8). [ 17 ] Mr.

Sidhu admitted that the Client did not enter into a new retainer agreement at the time of the association or merger with Diamond, and he did not think he had expressly obtained her consent to have Diamond lawyers work on her file prior to the association.

His evidence was that the Client “was aware” of the association and knew that Diamond lawyers were working on her file and she was “ok with it”; under cross-examination, he agreed that he spoke with her after the association had occurred and that a Diamond lawyer took over day-to-day conduct of her file, but he was still involved. [ 18 ] It is not disputed that the Client never entered into a retainer agreement with Diamond. In his affidavit, Mr. Chang referred to the Client’s file as a “transfer file” (Chang Affidavit, para. 2). [ 19 ] In her affidavit, Ms.

Johal attested that several steps were taken by the Law Firm to advance the Client’s claim prior to the “transition with Diamond”, which she identified as follows: • Representation letter to ICBC; • Review of adjuster package from ICBC; • Request of clinical records; • Review of clinical records, and • Correspondence to and from the [Client] providing updates of the claim process. (Johal Affidavit, para. 4). [ 20 ] Ms. Johal did not exhibit any of these documents, such as the representation letter, the adjuster package, or request for records, to her affidavit.

The ICBC adjuster package dated January 23, 2019 was included in the Client File Binder (pp. 5-7), as was the Client’s authorization to ICBC dated December 28, 2018 (p. 8). [ 21 ] Mr. Chang attested that the “CL22 [the one-page ICBC insurance claim application form], ICBC Representation Letter, Statement Letter, and

Section 103 Notice [Part 7 Accident Benefits Notice] are all standard documents submitted as part of litigating an [ sic ] personal injury claim involving the [ICBC] claim” (para. 5). Mr. Chang attested that the Law Firm “submitted the representation letter, statement letter and CL22 to ICBC” and that these documents were part of the file he received from the Law Firm (para. 6). Mr. Chang has exhibited the Client’s

Section 103 Notice to his affidavit (Ex. F). [ 22 ] In his affidavit, Mr. Sran attested that Diamond took the following steps to advance the Client’s claim prior to filing the NOCC: • Review of Clinical records received from Shawn Sidhu Law Corporation; • Drafting of Representation Letter to ICBC; • Review of adjuster Package from ICBC; • Drafting and serving ICBC with a

Section 103 Notice pursuant to the regulations; • Review of photos of the accident; • Request for updated Clinical records; • Request for employment Records; • Request for extended health file; • Drafting of a list of Special damages; • Correspondence to and conferences with the [Client] providing status updates of the claim process.

(Sran Affidavit, para. 4) [ 23 ] As noted, Diamond filed the Client’s NOCC on June 3, 2020, commencing the MV Action. The Client’s address for service on the NOCC is listed as Diamond, attention Mr. Chang. The NOCC named Mr. Guthrie as the only defendant, but it did not name Ms. Seabrook, the driver of the car in which the Client was a passenger. Both Mr. Sran and Mr. Chang attested that on April 9, 2020, the Client instructed Diamond (or as Mr. Chan phrases it, “the handling lawyer”) to settle her claim (Sran Affidavit, para. 5; Chang Affidavit, para. 16).

Diamond prepared a draft settlement proposal for the Client’s review in June after the NOCC was filed (Sran Affidavit, para. 6). Mr. Chang attested that on July 21, 2020, Diamond served the

Section 103 Notice on ICBC (para. 15 and Ex. F) [ 24 ] On August 25, 2020, BisLaw advised Diamond that they had been retained by the Client to pursue her MV Claim, and that she had terminated her retainer with them. On September 2, 2020, Mr. Chang responded to BisLaw, enclosing a Diamond pre-bill estimating their fees and disbursements, including taxes, were $4,805.67 and seeking undertakings (Sran Affidavit, para. 8, Ex. E).

When BisLaw requested a copy of the Client’s retainer agreement and supporting invoices from Diamond, Diamond provided the invoices as well as a copy of the CFA (Dunning Affidavit, paras. 5-7, Exs. D, E and F). [ 25 ] After paying the disbursements to Diamond (Sran Affidavit, para. 9), BisLaw requested the Client’s file. In response, on October 20, 2020, an individual named Gagan Aujla, whose email was associated with the Law Firm, provided the Client’s file to BisLaw through the SecureDocs program (Dunning Affidavit, paras. 10-13, Exs. I and J). [ 26 ] The defendant, Mr.

Guthrie, filed his response to the NOCC on November 10, 2020 (Chang Affidavit, Ex. K). [ 27 ] Ms. Dunning attested that on January 23, 2019, ICBC had written to the Law Firm advising of Ms. Seabrook’s “involvement in the MVA Proceeding” (para. 17, Ex.

M) and that on Nov. 18, 2020, ICBC had emailed BisLaw advising that Ms. Seabrook was the principal defendant (para. 17). Ms. Dunning attested that on December 17, 2020, Ms. Fang (who was then an articling student) appeared before Master Muir, who granted the Client’s application to amend the NOCC adding Ms. Seabrook as a defendant (para. 16, Ex. L). BisLaw filed the Client’s amended NOCC on December 17, 2020. [ 28 ] On July 7, 2021, counsel for Ms. Seabrook filed her response to the amended NOCC, and on July 16, 2021, counsel for Mr. Guthrie filed his amended response.

On March 3, 2022, BisLaw filed the Client’s second amended NOCC. The court record reflects that there were several applications prior to the first day of trial, which was set for 15 days. On October 18, 2022, at the end of the second day of trial, the Client settled her MV Action. [ 29 ] On November 10, 2022, Ms. Fang was in communication with Mr. Sidhu who advised that the pre-bill issued by Diamond was incorrect and a new bill would be sent (Dunning Affidavit, para. 20, Ex. N). On November 18, 2022, Mr.

Sidhu rendered a bill for $18,995.50 for his work on the Client’s file prior to the termination of the CFA, which is the 2022 Bill, which he sent to Ms. Fang on November 21, 2022 (see Dunning Affidavit, para. 22, Ex. P). [ 30 ] On January 3, 2023, in the MV Action, Ms. Fang filed an appointment seeking to review the 2022 Bill under the LPA , setting a pre-hearing conference (“PHC”) for January 11 and the hearing of the review for May 23 for one day. Although the LPA proceedings were not properly commenced, I made orders at the PHC including the production of the Law Firm’s supporting documents.

On Feb. 10, 2023, the Law Firm issued the revised 2023 Bill. As noted, the Diamond Bill was rendered on March 6, 2023, revising the amounts claimed in the pre-bill sent to BisLaw in October 2020. [ 31 ] After the Client filed an appointment properly commencing these LPA proceedings, Ms. Fang and counsel for Diamond appeared before me at a second PHC on September 8, 2023, but Mr. Sidhu did not appear. I extended the deadlines for the orders made at the first PHC. Position of the Parties [ 32 ] Mr.

Sidhu maintains that the fees set out on the 2023 Bill were reasonably necessary and proper to conduct the Client’s MV Action. His evidence was that when he realized he had made a mistake in the fees claimed on the 2022 Bill (that is, charging $500 per hour for all the time billed, including support staff), he revised the fees in the 2023 Bill to reflect the lower hourly rate for paralegal time. He submits that in recording time, he had reduced the 2023 Bill to the “bare bones” work he and his staff performed for the Client.

He admits that the narratives in the 2023 Bill are vague and submitted that the documents in the Client File Binder tendered at the LPA hearing, support the fees claimed and should be examined with the Law Firm’s 2023 Bill. Mr. Sidhu submitted that he did the best he could for the Client during the retainer. [ 33 ] The Client’s position is that Mr. Sidhu has not established that the fees he claims were reasonably necessary and proper to conduct the Client’s MV Action and that he is not entitled to any fees because he did not establish what work he and his staff actually performed for her.

She submits that any substantive work on the Client’s file to advance her claim prior to the termination of the CFA was done by lawyers with Diamond and that the work Mr.

Sidhu claims he is entitled to be paid for was either performed by his support staff, or was standard, pro forma work, which is conducted on every motor vehicle claim, for which he has overbilled. [ 34 ] Alternatively, the Client submits that if I find the Law Firm is entitled to some fees, those fees should be substantially reduced; she proposes an hourly rate of $50 for the Law Firm’s support staff and an hourly rate of $300 for the lawyers, which would reduce the fees on the 2023 Bill to $1,624 including applicable taxes.

Discussion and Legal Principles [ 35 ] On a review under the LPA , the authorities are clear that the lawyer bears the onus to prove that the work done and the accounts issued for the work done were necessary and reasonable (see , for example, Purcell v. McLean , 2023 BCSC 365 , para. 22 ). In Cao v. Tsui & Cao Law Corporation , 2015 BCSC 2072 at para. 24 , which involved a review of a lawyer’s fees charged under a contingency fee

agreement, District Registrar Nielsen (as he then was) reiterated that the lawyer “has the burden of proving what was done, why it was done, the time it took, and why it took the amount of time billed.” [ 36 ] Section 71(2) of the LPA provides that the registrar must allow fees, charges and disbursements reasonably necessary and proper to the conduct of the proceeding, or those authorized by the client , whether or not the services were reasonably necessary and proper to conduct the proceeding or business to which they relate. [ 37 ] In the course of this analysis, the registrar must consider all the circumstances, including those enumerated in s. 71(4) of the LPA , which provides: 71

(4) At a review of a lawyer's bill, the registrar must consider all of the circumstances, including (

a) the complexity, difficulty or novelty of the issues involved, (

b) the skill, specialized knowledge and responsibility required of the lawyer, (

c) the lawyer's character and standing in the profession, (

d) the amount involved, (

e) the time reasonably spent, (

f) if there has been an agreement that sets a fee rate that is based on an amount per unit of time spent by the lawyer, whether the rate was reasonable, (

g) the importance of the matter to the client whose bill is being reviewed, and (

h) the result obtained. [ 38 ] The authorities on LPA reviews hold that at the end of the day, the registrar “should allow a fair fee commensurate with the work performed in the retainer and taking into account all of the circumstances”: Kuo v. Waldmann , 2020 BCSC 495 , para. 57 (appeals dismissed 2022 BCSC 329 and 2023 BCCA 123 ). [ 39 ] As the circumstances set out in s. 71(4) of the LPA must be considered on a review, I will address each of them, together with the Client’s objections. [ 40 ] At the LPA review, I had to direct Mr. Sidhu to address each of the LPA factors (they were not attested to in Ms.

Johal’s affidavit, which he had tendered as the affidavit of justification) and it was clear he had not reviewed the relevant provisions of the LPA prior to the hearing or prepared submissions. While I acknowledge Mr. Sidhu had hoped the LPA review would settle, this does not obviate the need for preparation, particularly where he bears the onus of proof. (

a) The Complexity, Difficulty or Novelty of the Issues Involved [ 41 ] Mr. Sidhu testified that when he had conduct of the Client’s file, it was still in its early stages and he was developing her claim and communicating with the Client about the legal process. He admitted that explaining the legal process to the Client was not difficult or complex. The NOCC filed by Diamond is a short, boilerplate pleading and I find that, based on the evidence before me at the LPA review, the Law Firm did not establish that the Client’s file involved complex, difficult or novel issues. (

b) The Skill, Specialized Knowledge and Responsibility Required of the Lawyer [ 42 ] Mr. Sidhu’s evidence was that the Client needed attention and that there was a lot of communication with her. As discussed further below under the heading, “the time reasonably spent”, the vast majority of the entries on the 2023 Bill recorded under both “lawyer time” and “paralegal time” are for communicating with the Client (texts, emails and phone calls) without any further description of the content of the communications.

The Client may have been concerned about her finances and her injuries, but I find that during the time that the Law Firm had conduct of it, the Client’s file was not a file that required skill, specialized knowledge or responsibility on Mr. Sidhu’s part. (

c) The Lawyer’s Character and Standing in the Profession [ 43 ] Mr. Sidhu testified that he was called to the bar in 2013 and practices mainly personal injury law, which he described as “a noble profession”. At the time of the retainer, he was a 5-6 year call, and had run his own practice for four years or so. [ 44 ] Mr. Sidhu admits that he agreed with the Law Society of B.C. (“LSBC”) that he will not practice real estate law. Mr.

Sidhu said that the following a LSBC practice review, he agreed that he will not practice real estate law because he said he needs to take more courses in the area and be supervised by a senior real estate practitioner. Mr. Sidhu has no discipline record with the LSBC. [ 45 ] In the circumstances of this case, I consider Mr. Sidhu’s practice restriction with the LSBC to be a neutral factor. (

d) The Amount Involved [ 46 ] As I noted above, I do not know the terms of the settlement of the Client’s MV Action and there was no evidence before me at

the LPA review of the amount the Client received as settlement. [ 47 ] Although the terms of the Client’s settlement with Diamond for its fees were not before me, the Law Firm’s 2023 Bill is double the amount of the Diamond Bill attached to the appointment. As discussed in the next sections, I find that the evidence before me at the LPA review establishes that the Law Firm performed less work on the Client’s file than Diamond. (

e) The Time Reasonably Spent [ 48 ] Mr. Sidhu maintains that the time recorded on the 2023 Bill was reasonably spent on work on the Client’s file. At the hearing, he testified that the Law Firm does not use a program for contemporaneous time recording, but that lawyers and staff would record time on the file through notes.

He admitted that sometimes people forgot to record their initials (none are indicated on the 2022 and 2023 Bills), and if he forgot to keep track of his time, he would make notes after the fact, but would give a conservative time estimate. [ 49 ] On both the 2022 Bill and the 2023 Bill, the “lawyer time” recorded is 11.79 hours and the “paralegal time” recorded is 17.49 hours.

As noted above, the difference between the amounts claimed on the two bills was because the Law Firm charged $500 per hour for all of the time recorded on the 2022 Bill, but had reduced the hourly rate of the paralegal time to $150 per hour on the 2023 Bill. [ 50 ] At the hearing, Mr. Sidhu could not confirm that all of the lawyer time on the 2023 Bill was his, and he thought there might have been two other junior lawyers who recorded their time on the Client’s file as well. [ 51 ] Mr. Sidhu thought Ms. Johal was the only paralegal who worked on the Client’s file and he thought she was a designated paralegal.

However, Ms. Johal could not confirm that all of the paralegal time recorded on the 2023 Bill was her time and she testified that there were other paralegals working at the Law Firm at the time, some of whom had less experience than she did, who likely recorded time on the Client’s file. There was no evidence before me as to Ms. Johal’s credentials. [ 52 ] On the 2023 Bill, Mr. Sidhu confirmed that the 1.5 hour entry on December 28, 2018 for “initial meeting with client” was for his time.

He also confirmed that he recorded 1 hour on January 4, 2019 for “review of adjuster package from ICBC”, 1 hour on June 14, 2019 for “review of tax documents from client”, and 1.1 hours on October 28, 2018 for “review of Dr. Mandeep Gill records”. [ 53 ] On cross-examination, Ms. Fang put to Mr. Sidhu that it should not have taken him one hour to review the adjuster package, which was included in the Client File Binder and was only three pages long. The ICBC adjuster package is dated January 23, 2019 and Mr. Sidhu admitted he probably made a mistake on the date entry on the 2023 Bill. Mr.

Sidhu asserted that the adjuster package was actually 55 pages, and the Client File Binder includes 45 pages of documents dated January 23, 2019 with the header, “Claim: BE95833- 2A” (which is the claim number on the Client’s CL22 form application) and Ms. Seabrook’s name. I find that an hour spent reviewing the adjuster package in January 2019 was reasonable. [ 54 ] The Client File Binder includes a copy of the Client’s 2018 and 2017 tax returns, which indicate they were submitted to the CRA on June 6, 2019. On cross-examination, Ms. Fang put it to Mr.

Sidhu that it should not have taken him one hour to review the Client’s tax returns as recorded on June 14, 2019. The Client’s tax returns are straight-forward and I agree that one hour to review the two returns is excessive. [ 55 ] Mr. Sidhu agreed that records were not requested from the Client’s family doctor, Dr. Gill, until July 2019 (over six months after she retained the Law Firm), but he testified that he normally waits about half a year to request records unless the client’s injuries are catastrophic. Neither Mr. Sidhu (nor Ms. Fang) directed me to copies of Dr.

Gill’s records in the Client File Binder to support that it took him 1.1 hours to review the records. [ 56 ] The 2023 Bill includes several lawyer entries for “communication with litigation lender” (January 21, 25 and 29, 2019), as well as for “call with EasyLegal” (a litigation financer) and “call to client re BridgePoint” (a litigation lender). The time recorded for these calls totals just over an hour.

In my view, a support staff could contact the litigation lenders for the Client (and many of the entries for paralegal time are for communication with BridgePoint and EasyLegal) and the time recorded by a lawyer for these tasks is not time reasonably spent. [ 57 ] As noted above, the narrative for the majority of the entries on the 2023 Bill is vague, simply stating, “email communication with/from/to client” without stating what the communication was about. Several of the paralegals’ time entries are for “email to/with ICBC” without further description.

Without any indication of what the communications were about, it is impossible to determine whether the time recorded was accurate or whether it was reasonably spent. (

f) Whether the Hourly Rate was Reasonable [ 58 ] As noted, the Termination Clause of the CFA provided that the Client agreed to pay an hourly rate of $500 for the legal services, which was reflected on the 2022 Bill. On the 2023 Bill, the hourly rate of $500 was charged for the lawyer time, and the hourly rate for the paralegal time was reduced to $150. [ 59 ] Mr. Sidhu was in his fifth or sixth year of practice when he was retained by the Client (he was called to the bar in December 2013). Mr.

Sidhu admitted that other, more junior, lawyers worked on the Client’s file, but there is no distinction between the junior lawyer rates and his rate on the 2023 Bill. I find that the hourly rate of $500 for lawyer’s fees, regardless of their level of call, was high in the circumstances. [ 60 ] Although Ms. Johal’s evidence was that she and other paralegals worked on the Client’s file, there was no evidence before me of their experience or the nature of the tasks they performed or how they delegated the tasks between them.

There was also no evidence confirming that all of the time recorded was by a paralegal, as opposed to a legal assistant. I find that a blanket rate of $150 per hour for “paralegal time” is excessive in the circumstances.

(

g) The Importance of the Matter to the Client [ 61 ] Mr. Sidhu emphasized the Client’s concern about her finances and that she wanted to settle the MV Action quickly. It is clear that the matter was important to the Client. (

h) The Result Obtained [ 62 ] The Client terminated the CFA approximately two months after the NOCC was filed by Diamond commencing her MV Action and I have considered the results that were obtained for the Client during this time, based on the evidence before me at the LPA review. [ 63 ] While the 2023 Bill indicates that there was a great deal of communication between the Client and Mr. Sidhu and his staff, I agree with Ms.

Fang that the only substantive work recorded by a lawyer on the 2023 Bill was to review the ICBC adjuster package, review the Client’s tax returns, and review the records of her family physician (although I have found that it should have taken less time than recorded). I do not find securing litigation financing for a client to be a result that should be taken into account on an LPA review. [ 64 ] During the time the Law Firm was retained under the CFA, I find that there was minimal progress on the Client’s file to justify the fees claimed on the 2023 Bill.

Disposition [ 65 ] The Law Firm had conduct of the Client’s file shortly after the accident, while it was in its preliminary stages. I find that the Client’s file was transferred to Diamond approximately nine months after the parties executed the CFA and that the Diamond lawyers and staff, whose bill is not under review, performed more substantive work than the Law Firm did. Based on the evidence before me at the LPA hearing, the steps taken by the Law Firm during its retainer were standard, information gathering steps, which did not require any specialized skill on the part of the lawyers and staff.

The Law Firm is a personal injury firm; files like the Client’s file are their bread and butter. [ 66 ] In considering the factors under s. 71(4) of the LPA , particularly the time reasonably spent and the reasonableness of the hourly rates claimed when the CFA was terminated, I find the fees claimed on the 2023 Bill to be excessive. While I accept that the Law Firm’s lawyers and staff performed some work on the Client’s file that was useful in getting her MV Action underway, Mr.

Sidhu did not establish that all of the time recorded on the 2023 Bill was reasonably necessary and proper for the conduct of the Client’s file, nor did he overcome the problems presented by the generic narratives throughout the 2023 Bill to establish that the charges were necessary and proper. [ 67 ] Considering the circumstances of this case, as well as all of the factors outlined above, I find that a fair fee is $2,000, inclusive of disbursements, and applicable taxes.

Costs [ 68 ] With respect to the costs of the LPA review, s. 72(1) of the LPA provides that the costs of an LPA review must be paid by the lawyer whose bill is reviewed “if 1/6 th or more of the total amount of the bill is subtracted from it”, or by the client “if less than 1/6 th of the total amount of the bill is subtracted from it”. [ 69 ] I have reduced the Law Firm’s 2023 Bill by more than 1/6 th . Pursuant to s. 72(1) (

a) of the LPA , the Law Firm must pay the Client’s costs of the LPA review. [ 70 ] Neither party made submissions on costs. Costs of the LPA review are normally based on Items 1, 2, 24, 25 and 41 of the Tariff in Appendix B of the Supreme Court Civil Rules , B.C. Reg. 168/2009 [ SCCR ] governing party-and-party costs. [ 71 ] If the parties are unable to agree to costs, which I suspect may reduce the Law Firm’s 2023 Bill to $0, given that the review hearing took one full day, they may set an appointment to assess the costs. [ 72 ] If they are able to agree on costs, I direct Ms.

Fang, the Client’s counsel, to prepare a Certificate of Fees in Form 65, showing that the total amount owing to the Law Firm is $2,000, less whatever the parties agree are the Client’s costs of the LPA review, and submit it to the registry for my signature. “Registrar Gaily”