Hammerberg Lawyers LLP v. Ikeda

Hammerberg Lawyers LLP v. Ikeda

The Master found the contingency agreement was fair and reasonable, the lawyer's withdrawal was justified given the client's prolonged non-cooperation, and applying the s.71 factors the fee claimed ($47,373.69) was somewhat high and should be reduced to $44,500; disbursements were allowed in full; because the reduction was less than one-sixth the firm is entitled to its costs of the review.

Citation
2016 BCSC 621
Parties
Law Firm: Hammerberg Lawyers LLP; Client: Cheryl Ellen Ikeda
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
8 April 2016
Procedural Posture
Review of Contingency Fee Agreement and Solicitor's Bill / Hearing and Decision by Master (registrar) Following Appointment for Review
Outcome
Contingency fee agreement upheld as fair and reasonable; fee reduced to $44,500; disbursements allowed in full; law firm awarded costs of the review.
Legal Topics
Contingency Fee Agreement, Fee Review, Solicitor's Lien, Reasonableness of Fees, Legal Profession Act Provisions, Underinsured Motorist Policy Limits
Source Language
English
Legal Profession Contract Personal Injury Civil Procedure Insurance Law Tort Contingency Fee Agreement Fee Review +4 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hammerberg Lawyers LLP

Law Firm

Cheryl Ellen Ikeda

Client

Procedural Posture

Review of Contingency Fee Agreement and Solicitor's Bill / Hearing and Decision by Master (registrar) Following Appointment for Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the contingency fee agreement was unfair or unreasonable at formation
  2. 2 Whether the fee charged was a fair fee under s.71 of the Legal Profession Act
  3. 3 Whether the lawyer's unilateral withdrawal was improper and prejudicial to the client

Ratio Decidendi

The Master found the contingency agreement was fair and reasonable, the lawyer's withdrawal was justified given the client's prolonged non-cooperation, and applying the s.71 factors the fee claimed ($47,373.69) was somewhat high and should be reduced to $44,500; disbursements were allowed in full; because the reduction was less than one-sixth the firm is entitled to its costs of the review.

Court Disposition

Contingency fee agreement upheld as fair and reasonable; fee reduced to $44,500; disbursements allowed in full; law firm awarded costs of the review.

Orders

  • Law firm's fee reduced and fixed at $44,500
  • Disbursements claimed by the law firm allowed in full