Quaggin v. Berg Hart Cassels LLP

Quaggin v. Berg Hart Cassels LLP

The Registrar held that the CFA was not fair or reasonable at the time it was entered into because the solicitors initiated the change to a contingent retainer to the firm's advantage, failed to provide necessary written advice of merits, risks and expected costs, did not secure or properly ensure independent legal...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2018 BCSC 1130
Parties
Client: Jennifer Anne Quaggin (also known as Jennifer Anne Gordon); Solicitors: Berg Hart Cassels LLP (also known as Hart Legal) and Darren Hart
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
9 July 2018
Procedural Posture
Examination of a Contingency Fee Agreement Under the Legal Profession Act in a Matrimonial Dispute / Registrar Hearing and Reasons for Decision Cancelling the Cfa; Bill Review Ordered and Pending Written Submissions
Outcome
Contingency fee agreement cancelled as unfair and unreasonable; registrar invoked s.68(7) to require bill preparation and review as though no CFA existed; client awarded costs for the proceeding to date at Scale B.
Legal Topics
Contingent Fee Agreements, Solicitor Client Retainer, Court Approval of CFA, Fairness and Reasonableness of Fees, Independent Legal Advice, Fee Review and Taxation
Source Language
english
Legal Profession Family Law Civil Procedure Professional Ethics Contingent Fee Agreements Solicitor Client Retainer Court Approval of CFA Fairness and Reasonableness of Fees +2 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jennifer Anne Quaggin (also known as Jennifer Anne Gordon)

Client

Berg Hart Cassels LLP (also known as Hart Legal) and Darren Hart

Solicitors

Procedural Posture

Examination of a Contingency Fee Agreement Under the Legal Profession Act in a Matrimonial Dispute / Registrar Hearing and Reasons for Decision Cancelling the Cfa; Bill Review Ordered and Pending Written Submissions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the contingent fee agreement (CFA) was fair at the time it was entered into
  2. 2 Whether the CFA was reasonable in amount given the circumstances and risks
  3. 3 Whether the solicitors provided full and frank disclosure in the without‑notice application for court approval

Ratio Decidendi

The Registrar held that the CFA was not fair or reasonable at the time it was entered into because the solicitors initiated the change to a contingent retainer to the firm's advantage, failed to provide necessary written advice of merits, risks and expected costs, did not secure or properly ensure independent legal advice for a vulnerable and mentally ill impecunious client, and failed to make full disclosure to the court for approval; accordingly the CFA was cancelled under s.68(6) and s.68(7) was invoked to require preparation and review of a bill as though no agreement existed.

Court Disposition

Contingency fee agreement cancelled as unfair and unreasonable; registrar invoked s.68(7) to require bill preparation and review as though no CFA existed; client awarded costs for the proceeding to date at Scale B.

Orders

  • Contingency fee agreement cancelled
  • Solicitors required to prepare a bill for review under s.68(7) of the Legal Profession Act