Nejat v. Rahmanian

2019 BCSC 1605 Nejat v. Rahmanian

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Nejat v. Rahmanian, 2019 BCSC 1605 Date: 20190828 Docket: L214362 Registry: New Westminster Re: Legal Profession Act Review Between: Sebastian Nejat, also known as Homayoun S. Nejat, doing business as Nejat Legal Counsel Solicitor And Lida Rahmanian Client Before: Registrar Nielsen Oral Reasons for Decision In Chambers For the Solicitor: No appearance Counsel for the Client: P.S. Virk Place and Date of Hearing: New Westminster, B.C. August 28, 2019 Place and Date of Decision: New Westminster, B.C. August 28, 2019 [1] THE COURT: This matter is a client-initiated review of the lawyer's bill for services in the amount of $44,800, inclusive of taxes. The account was paid in full. The initial appointment, filed April 23, 2019, and served on the lawyer, Mr. Nejat, set the matter for a full day hearing on August 28, 2019. [2] A prehearing conference took place on July 16, 2019. I presided at the prehearing conference and the only order made was that either party was entitled to a further prehearing conference if required. None was requested. Ordinarily orders for the exchange of documents and positions would be made. However, both parties stated their positions clearly at the prehearing conference and each indicated no need for further documents. [3] The client's position, in a nutshell, is that she did not get what she bargained for.

She paid the lawyer $44,800 in fees and taxes as a flat fee for him to conduct a scheduled trial. Mr. Nejat did not conduct the trial and advised he was unable to do so for personal reasons and, to quote counsel for the client, "she was left holding the bag and did not get what she bargained for." [4] Mr. Nejat, on the other hand, is presently non‑practicing and a custodian from the Law Society has taken charge of his former practice. Mr. Nejat's position, as stated at the prehearing conference, was that he provided considerable work for the client and, in fact, under billed if his hourly rate of $250 an hour is the basis of the calculation of the fees owed. However, at the prehearing conference, he did refer to his retainer as a fixed‑fee contract. [5] Mr. Nejat wrote to the registry on August 23, 2019, essentially requesting an adjournment for a host of reasons. I am not going to read the letter into the record, but I would quote it in in its entirety. l am writing to inform you that, regretfully, I am unable to attend my taxation hearing presently set for August 28, 2019. I permanently relocated from Vancouver to Victoria on August 6, 2019 for work purposes. I informed Mr. Virk, counsel for Ms. Rahmanian, that I would not be able to prepare for and attend the hearing on August 28, 2019 due to having relocated to and working full-time in Victoria, and sought an adjournment to

the next mutually-available date that fell on a day preceding or following a weekend. A copy of the said email is attached and I advise that I have not received a response to same from Mr. Virk to date. I have also not received a response from Virk to the June 19, 2019 email (also attached) that explained in detail the legal fees charged in respect of Ms. Rahmanian's file. Mr. Virk has never approached me about what Ms. Rahmanian's position is precisely regarding this fee dispute; l was simply served with unilaterally-set dates for a pre-hearing conference and the taxation hearing and Mr. Virk has never contacted me to attempt or resolve or even discuss the matter. l had hoped that my email of June 19, 2019, which l mentioned at the pre-hearing conference, would have spurred dialogue to at least narrow down the issues. Adding to the complexity of this matter on my end is that I have been non-practicing since November 26, 2018 for personal and health reasons, proceeded to close my practice in February 2019 and a Law Society Custodian has had conduct and possession of my files since I became non-practicing. Given the volume of the Rahmanian file (approximately 13-15 boxes of materials), preparation for the hearing would require coordination with the Custodian's office for the file's retrieval, production and review by me, presumably at the Law Society offices. I note that at the

time I became aware of the dates set by Mr. Virk for this taxation hearing and at the time of the pre-hearing conference, I was still residing in Vancouver. I have not been able to retain counsel for the hearing and, unfortunately, am not able to speak to an adjournment application due to not being able to take the day off work to travel to the Lower Mainland on August 28, 2019. In view of the above, I respectfully request that the matter be adjourned and Mr. Virk be asked to contact me to schedule an alternate date for the hearing. [6] Mr. Nejat did not copy counsel for the client, Mr. Virk, with the letter, who did appear today ready to proceed with the review. Mr. Virk received the letter, I believe, on August 26, 2019, only two days before the actual hearing was to proceed. [7] I reviewed the hearing record in preparation for the review today, and note in the affidavit materials multiple adjournments having been held during the course of the family law proceeding itself, and I do have a concern that that appears to be a pattern of behaviour on Mr. Nejat's part. [8] Mr. Nejat did not file an application for an adjournment with an affidavit in support, nor did he retain counsel to do so on his behalf. He has indicated in his letter that he was not able to do so. However, he does not provide any particulars of any efforts taken in this regard. In his letter of August 23, 2019,

Mr. Nejat advises he was unable to review his files to prepare for the review as they are in the possession of the custodian but, again, Mr. Nejat has not provided any particulars of his efforts, if any, to obtain access to his files in order to prepare for the hearing. Mr. Nejat has been aware of this hearing date since the appointment was filed and served, and the hearing date was specifically referenced during the course of the prehearing conference on July 16, 2019. [9] Mr. Nejat wants an adjournment and I am going to grant the adjournment. However, the adjournment will be peremptory on him, and he bears the responsibility for the costs associated with the need for the adjournment. Mr. Virk suggests those costs be $750, and I agree. So the client will have an order for $750 in costs that are payable forthwith in any event of the cause. [10] So to summarize, the matter is adjourned peremptory on Mr. Nejat; the matter will proceed when next scheduled; and Mr. Nejat is to pay the client the costs of the adjournment forthwith in the amount of $750. "Registrar Nielsen"