Richards Buell Sutton v. Gerbrandt

Richards Buell Sutton v. Gerbrandt

Registrar found on balance of probabilities that the firm's retainer letter and Standard Terms were sent and received, that there was no hourly-only agreement, that quantum meruit review applied, and that taking into account s.71(4) factors (complexity, skill, result and limited negatives) the fees as billed were fair and reasonable; Nortel-related complaints were barred by a release and the small service and record-keeping oversights did not justify reducing the account; account allowed in full with costs at Scale 3.

Citation
2003 BCSC 1675
Parties
Solicitors: Richards Buell Sutton; Client: James Gerbrandt
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
4 November 2003
Procedural Posture
Legal Bill Review (legal Profession Act) / Registrar Review Hearing (reasons for Decision)
Outcome
Solicitors' account dated June 27, 2002 allowed in full; costs awarded to solicitors at Scale 3.
Legal Topics
Quantum Meruit, Retainer Agreement, Billing Dispute, Professional Negligence, Professional Conduct, Costs, Service of Process
Source Language
English
Legal Profession Estate Litigation Civil Procedure Probate Fee Assessment Quantum Meruit Retainer Agreement Billing Dispute +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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Richards Buell Sutton

Solicitors

James Gerbrandt

Client

Procedural Posture

Legal Bill Review (legal Profession Act) / Registrar Review Hearing (reasons for Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the retainer was an hourly-rate retainer or allowed quantum meruit billing
  2. 2 Whether the solicitors could charge a success premium/bonus
  3. 3 Whether the solicitor was negligent or fraudulent in handling the Nortel shares resulting in alleged loss

Ratio Decidendi

Registrar found on balance of probabilities that the firm's retainer letter and Standard Terms were sent and received, that there was no hourly-only agreement, that quantum meruit review applied, and that taking into account s.71(4) factors (complexity, skill, result and limited negatives) the fees as billed were fair and reasonable; Nortel-related complaints were barred by a release and the small service and record-keeping oversights did not justify reducing the account; account allowed in full with costs at Scale 3.

Court Disposition

Solicitors' account dated June 27, 2002 allowed in full; costs awarded to solicitors at Scale 3.

Orders

  • Account dated June 27, 2002 allowed in full.
  • Solicitors awarded costs on Scale 3.