Ryan Law Group v. Chiu,

2011 BCSC 1770 Ryan Law Group v. Chiu

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Ryan Law Group v. Chiu, 2011 BCSC 1770 Date: 20111222 Docket: S114347 Registry: Vancouver Between: Ryan Law Group Solicitors And Lyren Chiu Client Before: Registrar Sainty Reasons for Decision Counsel for the Solicitors: J.W. Ryan Counsel for the Client: M.C.T. Ash Place and Date of Hearing: Vancouver, B.C. September 16, 2011 and November 1,2011 Place and Date of Judgment: Vancouver, B.C. December 22, 2011 [1] This matter first came before me on September 16, 2011 to perform a review of a lawyer's bill pursuant to the provisions of the Legal Profession Act, S.B.C. 1998, c. 9 [Act]. The matter did not finish on that date and it was put over to November 1, 2011. There was not sufficient time remaining on that day for me to decide the issues and I reserved my decision and am now publishing it. [2] The client (Ms Chiu) filed the appointment to review the solicitors' bill to her. Ms Ash appeared before me acting as the client's counsel. Mr. Ryan appeared on behalf of the solicitors (effectively on his own behalf). [3] At the hearing Mr. Ryan testified and was cross-examined by Ms Ash. Ms Chiu also testified and was cross-examined. We concluded the direct and cross-examination of Mr. Ryan and the direct examination of Ms Chiu on September 16, 2011. The matter was then reset for a further half day on November 1, 2011. On that day Ms

Chiu was cross-examined by Mr. Ryan and I heard submissions from both of the parties. As noted, I then reserved my decision. [4] The account in issue is dated October 22, 2010. It relates to time expended by Mr. Ryan on two or three different matters from March 14, 2009 through and including October 15, 2010. The account is for $12,925 and is represented by 47 hours (at $275 per hour) of Mr. Ryan's time. In addition to the fees for the time expended the account requests payment in respect of a few relatively small disbursements -- $384 in taxable disbursements and $46 in non taxable disbursements. There are also taxes on both the fees and on the taxable disbursements totalling $1,607 resulting in a total account for fees, disbursements and taxes of $14,962.80. [5] I do not believe that any monies have as yet been paid by the client to the solicitors for any of the work done. If I am wrong in this regard, I invite the parties to agree to deduct from whatever amount I decide to be reasonable the amount the client has paid. Unfortunately, my notes in respect of payment (or not) by the client are unclear, perhaps because this review took place over two half days and at the end of the second half day I did not have the sufficient time to review my notes on the issues I must decide nor to confirm whether any monies had been paid towards the account. [6] A review of the lawyer's bill

is undertaken pursuant to the provisions of the Act. On such a review a registrar is to allow the solicitor to charge such fees, charges and disbursements as she considers reasonably necessary and proper to conduct the proceeding or business to which they relate. She is also to consider all of the circumstances of the matter including the following factors [see section 71(4) of the Act]: (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. [7] Before embarking on a review of the specific factors and applying them to the evidence in this matter, I will set out briefly the facts as I understand them. [8] Ms Chiu originally contacted Mr. Ryan as two of her employees (who did not speak English very well) needed some legal advice. She was referred to Mr. Ryan by a colleague. Ms Chiu came to see Mr. Ryan with these employees (to assist with translating). Mr. Ryan provided those employees with some advice. During the course

of the discussions with the employees, Mr. Ryan was made aware of a situation Ms Chiu was having with her business partner (Sonia Huang). Ms Chiu and Ms Huang had together started a business enterprise: Beautiful Feet Enterprises Inc. ("Beautiful Feet"). Both Ms Chiu and Ms Huang put some money into Beautiful Feet. It was apparently understood that both Ms Chiu and Ms Huang would work in the business and devote their time and efforts to growing that business. In fact a "partnership agreement" was prepared and signed by both the client and Ms Huang (despite the fact that the business was an incorporated company) confirming the parties respective contributions to the business, setting out how profits were to be divided among them and providing for resolution of all disputes regarding the "partnership" by arbitration. That agreement was executed on August 29, 2008. Not long after Beautiful Feet was incorporated and commenced business, Ms Huang froze Beautiful Feet's bank account, cancelled the company's Visa and MasterCard facilities, started her own (competing) business directly opposite the Beautiful Feet location, and generally interfered in the business activities of Beautiful Feet. [9] Ms Chiu discussed these issues and her options with Mr. Ryan. Mr. Ryan told me at the hearing that, in his view, as Beautiful Feet had not been in operation for very long there was a

significant downside to simply winding up the company, particularly as some not insignificant amount would be due to the landlord of the premises out of which Beautiful Feet operated its business. Ms Chiu was a guarantor of the lease. [10] Mr. Ryan testified that he advised Ms Chiu of her options which included: a) Keeping Ms Huang as a silent partner; b) Selling the company and continuing in some form of business on her own; c) Closing down the business operations; d) Bringing an action and going to court and asking the court to remove Ms Huang from the business as a shareholder/partner. [11] Mr. Ryan did not suggest that some form of arbitration be sought (in accordance with the partnership agreement). Mr. Ryan told me at the hearing that he did not feel that agreement was valid as it was for a partnership, not a corporate entity which is what Beautiful Feet was. [12] On March 25, 2009, Mr. Parhar, counsel for Ms Huang, wrote to Ms Chiu noting that he had been retained and proposing settlement of matters relating to Beautiful Feet by transferring Ms Huang's shares in that company to Ms Chiu upon payment of certain monies Ms Huang alleged were owed to her by Beautiful Feet. [13] Mr. Ryan responded on Ms Chiu's behalf alleging that, as Beautiful Feet's liabilities exceeded it assets and was operating at a loss, Ms Huang's shares were worth nothing yet offering Ms Huang $10,000

for her shares. No agreement was reached between the Ms Chiu and Ms Huang. [14] On April 20, 2009 Ms Huang commenced an action (Huang v. Chui and Beautiful Feet Enterprise, Inc., BCSC, Vancouver Registry, Docket No. S-092931 (the "Action")) against Ms Chiu. In the action Ms Huang claims against Ms Chiu and Beautiful Feet Enterprises Inc. certain relief as follows: a. Rescission and restitution; in the alternative b. General damages; c. Damages for breach of contract; d. Disgorgement of profits; e. An order directing that BFE, Inc. be liquidated and dissolved; and f. The appointment of a receiver and/or receiver manager for BFE, Inc.; g. A tracing of the funds; h. Production of financial statements and accounting; i. Interest pursuant to the Court Order Interest Act; j. Costs; and k. Such further and other relief as this Honourable Court may deem just. [15] On advice from Mr. Ryan, Ms Chiu proceeded to personally purchase the assets of Beautiful Feet. Specifically, effective April 28, 2009, Ms Chiu wound-up Beautiful Feet's business. She first hired someone to value the business assets (essentially the lease hold improvements, some supplies and equipment). She then established a purchase price on the basis of that valuation. She accrued all of the monies in Beautiful Feet to April 28 and then froze the bank account. Next she transferred the assets of Beautiful Feet to herself

(by way of a bill of sale). She assigned the lease of the premises to a new company (Beautiful Minds Consulting Inc. ("Beautiful Minds")). She also paid employee salaries and CRA remittances with the money accrued in Beautiful Feet's bank account and, from the remaining funds in that account she determined (based on the hours spent by each of her and Ms Huang and in accordance with minutes of certain Beautiful Feet shareholders' meetings held earlier) how to divide the remaining monies between herself and Ms Huang. [16] Mr. Ryan sent Mr. Parhar copies of the documents effecting the transfer. In his letter to Mr. Parhar, Mr. Ryan says, in part: As a result of your client's actions, in order to avoid bankruptcy and resultant personal liabilities of the lease executed by my client and yours and the total loss of the monies invested in the leasehold improvements by both your client and mine, my client retained a certified appraiser who valued the assets at $23,395.60. Beautiful Minds Consulting purchased the assets at that price. Monies had and received since the date of your clients departure were deposited and drawn out of the TD Bank Account. Item 8, indicates that 17 cheques were drawn out of the TD account in payment of Ryan Law Group, the appraiser, and the employees of the Company (statutory creditors). A cheque was drawn to Lyren Chui for salary. A cheque was also signed

and forwarded to your client in the sum of $1836.55 from the CIBC account and an additional cheque was drawn from the TD Bank and sent to your client in the sum of $1,327.68. A cheque was also drawn and payable to CRA to cover the statutory payroll remittances for Sonia [Ms Huang] and Lyren [Ms Chiu] in the sum of $15,067.04. Please be advised that earnings for both Sonia and Lyren were calculated on the basis of the time and value both had contributed to the Company. [17] The cheque noted above and payable to Ryan Law Group was in payment of an account dated April 28, 2009 from Mr. Ryan to Beautiful Feet in the amount of $825.00 in fees, $5.00 in photocopies, plus taxes for an account totalling $929.25. The description on that account of the work done is: Fee My Fee Herein; In connection with finalizing all matters concerning Beautiful Feet Enterprise Inc. [18] Mr. Ryan filed an appearance in the Action on May 1 and a statement of defence on May 22, 2009. Both the appearance and the statement of defence were filed on Ms Chiu's behalf alone. No counter-claim was put forward. Ms Huang prepared a list of documents (August 25, 2009). Ms Chiu assisted Mr. Ryan in putting together (and in copying) her list of documents which was dated September 28, 2009. On November 11, 2009, Mr. Parhar made a without prejudice (except as to costs) offer to settle the Action on payment by Ms Chiu to

Ms Huang of the sum of $50,000. Ms Chiu was examined for discovery (for a full day) on or about January 11, 2010. Thereafter not much occurred in relation to the Action. In addition to his work on the client's behalf in relation to the Action, throughout the retainer, Mr. Ryan regularly responded to email inquiries from the client regarding issues in respect of Beautiful Mind (after the transfer from Beautiful Feet to Beautiful Mind took place). [19] Between the examination for discovery (January 2010) and October 2010, other than a few general inquiries, not much work was done in respect of the Action or otherwise. In October 2010 the client changed solicitors in the Action and Mr. Ryan rendered the account that is in issue in this proceeding. Mr. Ryan issued no other accounts to the client throughout the retainer. [20] Mr. Ryan seeks that I uphold the bill in its entirety. He submits that all of the work was necessary and proper and further that he was instructed to carry out that work on the client's behalf. He further submits that he did an excellent job for the client in that he protected her from the difficulties she might have run into had she not transferred the business assets into Beautiful Mind particularly in respect of the lease of the premises which she had personally guaranteed. [21] Ms Chiu challenges Mr. Ryan's bill on a number of bases as set out in Ms Ash's

written submissions as follows: (a) The law firm's performance was not up to the standards to be expected in their handling of this file. In particular, the following mistakes are alleged: (i) There was a failure to adequately explain process, procedure and law to the client sufficiently to allow her to make informed decisions; (ii) There was a failure to explain the weaknesses of her case to the client, and a failure to advise her of the risks of certain conduct, or to advise her not to undertake certain conduct, all of which has exposed her to liability; (iii) There was an error made in the instructions given to the client which has exposed her to liability; (iv) There was a failure to direct the litigation into arbitration under the Commercial Arbitration Act (or at least to seek instructions on whether to do so); (v) There was a failure to file a counterclaim to assert violations of the Partnership Agreement by the Plaintiff to offset the client's potential liability to the Plaintiff; (vi) There was a failure to advise the client of a formal offer to settle made by the Plaintiff in November 2009, and of the consequences thereof; (vii) There was a failure to make an offer to settle as directed by client in January 2010; and (viii) There was a failure to adequately prepare the client for her discovery in January 2010; and in the alternative (b) The law firm has double billed

Ms Chiu for work performed in connection with the dissolution and sale of Beautiful Feet. (c) The law firm has improperly billed Ms Chiu for work done by Mr. Ryan for other clients. (d) The law firm billed Ms Chiu $250 for photocopying without justification. (e) The law firm has billed Ms Chiu excessive amounts for certain communication. [22] My greatest concerns in respect to this matter arise from the fact that, firstly, Mr. Ryan failed to obtain a retainer agreement from Ms Chiu with respect to the work that was to be done and, secondly, despite representing Ms Chiu for a significant period of time (almost two years) Mr. Ryan provided no accounts to Ms Chiu until she sought to retain new counsel. In my view it is extremely difficult for clients to understand the nature of legal services to be and actually performed or the amount that those legal services might cost if they are not given clear retainer agreements setting out the work to be done and if they do not get regular billings setting out the cost of the work done from time to time. Those observations relate to my obligation, as set out in the Act to consider "all of the circumstances" of the matter. As noted above, in addition to considering all circumstances, I am also obliged to take into account the specific provisions of section 71(4) of the Act which I have enumerated above. I intend now to review those factors

and provide some comments on each of them. [23] I do not see this as being a particularly complex, difficult or novel matter. It concerned a shareholder's dispute. To some extent the matter was made somewhat complicated by the fact that English is not the client's first language and she appeared to have some difficulties in understanding the advice Mr. Ryan was giving her. She also sought regular advice from Mr. Ryan on a number of issues, although she claims that Mr. Ryan did not adequately explain the process and procedure to her and that, in and of itself, lead to a certain number of her questions. [24] In his testimony, Mr. Ryan stated that he fully responded to each of the client's questions and he produced a series of emails strings to illustrate his responses. [25] While I agree that Mr. Ryan responded to the client's inquiries and provided some information to her the explanations given in respect to her questions were quite cryptic and not necessarily responsive. In fact they were extremely short. By way of an example I will reproduce a series of emails between Mr. Ryan and the client in respect of an examination for discovery. [26] The first email was written on Thursday, September 24, 2009 at 1:27 p.m. Mr. Ryan wrote to Ms Chiu as follows: Lyren are you available for a discovery of you and Sonia on October 13, 2009? Wayne. [27] Ms Chiu then says (at 3:12 p.m. that

same day): Dear Wayne: I don't know the discovery means. Could you please arrange any meeting after Oct. 16 since I hold a national drum then? Lyren. [28] Mr. Ryan responds some 20 minutes later saying: Lyren: The other lawyer asks sworn question of you before a court reporter. I get to ask questions about the other side. I prepare you before the examination for discovery. I will try for a date the following week. Wayne. [29] Ms Chiu replies (at 4:05 p.m.): Dear Wayne: Does it mean that we need to go to a court? Not quite sure what it is about? Lyren. [30] Finally, Mr. Ryan responds (at 4:37 p.m.) as follows: If they serve us with a notice of trial we must go to court. No notice yet just discovery now. Wayne. [31] Someone not familiar with the court process and whose first language is not English is not likely to understand from that exchange what an examination for discovery is, nor what to expect from one. Without a doubt it is incumbent on counsel to ensure that his client adequately understands the litigation process when retained to assist a client with an action. I am not satisfied that Mr. Ryan adequately explained matters on a regular basis to the client and that in and of itself complicated this matter. [32] Further, the failure to provide regular accounts added a level of complexity in the sense that the client continually asked Mr. Ryan questions about the litigation

process, as well as what happened after the asset transfer had taken place because she did not understand what had happened. Nor did she understand that every time she communicated with Mr. Ryan it cost her money. [33] The next factor the Act directs me to consider is: "the skill, specialized knowledge and responsibility required of the lawyer". Ms Ash on behalf of the client has suggested that Mr. Ryan made a number of mistakes. I have reproduced her submissions earlier in this decision and will not repeat them here. [34] There was no specific evidence before me as to what liability Ms Chiu was exposed to as a result of Mr. Ryan's actions. [35] The Action was started shortly before the sale of the assets of Beautiful Feet to Beautiful Mind was effected and after some (brief) settlement negotiations. In her submissions, Ms Ash suggested that settlement (or at least further settlement discussions) should have been pursued. There was, however, no independent evidence that any efforts made to settle would have borne fruit had they been undertaken. [36] The partnership agreement specifically provides for arbitration in the face a dispute. Ms Ash intimated that Mr. Ryan ought to have somehow used the provisions of that agreement and insisted on arbitration of the dispute, rather than defending the Action. Mr. Ryan's testimony was that while he saw the partnership agreement as a

"problem document" he did not see it as having any real bearing in the matter because the business was run by a corporation (Beautiful Feet) rather than by a partnership. [37] Generally speaking it is not incumbent upon a registrar on a review of a lawyer's bill to determine whether the lawyer was "mistaken" in matters he undertook on behalf of the client. That being said, however, it is appropriate for a registrar to consider the actual work done by a lawyer for his client. [38] Here, I find that Mr. Ryan was not as meticulous as he should have been in acting on the client's behalf in the Action. Mr. Ryan has a number of years at the bar. Ms Chiu is not a sophisticated business person (despite Mr. Ryan's insistence that she was no stranger to lawyers and that she had previously incorporated a company). In circumstances such as these (where the client is not sophisticated and it is clear she is having some difficulty grasping the nature of the proceeding), it would have been judicious for Mr. Ryan to have set out in writing (in a thorough and descriptive manner) exactly what he was doing for Ms Chiu and the consequences (or not) of the instructions he sought. In my experience where a person has difficulties with English, it is extremely useful and helpful to fully explain matters in writing. This not only protects counsel (from claims against him) but allows a client an

opportunity to consider and digest information over a period of time and to refer back to it in moments of uncertainty. [39] In respect to the allegation that Mr. Ryan did not adequately prepare Ms Chiu for her discovery, the notes Ms Chiu made in relation to the advice given (filed as exhibit 11) confirmed her testimony that Mr. Ryan essentially advised her to simply answer yes or no and not to explain herself when questioned by opposing counsel. While I agree that there may be some benefit to advising a client to stick to simply yes or no answers (so as to not provide "extra" information to the other side, some of which might be harmful to a client's case), I also am on the view that the client ought to be advised that if the question begs some additional explanation, providing that additional explanation is reasonable (and in fact may be essential to bolstering the client's case), the client is free to provide that additional information. Ms Chiu's notes also indicate that Mr. Ryan advised her not to call the agreement a partnership agreement and also to explain how it was that Ms Chiu came to take wages from the company. There is no other indication of what was discussed or what the client was told as part of preparing her for the discovery. [40] A fair amount of time was billed for preparation for the examination for discovery: three hours on November 10, one hour on

January 8; and a further two hours on January 10, 2010. Other than telling me the client was well-prepared and did well at the discovery, Mr. Ryan did not testify as to exactly what these preparations entailed. Nor was the extent (or not) of that preparation put to Ms Chiu on cross-examination. In my view, considering the nature of the client and her questions about the nature of an examination for discovery and her lack of experience with litigation, I would have expected Mr. Ryan to have perhaps conducted a mock examination for discovery of the client or at least to have asked her a series of questions relating to the matters that might have been in issue on the discovery to assist her in understanding the process and how to deal with questions proposed by opposing counsel. I was not made aware that any of that took place; I only have the notes made by Ms Chiu referred to earlier. [41] Pursuant to the Act, I must now then consider the amount in issue in the proceeding. No specific amount is claimed in the writ of summons and no direct testimony was given regarding it. However, I was given a copy of the valuation report prepared by Mr. Wong (of Capital Pacific Realty Advisors) which indicates that the "Depreciated Value from Cost Perspective" for Beautiful Feet is $49,151.32 as at April 10, 2009. [42] My next task is to consider whether the time spent (and billed for) by Mr.

Ryan was reasonable in the context of this matter. The account discloses that Mr. Ryan spent some 47 hours on the client's matters and that he billed her for that number of hours of work. Mr. Ryan also told me during his testimony that he believed the accounts were very complete and set out in detail the work done by him on Ms Chiu's behalf. I cannot agree with him. The accounts themselves are replete with descriptions such as "email from client", "telephone call from client", "email from client", "telephone call from client", "email from client", "telephone call from client" and so on. It is certainly not clear to me exactly what each email or telephone call concerned. What I was able to glean from the testimony (and I do not think Ms Chiu would disagree with this) is that she was an "active" client in that she often telephoned Mr. Ryan or sent him emails asking questions about the business itself or the Action. No doubt Mr. Ryan spent a great deal of time responding to these inquiries but, as I have already mentioned, some of his responses were less fulsome that I might have expected them to be to sufficiently advise the client of the happenings in the Action and her options. Further, the client was not told that she would be charged for each inquiry. [43] Some time was also billed to Ms Chiu that ought not to have been billed to her. Specifically, Mr. Ryan confirmed on

cross-examination that he included in the account the time he spent giving Ms Chiu's employees (Sammi and Elaine) advice. On these occasions, Ms Chiu attended simply to assist Sammi and Elaine with translation. She did not retain Mr. Ryan on behalf of these employees; nor did she agree to pay him for that time. It is interesting to note that, during his testimony and cross-examination, Mr Ryan told me that he had sent an email to Sammi and Elaine with some sort of account for his services but that he had somehow withdrawn that account and, instead, included his time spent on their matters on the account before me. Ms Chiu should not be responsible for paying for any of that work. [44] There is also an issue regarding the account Mr. Ryan issued for $825.00 in connection with the asset transfer from Beautiful Feet to Beautiful Mind. I have set out the sum of that account earlier in these reasons. [45] When questioned, about how he arrived at the amount of this account, Mr. Ryan said that he thought about how much time he expended on the transaction and, given that he felt it was appropriate that Beautiful Feet pay for this work, he decided to bill Beautiful Feet, rather than the client, for it. What is not clear, though, is that he then discounted his account to Ms Chiu by a similar amount. Nor has Mr. Ryan credited Ms Chiu with a payment in that amount. Further, it seems Mr.

Ryan did not advise Ms Chiu at any time (except until he issued the account in issue here) that he spent more time on these matters than was billed to Beautiful Feet in that April 29, 2009 account. It is not unreasonable for Ms Chiu to believe that the work done by Mr. Ryan to that date was worth that amount of money and only that amount of money. [46] The next factor I must consider is, if the parties had an agreement for fees to be based on an hourly rate per hour of work, whether the hourly rate charged was reasonable? Here, there is no retainer agreement between the parties for payment on an hourly rate basis (or otherwise). I will note, however, that Mr. Ryan's hourly rate of $275 per hour is appropriate for counsel with his experience. [47] I will deal with the next two factors I must consider (the importance of the matter to the client and the results that were achieved) together. [48] There is no doubt that this matter was of importance to the client. She was in danger of losing her business (and her investment in the business) because of Ms Huang's actions (the closing of the bank account, the issuance of the sham gift certificates, the solicitation of the clients and so on). She also faced considerable personal exposure to the landlord of Beautiful Feet's premises if she did not continue making the lease payments. She was also being sued by Ms Huang and was subject to

some exposure there. [49] As for results, they cannot be said to have been remarkably favourable to the client. The Action against her remains outstanding. Mr. Ryan did not communicate to Ms Huang or her counsel the terms of an offer to settle Ms Chiu wished to make to Ms Huang, despite the client's instructions to do so. Mr. Ryan did not send Ms Chiu a copy of an offer to settle made on Ms Huang's behalf by her counsel in November 2009 and did not explain to her the consequences of failing to respond to such offer, thus exposing Ms Chiu to costs consequences. Mr. Ryan also failed to file a counter-claim on Ms Chiu's behalf to the Action based on Ms Huang's actions as described above. It may also be the case that Ms Chiu has some liability to Ms Huang for the winding up of Beautiful Feet, although that remains to be seen. [50] I do wish to comment here on one additional issue. As part of the asset transfer from Beautiful Feet to Beautiful Mind, Mr. Ryan directed that Beautiful Mind pay the sum of $23,395.60 to Beautiful Feet for the assets of Beautiful Feet. That number appears to be half of the value ascribed to the assets by the appraiser. On cross-examination, Mr. Ryan insisted that that amount was the full valuation amount. I disagree. The appraisal indicates that the depreciated value from a cost perspective of Beautiful Feet is $57,541.59. The appraisal then contains some

"settlement calculations". It notes that "Potential Settlement Value" is $23,395.60. I believe that amount is the amount the appraiser suggested Ms Chiu pay Ms Huang for her half of the business of Beautiful Feet. [51] As there was no formal retainer agreement between the client and the lawyer, it falls to me to decide, on the basis of quantum meruit and applying the factors set out in the Act to the evidence before me, what is the amount of the fees that would be reasonably necessary and proper to conduct the proceeding in respect of which they were incurred. [52] Having undertaken the review as required, and all things being said and taken into account by me, I find that the amount Ms Chiu should pay to Mr. Ryan for all of the work done by him on her behalf is the sum of $5,000 plus HST (resulting in fees and taxes on fees due and payable of $5,600). [53] The only disbursement challenged was the $250 billed on the account for photocopies. Ms Chiu testified that, in advance of the examination for discovery, she undertook the copying of all of the documents Mr. Ryan said would be necessary to have at the examination for discovery. Ms Chiu suggests that not much else was copied during the retainer and therefore this amount ought to be reduced. [54] Ms Chiu did prepare the documents and pay for photocopying them. Mr. Ryan was not able to satisfy me on the basis of the evidence

that he made a specific number of copies on the client's behalf in this matter. Nor did he tell me what rate he charged per page for copies. What he did say was that the $250 represented his estimate of what he felt was a reasonable amount to charge the client for the copies that were made. No doubt some copies were made. The "usual" rate charged by law firms for copies is in the neighbourhood of $0.25 a page and that amount is the "registrar's rate" for copies. I find that a reasonable number of copies would be around 400 copies which, at $0.25 each results in a disbursement amount of $100. Accordingly, added to the amount I have set as the proper fees should be the amount of $234 in taxable disbursements (plus HST on that amount of $28.08) and non-taxable disbursements of $56. Thus the total fees, disbursements and taxes I find were reasonably necessary and proper to conduct these matters for the client is $5.918.08. [55] The solicitors were seeking a total of $14,962.80 in fees and I have allowed them only $5,918.08. As I have reduced the fees by more than one-sixth, it follows that the client is entitled to her costs of the review (see s. 72 of the Act). If the parties are unable to agree on the client's costs, the client may take out an appointment to assess her costs. That appointment may be set before any registrar of this court. [56] Finally as the client has not paid any monies to the solicitor for his work, he is entitled to pre-judgment interest pursuant s. 73(3) of the Act on the amount I have allowed him from the date the account I reviewed was rendered to the date of these reasons. "Registrar Sainty"