A Toronto judge has drastically reduced an elderly woman’s six-figure legal bill after finding her lawyer was unable to explain how he reached the amount.
“None of the respondent’s figures are credible; he was obviously making it all up as he went along,” Superior Court Justice Edward Morgan wrote in a July decision about the fee lawyer Lawrence Sax charged 92-year-old Eileen Newell.
The judge also chastised the hearings officer at the Toronto assessment office, who had originally adjudicated the dispute over the legal bill, finding she demonstrated “inexplicable animus” toward Newell.
With Morgan’s decision, Newell saw the $165,000 fee — which worked out to about $2,200 an hour for what her lawyer claimed was 75 hours of work handling the sale of a commercial building — cut down to just over $26,000.
Newell had first taken her case against Sax to the assessment office, which handles disputes between lawyers and clients over their legal bills. Morgan was critical of the handling of Newell’s file by assessment officer Angelique Palmer.
“The assessment officer states candidly that ‘the solicitor determined what his fees should be based on criteria that could not be demonstrated or explained to the court,’” Morgan wrote.
“Despite the shortcomings of (Sax’s) account and of his evidence in support of it, the assessment officer upheld the account as fully payable. While it is hard to fathom how this could occur, the assessment officer’s reasons do give some insight.”
Palmer had noted in her decision that Newell, who was 91 at the time her bill was being assessed, did not attend the assessment hearing, although she was represented by a lawyer throughout the proceedings.
“Despite the fact that the applicant’s non-attendance caused no delay in the proceeding, the assessment officer seems to have taken umbrage at the fact that the applicant was not present. In fact, she devoted four paragraphs in her reasons for decision to a discussion of the ‘failure of the client to appear at the hearing,’” Morgan wrote.
“In the course of these paragraphs, the assessment officer was highly critical of the applicant. Counsel for the applicant submits that she exhibited what can only be described as an inexplicable animus toward the applicant. From a reading of the assessment officer’s reasons for decision, I am compelled to agree.”
