• FAIR – supporting auto accident victims through advocacy and education
  • FAIR – supporting auto accident victims through advocacy and education
  • FAIR – supporting auto accident victims through advocacy and education

Latest News Articles

Yormak v. Arvai, 2017 ONCA 550 DATE: 20170629 DOCKET: C63090

[4]            We find no error in the motion judge’s decision. As the motion judge found, the appellant and the respondent are practising lawyers in good standing who are subject to the Rules of Professional Conduct of the Law Society of Upper Canada. As such, their referral fee arrangement had to comply with what was then r. 2.08(7) of the Rules. Rule 2.08(7) provided that a referral fee may only be paid by one lawyer to another if:

(a)  The fee is reasonable and does not increase the total amount of the fee charged to the client; and

(b)  The client is informed and consents.

[5]            The motion judge found, correctly in our view, that the appellant’s requested referral fee did not comply with any of the requirements of r. 2.08(7). In particular, when informed of the proposed referral fee, the client did not consent to the amount claimed by the appellant, finding it to be unreasonable. The client would only consent to the payment of a lesser amount, which was paid to the appellant by the respondent, and which the motion judge found was reasonable in the circumstances of this case.

Comments are closed.