Some lawyers say a proposed cap on contingency fees under consideration by the Law Society of Upper Canada could be problematic for access to justice.
http://www.lawtimesnews.com/20
The Laywers
‘FAIR – supporting auto accident victims through advocacy and education’
The information provided below is not legal advice, and it may not apply in every situation. FAIR is not a legal service and we do not recommend particular lawyers or firms. We do not provide legal advice. This page is for information purposes only.
ALERT
We are hearing about more and more cases where the time limitations for filing have lapsed due to a failure by a plaintiff’s legal representative to meet deadlines. Claimants should stay informed of what is happening with their files and forms and ask the questions about filing dates and limitations. Please see some of the decisions and articles listed at the bottom of this page for details
More information on choosing a lawyer or if you have issues with your legal bill here.
***************************************
FAIR does not accept responsibility for comments, opinions, statistical information etc. associated with the links listed below. Any opinions, points of view, etc. are not necessarily shared by FAIR.
Lawyers split on proposed contingency fee cap
Like Many Ontarians, I Fell Victim To A Double-Dipping Lawyer
According to a recent article in the Toronto Star, there is a report coming from the Law Society of Upper Canada which — to be blunt — I will truly have to see to believe. I’m sure the Star has all their facts straight, but according to the Law Society’s working group report, “change is necessary to protect consumers.”
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.
Double-dipping lawyers in Ontario may be thing of the past
Ontario’s legal regulator is contemplating major changes to the contingency fee system — “you don’t pay unless we win” — in an effort to stop “double-dipping,” a practice in which lawyers take more money from their clients than the law allows.
New Referral Fee Supports and Resources for Lawyers
Convocation approved amendments to the Rules of Professional Conduct (the “Rules”) and By-Law 9 with respect to referral fees on April 27, 2017. Detailed information about the amendments is available in the Professional Regulation Committee Report to Convocation, April 27, 2017. For a brief summary of the requirements, see the Referral Fees landing page.
http://avoidaclaim.com/2017/ne