A woman in BC took her lawyer to civil court over allegations that he overcharged her for his services.
Christine Paterson said she hired a lawyer, Laurence D. T. Johnson, to help her with a legal matter in November 2021. However, now she claims the lawyer overcharged her an extra $3,400.
After Johnson denied her allegations, Paterson filed a dispute with the BC Civil Resolution Tribunal in hopes for a refund.
According to the tribunal member, neither Paterson nor Johnson provided a written agreement, but they did send emails.
In an email, the lawyer responded to Paterson’s inquiry regarding his hourly rate, which he replied was $300.
On April 1, 2023, Johnson billed Paterson $24,324.63, “which included 61.3 hours at $350 per hour, tax, and disbursements.” However, Paterson reminded the respondent of the $300 hourly rate they agreed on and Johnson revised his invoice, according to the CRT document.
A second invoice was made but again came up to $24,324.63 as it included included 61.3 hours at $300 per hour, plus a $3,065 “outcome” fee, plus tax and disbursements.
“The respondent undisputedly paid himself this amount out of the applicant’s trust fund monies,” the tribunal member stated.
Paterson told the civil court that she did not agree to any “outcome” fee, or other form of billing other than an hourly rate, disbursements, and tax.
In his response, Johnson did not argue that he and Paterson had any other billing arrangement. “Instead, [Johnson] argues he was not bound by the ‘fixed hourly rate’ and was entitled to bill a ‘fair fee.'”
- You might also like:
- British Columbian seeks refund in court for helping a homeless person
- "We're not rich": BC homeowner speaks out over tree fight with city
- BC homeowner sues neighbours for not paying for 'their share' of a fence
The tribunal member noted that amid the CRT process, Johnson provided a third invoice to Paterson in March 2024. According to the civil court document, he billed her for “71.52 hours at $300, removed the ‘outcome’ fee, and charged for tax and disbursements, for a total amount of $24,324.63,” which is once again equal to his previous two invoices.
The tribunal member said that they believed that Johnson and Paterson “did not agree on anything other than an hourly basis payment structure, at $300.”
“The respondent was entitled to charge for his reasonable time worked, which I find is the 61.3 hours set out in his original invoice, not the 71.52 hours he arbitrarily invoiced in March 2024,” they said. “I also find the respondent was not entitled to any ‘outcome’ fee, as there is no indication the parties contemplated or agreed to this.”
According to the document, Paterson did not dispute the 61.3 hours or disbursement expenses.
The tribunal member said that, based on the agreed hourly rate, “the respondent’s invoice should have been $20,891.83.”
“This means the applicant overpaid by $3,432.80, the amount claimed in this dispute,” they added. “I find the respondent must refund the applicant this amount.”
In total, Johnson was ordered to pay for his debt, pre-judgment interest, and tribunal fees, which came up to $3,803.11.