IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

[1]           This is a claim by Ms. Jacobsen against Forward Law LLP and Ryan Scorgie in the sum of $5,460, representing legal fees she paid in relation to the subdivision of a neighbouring property which she purchased. In the Notice of Claim, she stated this represented the difference between what she was quoted and what she was charged. In fact, this represents the difference between the cost to the firm and what she says she was quoted. The difference between what she says was quoted and what she was charged is $3,800. That would be the maximum amount she could claim as there is no dispute that the retainer was concluded successfully.

[2]           At the outset, I dismissed the claim against Ryan Scorgie. Ms. Jacobsen was not clear why she had sued him personally as the claim is not one in negligence, but breach of contract.

[3]           The nature of the claim is that Ms. Jacobsen said that she overpaid legal fees for the subdivision and conveyance of a portion of her neighbour’s property. She believes she was quoted $1,200 for that conveyance, but was ultimately charged $5,000.

[4]           Forward Law LLP defended the claim on the basis that Ms. Jacobsen was quoted between $3,000 and $8,000 for the work to be completed. Slightly over $7,000 was billed to the file but the fees and disbursements were then reduced to $5,000.

[5]           Ms. Jacobsen gave evidence that she called around to a number of law firms to receive quotes for the conveyance of the property she wished to purchase from her neighbour. She had dealt with Forward Law LLP previously so she selected them from the quotes given. Ms. Jacobsen said that the quote she was given on the telephone was $1,200. Mr. Scorgie does not recall giving a quote for $1,200, but said that it would be the amount charged for a simple conveyance. In all likelihood, Mr. Scorgie or someone from his office did quote $1,200 for a simple conveyance. However, Ms. Jacobsen had not represented the nature of the transaction correctly when she obtained that quote.

[6]           Ms. Jacobsen and Mr. Scorgie both testified that they met in the Defendants’ Ashcroft office where Ms. Jacobsen gave a large bundle of documents to Mr. Scorgie and explained that she wished to purchase land from a neighbour. After Mr. Scorgie returned to his Kamloops office and reviewed all of the documents, he soon realized that this was not a simple conveyance. He telephoned Ms. Jacobsen to advise her that this would require a subdivision and conveyance which would range between $3,000 and $8,000.

[7]           Mr. Scorgie also gave evidence that a subdivision and conveyance of this nature often took about a year to complete all of the authorizations through the various bodies. The bill issued by Forward Law LLP clearly shows that a number of events transpired from the time of retainer in March 2014 to completion of the transaction and issuance of the final bill in January 2016. Ms. Jacobsen seems to be under the mistaken impression that continuous work ought to have occurred on the file until its conclusion. Leaving aside that this would have led to unnecessary and astronomical fees, it also shows a considerable misunderstanding about timing of work where outside parties must first respond.

[8]           There had been no urgency indicated in completing the transaction any sooner. There were also complications that arose along the way. The subdivision and conveyance involved surveys, registrations of covenants and obtaining consents of registered interest holders, including hydro, Fortis and Thompson Nicola Regional District. The parties are somewhat at the mercy of the timing of the signing and return of those documents. Mr. Scorgie testified that there many agencies involved in this subdivision. There were also reports that were required which Ms. Jacobsen obtained. Once the law firm had those documents and the covenants for approval were prepared, these were submitted to the various agencies along with their fees. There were also financial charges that the respective institutions had to release, renew and address priority charges.

[9]           While there were communications with the client, there may have been better updating that would have kept her informed of various obstacles along the way. A bill is not meant to itemize every minute or explain why certain steps have not been taken. A monthly or quarterly report would have sufficed to keep Ms. Jacobsen informed - but at a cost to her. Reports to clients are billed. Consequently, it is incumbent both on the lawyer and the client to communicate at various stages and to the degree agreed. This is a better practice issue, not one related to legitimate billing.

[10]        Ms. Jacobsen had approved the work for the subdivision and conveyance as well as the fee range. She denies hearing anything about such a fee range and relies upon the quotes she obtained for the simple conveyance. I am satisfied that she represented this matter as a simple conveyance. Throughout the trial, she referred to the subdivision as a matter of simply moving lines. Clearly she did not absorb what she was told about the complications of a subdivision. This may have been in part due to the passage of time, in part to her lack of comprehension and in part due to the subsequent stroke suffered by her partner. It has certainly been a trying time for her culminating in this year’s evacuation from Ashcroft right before trial.

[11]        Mr. Scorgie testified that one of the reasons this matter took longer than the usual one year period was because they were dealing with the neighbours who had several documents to be released. They also had to obtain an environmental assessment, which took longer than the parties expected. Finally, when the survey plan was submitted, it was returned by the Land Title Office with an error message. Ms. Jacobsen is convinced that this error message relates to the documents being too old to register. In fact, and it is clear from the documentation, it is because the digital signature of her separately retained surveyor was rejected. He was required to electronically re-sign, which caused the issuance of a new control number. This required the law firm to obtain from each of the agencies a consent for the new control number. This does not mean that the work was re-done as Ms. Jacobsen suspects. It merely means that they had to obtain the consents from each of the agencies in order to register the subdivision and conveyance.

[12]        Before applying the discount, Forward Law LLP had incurred $7,660 of billed time and disbursements. Because of the amount of time it had taken and because Ms. Jacobsen was a longstanding client, Mr. Scorgie saw fit to reduce that account to $5,000. This was a significant cut for the law firm. The effectively hourly rate for Mr. Scorgie after the discount is $70. Mr. Scorgie’s actual hourly rate at the time was $200. Roughly half of the bill rendered related to disbursements necessary for the subdivision and conveyance.

[13]        Ms. Jacobsen was suspicious that Mr. Scorgie was training new conveyancers at her expense. There is no evidence that this is the case. Certainly the staff were new but no additional time was billed to her for training them. In any event, Ms. Jacobsen is not paying for the time of the conveyancers in this bill. She is paying for Mr. Scorgie’s time at a significantly discounted rate.

[14]        I accept that Mr. Scorgie provided an estimate of fees ranging between $3,000 and $8,000 based upon the subdivisions he had completed previously. I am also satisfied that the work done was necessary, was done well within the estimated range, and was heavily discounted in the end result. I reject Ms. Jacobsen’s evidence that she was quoted $1,200 for such significant work.

[15]        I am not prepared to consider this matter on a quantum meruit basis. Quantum meruit assessments of legal fees are typically appropriate in a Legal Profession Act assessment or when the amount billed exceeds the estimate provided. In this case, the work was performed within the estimated range, was performed to completion and was performed to professional standards. I dismiss Ms. Jacobsen’s claim.

[16]        Unless Forward Law LLP has provided a written offer in accordance with the Small Claim Rules, Forward Law LLP shall have its reasonable costs as assessed by the Registrar.