Skip to content

Lawyer out $44K in dispute over pro bono retainer

|Written By Tali Folkins

To anyone who may have had doubts, a Superior Court judge has issued a clear statement on the difference between pro bono and contingency-fee arrangements in a case that underlines the need for written retainer agreements.

In a decision earlier this month, Justice Mario Faieta ruled in favour of a man who took his former lawyer to court after he presented him with numerous invoices for what the client said he thought was pro bono work. The lawyer, Andrew MacDonald of the Barristers Group, will have to pay $43,991.19 to the man plus costs of $1,684.57.

The decision refers to the man only as John Doe in order to keep secret the terms of the settlement he won while represented by MacDonald. According to the decision, Doe first met MacDonald in 2006 through mutual friends. Doe’s dog, Ben, had died in the care of a veterinarian, and he believed the death was traceable to an excessive amount of sedative negligently given to him. He wanted to sue the veterinarian for malpractice but couldn’t afford a lawyer.

According to Doe, MacDonald agreed to take the case on a pro bono basis. MacDonald, the ruling noted, said he told Doe: “I would get paid for my time if we received money from the other side and that my hourly rate was $350.00 plus GST. I told him I would be paid out of the proceeds of any settlement or judgment based on my time and hourly rate plus disbursements.”

Doe launched an action against his veterinarian in 2008. Soon thereafter, according to the Aug. 10 decision in John v. MacDonald, the lawyer told Doe he was running up a number of expenses and the client “agreed that he would try to reimburse Andrew [MacDonald] for his out of pocket fees because John [Doe] was grateful that Andrew was providing his services on a pro bono basis and felt that Andrew should not have to pay for the expenses associated with the lawsuit.”

Over the next few years, MacDonald began to invoice the client for his disbursements, and Doe made numerous payments after receiving money donated by his family and friends as well as funds raised from a benefit concert. In February 2014, the parties settled the suit for a sum not disclosed in Faieta’s decision. Doe then received a “pre-bill” from MacDonald totalling $65,978.98 “for fees and disbursements,” the ruling noted. In April, MacDonald presented Doe with a reduced figure of $34,000, saying he had given him a discount “based on actual time spent on the file.”

In May of last year, Doe got an order of assessment of all of the bills MacDonald had sent him, but the assessment process was adjourned when the client decided to file an application against the lawyer. In his application, Doe sought declarations that MacDonald had done the work on a pro bono basis; that he wasn’t liable to pay his account to MacDonald other than unpaid disbursements; that he was entitled to repayment of $9,991.19 he had paid to MacDonald; and that he also should also get $34,000 from the settlement money that MacDonald had held in his trust account.

In considering the issue, Faieta concluded that in cases where there’s no written retainer agreement and a dispute about the terms arises between a lawyer and a client, there’s a “heavy onus” on the lawyer to prove his or her version. But MacDonald, Faieta concluded, wasn’t able to prove that the agreement he had with Doe was a contingency-fee agreement rather than a pro bono arrangement.

MacDonald admitted at one point, according to Faieta, that he was taking on the case pro bono but stated that he meant, among other things, that “he would not get paid if no damages were awarded.”

“Implicit in his statement is the proposition that Andrew would get paid if damages were awarded to John,” wrote Faieta. “Andrew’s suggested meaning of ‘pro bono’ bears no resemblance to its normal meaning — namely, to provide services gratuitously to a client regardless of the outcome.

“Misunderstandings about the terms of a retainer not only have consequences for the solicitor and his client, but also reflect poorly on the legal profession,” Faieta continued. “Such a misunderstanding in this case was entirely avoidable had Andrew followed the Law Society’s guidance and reduced the terms of the retainer to writing.”

MacDonald says he’s “very disappointed” with the ruling, especially after the settlement he won for Doe.

“This is a case where the client was very, very pleased with the services, had no complaint with the representation, and had no complaint with the result that was achieved,” says MacDonald. “The client here got a windfall on the back of 8-1/2 years of litigation services that I supplied to him.”

He also says the decision doesn’t reflect the way the relationship between him and Doe changed as the client was able to secure more funds, especially after he reached a settlement with his veterinarian.

“The issue on pro bono, it seems to me, is that if an individual comes to you without means to pay, if the means to pay changes at some point, does that change the nature of the relationship?” he asks.

“In this case, he was successful in getting some financing, and the financing it seems to me changes the game plan to a certain extent. But certainly, once there’s been a settlement, that changes the game plan as well, especially if that settlement was built upon the legal costs incurred to date.”

Asked why he never committed the terms of the arrangement to writing, MacDonald says trust was a key factor. “It’s just sort of the nature of the client and the circumstances of the case. There’s an element of trust in the client-lawyer relationship, and this is one of those cases that evolved over 8-1/2 years. . . . There was an understanding, as I saw it, that we had sort of a trusting relationship, that I was helping him out, and that there would be something for both of us at the end of the day if the other side paid.”

Lucas Lung, a partner at Lerners LLP, says unwritten retainer agreements aren’t uncommon in files where the work is relatively simple and very narrowly defined. But he suggests written retainers should be an essential part of any case that involves ongoing work.

“When you’re dealing with a pro bono file, it’s nice to have the scope of the matter fairly nicely defined,” says Lung, who at one point received permission from his firm to devote 40 per cent of his practice to pro bono cases. “I think that’s the case for any file. It’s good to define what you’re being retained to do because you could have a client with all kinds of different problems. . . . You’re not being hired to act as their general counsel and deal with everything in their life.”

  • solicitor

    Norma Priday
    I do a great amount of pro bono work for animal rescue groups -- there are so few lawyers willing to do this. I do ask them to cover the disbursements if the case succeeds (and all of mine have) and also ask them, at their discretion, to make a donation to the animal rescue group for which I am counsel. They usually do. Sadly, my name gets passed around like a "cheap hooker" since there are so few lawyers wiling to work pro bono for animals. We need more. If you are willing to take on some of these cases -- and there are a lot of them -- please contact the group you want to work with. Just search the breed and rescue and you will find them. I take vacation days to do these court cases, and I am sad that there are so few lawyers willing to assist, no matter how much money the requester might have. I do it for the animals. I hope more of you will.
  • Costs

    Spensor D.
    I think the judge found Mr. Dow to be very credible. It was Andrew MacDonald who he found to be not credible. If you actually read the transcript you will see this. I urge you to Google 'probono'.
  • Costs

    Spensor D.
    Dear Carol, did you not read the transcript? John Doe paid for all of MacDonald's disbursements, costs etc. Mr. MacDonald from what I see was not out of pocket a dime. Your probono logic seems oddly similar to MacDonald's.
  • Read Transcript

    Spencer D.
    From reading the transcript it was clear Andrew MacDonald clearly had a Probono agreement with Mr. Dow. MacDonald does not dispute this. What I find strange is Macdonads interpretation of what Probono means. It looks to me that when he saw $$$ at the end of the rainbow he tried to manipulate probonos true meaning and essance. The judge in this case did a brilliant job.
  • Costs

    Carol E.
    No one seems to be considering whether the client is lying about his promise to pay for legal services he received for all those years. If the favourable settlement payment included a large component of legal costs, why shouldn't the lawyer be paid? The client is not complaining about the work done, the time spent or the result. He just doesn't want to pay. Mr MacDonald clearly created access to justice for Mr Doe and achieved a favourable result. Exploiting the work of lawyers and cheapening the work they do on behalf of individuals like Mr Doe does not promote access to justice or serve the public good.
  • Shady Lawyer

    Mark Johnson
    How many other pro bono cases has MacDonald worked on and then billed the client? Would be interesting to know. This is probably the tip of an iceberg.
  • Frustrated MVA lawyer

    Alexander Malcolm
    Was there a $36,500 statutory deductible on the settlement for the dog, like there is for humans in car accidents? Just wondering, Mr. Sousa. Just trying to find out what kind of lives mean more to the Government of Ontario, Ms. Wynne, human or canine..
  • Not Surprising

    Dave S.
    I have dealt with this fellow, Mr. MacDonald, and nothing in this article surprises me. He is a very difficult person to deal with, and takes positions that make no damn sense.
cover image

DIGITAL EDITION

Subscribers get early and easy access to Law Times.

Professional Development


Law Times Poll


A Law Times column argues it’s time for provincial laws dedicated to stopping defamatory publications on the Internet. Do you think that new legislation will help counter defamatory statements online?
RESULTS ❯