Per the court, the lawyer should be paid for files settled before he was terminated by the firm
The Ontario Court of Appeal has partially greenlit personal injury lawyer Patrick Poupore’s appeal in a dispute involving his entitlement to fees earned while he was with Sudbury firm Wallbridge, Wallbridge.
In Wallbridge, Wallbridge v. Poupore, 2026 ONCA 417, the court awarded Poupore the all-inclusive appeal costs amounting to $25,000. It determined that the lawyer should be paid for files he had settled before he was terminated by Wallbridge, Wallbridge given that he was working on a contingency basis.
For 18 years, Poupore handled contingency fee agreements as a lawyer at Wallbridge, Wallbridge. On June 15, 2021, he inked a contract with rival firm Diamond & Diamond and was set to start with that firm on October 18, 2021. Poupore told Wallbridge, Wallbridge of his impending transition on October 1, 2021; in response, the firm immediately terminated the lawyer.
Subsequently, Wallbridge, Wallbridge filed an action seeking $3 million in damages against Poupore, $3 million against Diamond & Diamond, and $100,000 each against Poupore’s assistant and law clerk, who went with him to Diamond & Diamond. Wallbridge, Wallbridge said Poupore was not entitled to fees for unbilled work-in-progress files as of February 1, 2021; it indicated that it would have terminated Poupore by then if they had known about his arrangement with Diamond & Diamond.
Poupore filed a crossclaim seeking damages for breach of contract and alternatively, unjust enrichment. Both sought punitive damages, although Wallbridge, Wallbridge eventually dropped some claims.
The court noted that Poupore’s employment agreement with Wallbridge, Wallbridge did not specifically address exiting lawyers’ compensation entitlements. Moreover, the firm had no written policy in place given that the agreement to compensate Poupore via commissions and bonuses based on a percentage of fees billed and collected was made orally.
The motion judge, the Superior Court of Justice’s Tracey Nieckarz, determined that per the verbal agreement, Poupore was supposed to be paid once a file was settled or judgment proceeded; thus, he was entitled to fees he billed and that Wallbridge, Wallbridge collected in the month before Poupore’s exit, given that those fees were the result of settlements he achieved. Poupore was also entitled to fees that were billed and collected by the firm after his termination if they related to files over which he had carriage before their reassignment to other lawyers, as well as to fees billed and collected from three settlements he negotiated for clients while at Wallbridge, Wallbridge even though those clients followed him to Diamond & Diamond before billing and collection.
Nieckarz also ruled that in lieu of an agreement, Poupore should be compensated on a quantum meruit basis.
“For Wallbridge to retain the benefit of Patrick’s work or permit another member of their firm to retain that benefit, to Patrick’s detriment would constitute an unjust enrichment for which there is no juristic reason,” Nieckarz said in her October 23, 2024 ruling.
The judge dismissed Wallbridge, Wallbridge’s damages claim and concluded that Poupore did not violate duty he owed to the firm, considering that he had merely recommended a Sudbury office space to Diamond & Diamond. Moreover, he did not induce his assistant and law clerk to leave Wallbridge, Wallbridge; thus, Wallbridge, Wallbridge did not satisfactorily prove that Poupore’s actions damaged it.
The appeals court noted that under Wallbridge, Wallbridge’s contingency-based business model, neither the firm nor Poupore are paid if damages are not recovered for a client; thus, compensation would not be reliant on contributions to a file. It concluded that Poupore would not be entitled to pay for work that was not settled or decided through his own efforts and ruled that quantum meruit did not apply to his case because his work fell within the scope of his contract with Wallbridge, Wallbridge.
Nonetheless, the court ruled that the trial judge was correct in that Wallbridge, Wallbridge was still obliged to pay Poupore for files settled before his termination, regardless of whether the fees were collected by Wallbridge, Wallbridge or Diamond & Diamond. The court also agreed with Nieckarz that Poupore did not violate his duty of good faith to Wallbridge, Wallbridge given that he maintained his billings to the benefit of the firm and its clients and did not undermine the firm.
The Ontario Court of Appeal decision was issued by Bradley W. Miller, with Janet Simmons and Darla A. Wilson in agreement. Geoffrey D. E. Adair acted for Wallbridge, Wallbridge, while Milton Davis, Ronald Davis, and Yael Kogan represented Poupore, Kristin Connors, Renee Guenette, and Diamond & Diamond.
