<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0">
<channel>
<title>fee - Toronto Estate Law Blog</title>
<link>http://estatelaw.hullandhull.com/articles/topics/ethical-issues/</link>
<description></description>
<language>en-us</language>
<copyright>Copyright 2008</copyright>
<lastBuildDate>Wed, 16 Apr 2008 06:00:00 -0500</lastBuildDate>
<pubDate>Wed, 24 Sep 2008 12:51:28 -0500</pubDate>
<generator>http://www.movabletype.org/?v=3.34</generator>
<docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs> 

<item>
<title>Contingency Fees Revisited</title>
<description><![CDATA[<p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;Arial&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;;" /></p>
In Re Cogan, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice addressed the issue of contingency legal fees. The lawsuit involved the claim of a minor suffering from cerebral palsy, with the plaintiffs alleging that the obstetrician and nurses attending at the child&rsquo;s birth were negligent.<br />
<br />
The case settled for the sum of $12,543,750. The lawyers for the plaintiffs wanted to be paid $4,174,928.45, or roughly 33.33%, on the basis of a contingency fee agreement between them and the minor&rsquo;s litigation guardian. A contingency fee agreement is an arrangement whereby a lawyer agrees to be paid a percentage of recovery in the lawsuit. Where there is no recovery, the lawyer works for free. Where there is a substantial recovery, the lawyer benefits accordingly. <br />
<br />
The Court was asked to rule on whether the contingency fee agreement should be allowed. In its lengthy weighing of both sides, the Court found, among other things, that: The agreement was obtained in a fair way; 2. The agreement was reasonable; 3. The risk to the lawyer of not getting paid and not getting reimbursed for disbursements was high; 4. The case was complex and required significant time commitment and delayed payment; and 5. The result achieved by the lawyer was exceptional. <br />
<br />
The Court also commented on the importance of access to justice for vulnerable plaintiffs like the minor and the role contingency agreements can play in fostering that goal. <br />
Therefore, the Court upheld the agreement.<br />
<br />
Thanks for reading.<br />
Sean Graham<br />
<p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;Arial&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;;" /></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Arial;"><font size="3"><o:p></o:p></font></span></p>]]></description>
<link>http://estatelaw.hullandhull.com/2008/04/articles/topics/ethical-issues/contingency-fees-revisited/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://estatelaw.hullandhull.com/2008/04/articles/topics/ethical-issues/contingency-fees-revisited/</guid>
<category>Ethical Issues</category><category>Justice</category><category>Litigation</category><category>access</category><category>agreement</category><category>contingency</category><category>fee</category><category>guardian</category><category>minor</category><category>success</category><category>to</category>
<pubDate>Wed, 16 Apr 2008 06:00:00 -0500</pubDate>
<author>nonley@hullandhull.com (Hull &amp; Hull LLP)</author>

</item>


</channel>
</rss>