By Julius Melnitzer | September 18, 2024
It’s not just that Justice Robert Centa of the Ontario Superior Court cut Monkhouse Law’s bill to Yefim Belyavsky by over 90 percent, from $25,163 to $2,000: what’s really astounding is the Toronto employment law boutique’s misplaced presentation of the case it made to support its fees.
Centa described the dispute that gave rise to Monkhouse’s involvment as “a straightforward employment law dispute for a young, short-term employee with a fairly low salary”. He noted that the case had a monetary value of less than $50,000 and the firm “was not involved past the pleadings stage”.
However that may be, not only did the firm fail to file any sworn first-hand evidence from Andrew Monkhouse or Danielle Rawlinson, the two lawyers who had carriage of the case, or from, in Centa’s words, “. . . any other professional who worked on the file”, the only affidavit evidence came from an associate who never worked on the file, and an articling student who was “almost certainly not at the firm . . . when Monkhouse Law provided the legal services to Mr. Belyavsky”,
Nonetheless, the firm included some $3,200 + HST for time docketed after the firm’s retainer was terminated, a claim that “troubled” Centa, who saw “no reason in law or policy to approve of this part of the account”, which had “no apparent value to Mr. Belyavsky”.
There was also the small matter of Monkhouse charging $40 for 0.2 hours of a receptionist’s time at $200 hourly, causing Centa to observe:
Monkhouse Law provided no evidence to explain why this work supports a $200 per hour billing rate, or why these tasks should not properly be considered part of office overhead. While the amount charged ($40) is not significant, I am troubled that the firm considered it appropriate to ask the court to approve this charge.
And if that didn’t stretch pettiness far enough, the lawyers invoiced Belyavsky for drafting a retainer letter, something Centa described as a “standard form” that “falls within office overhead, not legal work to be charged to the client.” Not to mention charging for an amended statement of claim that “was only necessary because Monkhouse Law made significant and elementary errors when it drafted the initial claim. “Mr. Belyavsky,” Centa added – stating what ought to have been obvious to Monkhouse – “should not be financially reponsible for his lawyers correcting their own mistakes”.
Overall, Centa concluded, it was “unreasonable to docket 66.5 hours on a straightforward employment law dispute for a young, short-term employee with a fairly low salary”. Given that the firm spent $18,865 on “correspondence” and a relatively paltry $2,985 “on all work connected to the pleadings”, the “balance [between work on pleadings and work on correspondence] is, on its face, difficult to understand”. It was just as difficult to determine “. . . what, if any, value Mr. Belyavsky received from the activities described as correspondence”, especially because Monkhouse Law “appears to have an idiosyncratic understanding of [the word ‘correspondence’]”.
Centa was also less than charitable about the quality of the firm’s advice to its client. “I have concerns about the firm’s handling of this file,” he wrote. The deficiencies noted included an “elementary error” in naming defendants, acting without instruction in discontinuing the action against one of the defendants, and misstating the law regarding common employers’ liability.
Ultimately, Centa saw value to Belyavsky only in the preparation of the statement of claim, for which the firm invoiced $3,000 and the judge awarded $2,000.
Asked to comment on the case, Andrew Monkhouse, the firm’s founder who was lead counsel on the case and appeared before Centa on behalf of the firm, was both philosophic and gracious.
“Fee disputes are an unfortunate but sometimes necessary part of legal work where law firms represent the public and not just large corporations,” he said. “Justice Centa’s decision highlights that judges may impose a high burden on counsel to justify their fees. We wish Mr. Yefim Belyavsky all the best moving forward.”
Ironically, Beylavsky may have unintentionally added insult to injury. Having presumably lost at least a modicum of faith in the profession, he decided to represent himself before Centa, winning a decisive victory against an experienced lawyer.
Julius Melnitzer is a Toronto-based legal affairs writer, ghostwriter, writing coach and media trainer. Readers can reach him at [email protected] or https://legalwriter.net/contact.
RELATED ARTICLES:
No kidding: $50 million counsel fee ruled “excessive” in $23 billion class action
Court analyzes exceptional circumstances for awarding premium costs on contingency fees
In Defense of the Billable Hour