Disputes over costs are not a UK phenomenon, it would seem. Indeed, in Canada there was plenty of judicial ire this week as Toronto firm Monkhouse Law tried to recover fees from a former client.

Judge Robert Centa pointed out that neither of the lawyers who worked on the file actually provided any evidence about the reasonableness of the bill. Instead the firm relied on statements from an articling student who was not at the firm at the relevant times, and an associate lawyer who never worked on the file.

And the judge was particularly unimpressed with Monkhouse Law’s claim for time docketed by its receptionist. The firm had charged this work at $200 (£112) an hour for the receptionist to scan and send some documents.

Centa said: ‘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.’

Given the judge’s misgivings, it won’t come as a surprise to learn that the claim for the receptionist’s work was disallowed in its entirety.

Topics