Canadian Lawyer

OPINION Back Page By Jim Middlemiss Beware the ungrateful client 46 June 2013 www.CANADIAN One need only review cases involving fights over legal bills, especially those where lawyers sought a bonus for a job well done, to see how quickly clients will turn on their counsel. In one U.S. case, a client who won a $62,246 award plus $300,000 for legal fees filed a substitution of attorney form, knocking out her lawyer and naming herself counsel in propria persona, seeking to keep the money. Her lawyer later obtained a writ entitling him to the legal fees. Closer to home, in 2008, the Alberta Court of Appeal ruled that lawyer Rod Pantony was entitled to a 30-per-cent contingency fee for his efforts to settle a couple's personal injury claims stemming from a motor vehicle accident. The matter was set down for trial and a certificate of readiness was filed, but a judicial dispute resolution session was held and the case settled. Under the retainer, Pantony was entitled to 30 per cent after filing a certificate of readiness and 25 per cent after scheduling a dispute resolution. Soon after, the couple had reservations about the settlement, feeling they were entitled to more. They took issue with the fees and even complained to the law society about their lawyer. The bill was largely upheld by a taxing master, reduced by a chamber's judge to 25 per cent because of ambiguity, and the 30-per-cent fee restored by the appeal court. "The mere fact that the L a w ye r m a g . c o m client is now unhappy and dissatisfied with the settlement that has been reached and the services provided does not necessarily mean that the fee agreement is tainted or unfair," noted the appeal court. "A client cannot without good reason be allowed to negotiate and sign an agreement, stand by and permit the solicitor to invest his or her  time and money in the file, and then at the last minute refuse to pay the negotiated compensation. Whatever duties there are on a solicitor when entering into a retainer agreement with a client, those duties should not allow an ungrateful client to deprive the solicitor of legitimate compensation." Clients are like victims of the thin-skull doctrine, you take them as you find them. Lawyers don't really know when a client walks in the door how they will later react to developments in a case. Will they be like most clients, grateful and thankful for your help, or will they one of the few who make your life miserable? In an article on dealing with difficult clients, Columbus, Ohio, lawyer Mark Kafantaris describes five types of clients including the ungrateful client. He warns "if you surmise that you might be dealing with an ungrateful client from the outset (e.g. he came from another lawyer and is telling you that he had done nothing for him), it is best not to take the case. If you do take it, be ready to deal with both the difficult case as well as the ungrateful client. Since ingratitude is difficult to accept when it comes unexpected, it is utter foolishness to sign up for it when you see it coming." I couldn't agree more. No amount of money makes it rewarding to take on ungrateful clients. Maybe Mr. Luongo will remember that next time he whines, moans, and groans about his $64-million golden contract. Jim Middlemiss blogs about the legal profession at WebNewsManagement. com. You can follow him on Twitter  @JimMiddlemiss. Scott Page A s we head into June, Canada's favourite pastime is hitting its zenith with the Stanley Cup playoffs, following a strike-shortened season. As I write, it's not clear which teams will be battling for Lord Stanley's cup, but I'm hoping the Vancouver Canucks is not one of them. That's because goalie Roberto Luongo is your typical ungrateful client. Every lawyer has one — a client that no matter what you do for him or her it isn't enough. Who could believe it when Luongo went on TV to gripe about his $64-million contract — a 12-year deal he signed in 2010, which set the then 31-year-old goalie and his family up for life? It's a luxury that few of us working stiffs could imagine or ever achieve at such a young age. Yet, as the trading deadline loomed in April of this year, Luongo — who was warming the bench as a second stringer earning a paltry $6.7 million a year — told media: "My contract sucks . . . I'd scrap it if I could right now." Luongo, who is being paid more than $23 million under his current contract, blames it for Vancouver's inability to trade him. (If the contract is so awful, why doesn't Luongo agree to scrap it and negotiate a new deal with a team that wants him or waive his limited no-trade clause?) I am not sure who advised Luongo on the contract — his agent is former hockey player Gilles Lupien — but imagine how that lawyer felt at hearing his or her client say the $64-million legal handiwork "sucks." I get that Luongo's a pro athlete who wants to compete. But he's also a pro athlete who — with an errant stick, a misplayed slapshot, or a collision in the crease —  could see his career suddenly end. Luongo should be thankful and praise those who negotiated that golden contract, not contemptuous of the deal. When it comes to ungrateful clients, the legal profession doesn't lack candidates.

• Cover