Apologies - this is just a rant, and I will be extremely respectful to Resolute Legal as this is their playground! I’m grateful for the forum, and for the people here, and I have not spoken to David. I will reach out shortly though.
My rant is this. In the GTA, almost all disability lawyers only work on contingency fees. I ask for hourly retainer options and most of them say no.
I get that contingency fees allow for clients to seek justice if they can’t afford them, but how a lawyer gets paid (hourly or contingency) should be moot. Now, if lawyers are wanting their 33% of a client’s settlement, then that is their “fees paid” and then a settlement of the backs of a person’s disability…oi vey, that’s pretty shameful.
I don’t understand why there are so few hourly retainer options out there. I did find a few, which I won’t post here out of respect for David’s forum here, but my rant today is…I find this grossly unfair to claimants
This is a great question. I have some initial thoughts, but I am going to think it over and discuss it in detail on my weekly live stream next Tuesday on Youtube. I will also circle back here to give an answer after the show.
David Brannen
Disability Lawyer with Resolute Legal
The response posted above is based on the limited factual information made available and is not intended as a full and complete response to the question. The only reliable manner to obtain complete and adequate legal advice is to consult with a lawyer, fully explain your situation, and allow the lawyer enough time to research the applicable law and facts required to give an adequate opinion. The basic information provided above is intended as a public service only, a full one-on-one discussion with a lawyer should be done before taking any any action. The information posted on this forum is available to the viewing public and is not intended to create a lawyer client relationship with any person. If you want one-on-one advice, please click here to request a free consultation or call toll free 1-877-917-7050 to speak with a member with our disability claim support team.
Thank you David. If you are interested in an hourly retainer scenario and feel comfortable posting that you are here, please do let me and us know. I’d love to reach out.
In my case, the claim amount is potentially very large due to my pre disability income. I feel strongly about my case and can afford paying hourly. I know there are few in my position, but while it might make sense for a lawyer to take 30% of a $100,000 claim. It doesn’t make sense for a lawyer to take 30% of a $1M claim, as an example, even if the lawyer is charging $XXX/hour.
In my view, a lawyer is doing roughly the same work for both and it really comes down to the strength of the case. A Statement of Claim is, what, $5000. AOD/Productions, then Discovery, etc, it’s all the same motions. Sure, minor variances here and there, but I feel the disability lawyer side of things is extremely shady to me, but maybe it is I who is wrong with my understanding.
I recently worked with a lawyer in Ontario on an hourly basis to negotiate a better severance package with my ex-employer. From the start, I was only offered the option for hourly rates. I don’t want to mention the name of the law firm, but they have several lawyers and they all offer hourly consultations. So maybe it just depends on which law firm you reached out to.
PS. I reached out to Resolute first but they were unable to represent me due to certain reasons.
I was constructively dismissed by my former employer after I became ill and it started to affect my work. I had kept a detailed log and evidence of their behaviour towards me for over a year, and I felt that I had a very strong case. I chose to pay an hourly retainer to a lawyer to sue them.
They charged me $1400 to write one single page letter to my employer, then turned around and took the employer’s side, making excuses for their actions and refusing to start legal proceedings. The employer started threatening to fire me after receiving the letter, and I ended up going on disability on doctor’s orders because the situation became so stressful.
If I had to do it again, I’d choose contingency instead. That lawyer took my money when they should have told me if they didn’t think I had a case. On contingency the outcome might have been different if the lawyer had an incentive to represent my interests, instead of taking my money and running.
I know of a recent LTD settlement where the claimant’s contingency fees were covered directly by the insurer rather than deducted from the payout. The claimant wanted to net the NPV of the remaining 10 years of their policy paid out in full (a huge sum of money) and made it clear to both their lawyer and the insurer’s lawyer that any settlement had to meet this condition, or they would reject it and proceed to trial.
Because the claimant had a strong case against the insurer and had a contingency agreement that required client approval of any settlement, his lawyer worked with the insurer to structure the payment accordingly. In the end, the lawyer reduced their fee, which was paid directly by the insurance company, and the claimant received the full benefit they wanted.
While there are always one-offs it’s important to remember how most cases usually settle and how costs usually work
In the example above I would have probably cited Baker versus Blue Cross as well.
There are always these red herring cases but in any event my claim is in the multi-millions of dollars and it doesn’t make sense for a lawyer to take 33% of that especially when I can easily fund a couple hundred thousand dollars for trial.
I presently am litigating against my former employer and when I look at the numbers right now I would be paying four times as much in costs if this was contingency.
Problem is the average person on LTD can’t afford or have the ability to take on additional debt to pay hourly for a lawyer,. This is how contingency became so popular in injury liability and disability cases.
I agree though, the across the board 33% contingency is completely outrageous, especially when it’s a clear case of wronful LTD denial. Anyone who has an incredibly strong case should know they have leverage to negotiate contingency significantly.
I completely agree the average person cannot afford a lawyer charging $800/hour. I get that. No issues. Contingency fee works for the vast majority of plaintiffs!
My issue is when lawyers say “I won’t do hourly”, or won’t even entertain an hourly discussion.
WHY?
In both cases, a lawyer gets paid for his time. A contingency fee lawyer though, also gets 30-33-35% of whatever the award is, and that can be big $$$.
So let me get this straight. Disability lawyers are, in some cases, preying on the vulnerable?
That’s absolutely sickening to me. I’m grateful to have found a few top tier very experienced trial counsel that will do hourly, but man, it was a very arduous journey to get there.
I agree totally that a flat 33% contingency fee is often predatory. A more ethical approach would be a contingency structure based on an equivalent of $500 per hour, capped at a maximum of 33% of the settlement, particularly for a highly experienced lawyer.
I often hear personal injury lawyers justify a 33% contingency fee by claiming they need to offset the risk of losing. In practice, however, competent lawyers selectively take on cases with strong merit, where the likelihood of no settlement or a very low settlement is minimal. I have yet to encounter an injury or disability lawyer who admits to regularly losing cases or receiving settlements that fail to cover a reasonable hourly rate.
I always advise claimants to ensure their retainer agreement clearly allows them to reject any proposed settlement. This preserves the claimant’s leverage and creates an opportunity to renegotiate the fee arrangement to something more reasonable once the case is nearing completion and the lawyer’s risk has largely been eliminated.
