A British Columbia Supreme Court judge has ordered a lawyer to slash his $425,000 legal bill for settling a grandmother's estate to just $60,000, citing excessive and indefensible charges. The lawyer, Andrew Liggett of Sea to Sky Law Corp., also faced criticism for charging a three percent monthly interest rate on outstanding balances, which the court described as criminal.
Background of the Case
The dispute arose after the death of a grandmother in August 2023. Her grandson, Michael Arnaldi, initially hired Liggett to help secure the release of her body from the morgue after his mother refused to allow an autopsy. The case escalated when Arnaldi's mother and uncle contested a 2022 will that favored the grandchildren over the deceased's children.
Liggett ultimately represented Arnaldi and his sister in the contentious probate matter. After 13 months of litigation, the parties reached a mediated settlement, splitting the $1.4 million estate four ways among the grandchildren and the two children.
Excessive Billing Details
Liggett billed 629 hours at $395 per hour for his services and an additional 78 hours at $125 per hour for his legal staff, totaling $425,000. Arnaldi had already paid a $35,000 retainer, leaving a balance of $390,000, which represented more than one-third of the entire estate.
Court Registrar Meg Gaily found the fees to be excessive and indefensible. She noted that the issues were not particularly complex, difficult, or novel. Evidence showed that Liggett was running up the clock with unproductive and unnecessary work, particularly during the initial retainer period.
For example, fees exceeded $100,000 for approximately five months of work with only two brief chamber appearances. Liggett billed 6.5 hours for a court appearance that ended in adjournment. Many billing entries involved staff researching and reviewing court rules and forms, which Gaily said should not be passed on to clients as it is part of a firm's overhead.
Court's Decision
Gaily determined that a fair fee for the services provided was $60,000. She ordered Liggett to pay the legal costs of his clients for the five-day hearing under the Legal Professions Act. The judge also criticized Liggett's three percent monthly interest rate on unpaid balances, calling it criminal.
Liggett argued that Arnaldi was suffering from settlement remorse and had not complained during the hundreds of emails sent almost daily. However, the court rejected this defense, emphasizing that the billing was unreasonable from the start.
This case serves as a cautionary tale about the importance of transparent and fair billing practices in legal matters, especially when dealing with family estates and vulnerable clients.
