Stringam Denecky v. Butkiewicz, (1993) 147 A.R. 321 (QB)

• Judge: Lomas, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: December 30, 1993
• Citations: (1993), 147 A.R. 321 (QB)

Stringam Denecky v. Butkiewicz (1993), 147 A.R. 321 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

In The Matter of Stringam Denecky, Barristers and Solicitors, and Pawel Butkiewicz also known as Paul Butkiewicz

Steve Denecky, Robert E. Baines, Paul G. Pharo, Robert G. Bissett and Jerry R. Thompson carrying on business under the firm name of Stringam Denecky (applicants) v. Pawel Butkiewicz also known as Paul Butkiewicz (respondent)

(9306-01145)

Indexed As: Stringam Denecky v. Butkiewicz

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Lethbridge

Lomas, J.

December 30, 1993.

Summary:

A law firm applied for taxation of its accounts. Numerous legal issues were raised in the taxation. The legal issues and the taxation of the account were referred to the court.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench taxed the account accordingly.

Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 3316

Compensation - Measure of compensation - Effect of estimates - A husband retained a lawyer to represent him in a divorce and marital property action - After reviewing the husband's former lawyer's file, the lawyer estimated the fee - Several issues arose that potentially affected the marital property action, such as a property dispute between the husband and his brother and a proposed sale of some farmland to a son - The lawyer was authorized to deal with these issues and he revised his estimate accordingly - The final account exceeded the revised estimate - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench limited the account payable to the revised estimate - The lawyer failed to keep his client advised of anticipated increases in the estimate.

Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 3361

Compensation - Interest - General - A husband retained a lawyer to represent him in a divorce and marital property action - He signed a retainer agreement - The agreement specified interest on unpaid accounts at the rate of 24% per annum - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that 24% interest was unreasonable - The court allowed interest on the lawyer's unpaid bill at the rates specified in the regulations under the Judgment Interest Act - See paragraph 36.

Cases Noticed:

Roberts & Muir v. Price (1987), 25 C.P.C.(2d) 166 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 26].

Cohen v. Kealey (1985), 10 O.A.C. 344; 26 C.P.C.(2d) 211 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 28].

Hunter v. Roe et al., [1990] 6 W.W.R. 85; 85 Sask.R. 199 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 29].

Statutes Noticed:

Rules of Court (Alta.), rule 613, rule 614, rule 615 [para. 25].

Counsel:

Ben R. Plumer, for the respondent;

Robert G. Bissett, for the applicants.

This matter was heard before Lomas, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Lethbridge, who delivered the following judgment on December 30, 1993.