When you win you still loose

[FONT=Arial]http://www.torontosun.com/2011/09/23/the-high-price-of-justice](http://www.torontosun.com/2011/09/23/the-high-price-of-justice)

[FONT=Times New Roman]The high price of justice 0](http://www.torontosun.com/2011/09/23/the-high-price-of-justice#disqus_thread) [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman]Absurdly expensive legal fees turn woman’s court victory into a defeat[/FONT]

Patrizia Giuliani spun out on an icy patch, striking another vehicle on Derry Road in Halton on a snowy April day in 2003.
She suffered significant injuries resulting in chronic pain and functional limitations.
She hired a lawyer to consider a lawsuit.
She then sued the Regional Municipality of Halton, claiming it was negligent in its failure to properly maintain Derry Road.
Prior to trial, it was agreed her damage claim for personal injuries was worth $750,000 but the two sides couldn’t agree on liability, hence a trial took place in February, 2010.
The judge ruled the region was negligent but that Giuliani was 50% at fault, resulting in a judgment of $375,000.
The region has appealed, so it’s likely no part of the judgment will be paid for at least another year.
With the trial out of the way and a significant judgment in hand, Giuliani should have been smiling.
But what happened after the trial might well have left her crying.
As Justice John Murray of the Ontario Superior Court put it, “the plaintiff, a woman of modest means, who suffered serious injuries in a motor vehicle accident causing permanent impairment, is now faced with another burden of unimagined proportions — a second catastrophic event — her legal costs.”
The legal costs claimed, including GST, totalled $558,327 plus an additional $229,984 for litigation expenses.
That’s almost $800,000 in fees and expenses for a $375,000 award!
While the trial was 11 days long and the litigation wasn’t simple, how can any lawyer justify such fees?
Giuliani’s lawyer, Kathy Chittley-Young, attempted to do so based on the amount of time she, an associate lawyer and a law clerk spent on the file, an aggregate of about 1,700 hours.
True, the lawsuit was a bit complex.
But as Justice Murray pointed out, the total time spent on the file would equal the annual billed hours for many lawyers and “if one person worked on this file five days a week, seven hours per day, it would take more than 48 weeks work to reach 1,700 hours.”
The judge, therefore, had no difficulty concluding the number of hours billed was “excessive”.
In addition, Giuliani had signed a retainer agreement that specifically stated: “In the case of a personal injury action, a medical malpractice or a motor vehicle accident, the legal fee will be 35% of the total settlement achieved in the action.”
Therefore, the maximum fee the lawyer ought to have charged was $131,250 plus GST.
As if the huge legal fees weren’t enough of a headache, Giuliani also faces the risk of having to make interest and principal payments on a loan she took out to fund the expenses of the litigation.
In November, 2009 Giuliani borrowed $150,000 from Lexfund Inc.
This loan was high risk — nothing is paid unless there is recovery of a settlement or judgment — with an effective annual interest rate of 51%.
It’s estimated by the time the appeal is heard, the interest charges will likely exceed $180,000.
With interest and principal repayment, Giuliani may owe Lexfund $368,000 by late this year, leading to the absurd result she would have been better off had she lost the lawsuit.
However, the judge tabled the issues relating to the loan agreement for another day, noting it might be unenforceable.
The judge also pointed out this type of loan agreement does nothing to facilitate access to justice or advance the cause of justice and found it “difficult to believe that any lawyer would refer a vulnerable client to such a lender.”
By the time all of her legal troubles relating to the accident are concluded, I wonder if Giuliani will feel she would have been better off had she never stepped foot in a lawyer’s office?

[/FONT]

H-S!

[size=4]
[size=2]http://www.dwslawfirm.com/pdf/articles/dwslawfirm-com_article_05.pdf
**LAWSUITS AGAINST HOME INSPECTORS **
[/size][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][size=4]Over the past twenty-five years, I have been on both sides of home inspector lawsuits. Some of them have been before juries while many have been before arbitrators. It may surprise most of you to find out that I believe for the most part that judges, juries and arbitrators give home inspectors the benefit of the doubt. If statistics were compiled, I believe home inspectors ultimately prevail in three out of four situations. I will give you some examples.
After moving into a house, the buyer found that a gable in his attic was cracked. From the street you could see a significant sag in the roofline. The inspector missed this entirely. Result. No liability on the home inspector. Another case, involved a buyer who after purchasing a house found that one of his basement walls was 4" out of plumb. The cracks had been filled in and painted over. Again the home inspector made no mention of this in his report. Result. No liability on the home inspector. A third situation involved a severely cracked, bowed and sheared basement wall. Again no mention of the wall in the report, and the crack could be observed in the broom closet where it had not been filled in and painted over. Result. No liability on the home inspector. A fourth example was a case where one side of a house had sagged approximately 4" with several of the floors out of level. Again, no mentioned in the report. Result. No liability on the home inspector.
It is my belief, that if these cases were heard before a blue ribbon panel of the top home inspectors in Wisconsin, fault would have been attributed to each of these home inspectors. However, judges, juries and arbitrators tend to error on the side of the home inspector. This is similar to situations involving doctors and police officers. Patients who sue their physicians, no matter what malpractice was committed, lose nine out of ten jury trials. Citizens who sue police officers for use of excessive force, 2
beatings, or unjustified shooting, lose nearly every one of those cases that goes to trial. There are just certain groups who are given a certain amount of leeway. While home inspectors probably don’t receive the same “immunity” that these other professionals do, there seems to be a certain amount of empathy for them.
The larger problem that I see out there today is not whether inspectors win at trial, but merely the costs of defense. Very often a buyer who has a legitimate claim against the seller, will bring the home inspector into the case just to create an additional source of settlement funds. A seller who is being sued often does the same thing. Misery loves company so the seller joins the realtor and the home inspector in the lawsuit to aid settlement. There are many pro se litigants out there in small claims court who can’t afford to hire an attorney who file their own claims against home inspectors. There are many honest lawyers out there who do not understand home construction, who also file claims against home inspections based upon a statement from a basement repair salesman who makes the comment, “I am surprised that your home inspector didn’t notice these problems.”
Many home inspectors have a $2,500.00 deductible on their insurance policy, and that’s gone as soon as the case is reported to the insurance company. Home inspectors who don’t have insurance often must come up with substantial retainers in order to defend cases. If a home inspector must spend $5,000.00, $10,000.00 or more to defend a case, whether he or she wins is immaterial. The cure becomes worse than the disease.
WAHI appears to be making great strides with their legal support system. Having a good technical basis to defend lawsuits is important. One of the focuses of the system should be to help home inspectors defend their cases in an inexpensive yet effective manner. The good home inspector who performs a reasonable inspection will probably prevail in the end. There is even a reasonable chance the poor inspector will still prevail. The problem is that he or she may be forced to spend substantial amounts of money to achieve this goal. 3
There are many ways to keep defense costs down and still provide quality representation.
The key element in keeping defense costs down is to keep the time required by legal counsel to defend the case to a minimum. The more the home inspector participates in the process and the more tasks that the home inspector can accomplish himself, the less defense counsel needs to do. In the beginning, the home inspector can make attempts to resolve the claim himself, with only occasional telephone consultations with a lawyer. A home inspector can visit the property and take pictures of the problems. A home inspector can also hire a second home inspector to come in and evaluate the situation for a second opinion. With this preparation, defense of the inspector becomes simple.
If a lawsuit is involved, the home inspector’s lawyer need not attend all of the depositions, motion hearings and miscellaneous procedures that go on in a normal lawsuit if the home inspector does not have substantial exposure. Usually a lawyer representing a home inspector in a legal proceeding, where the seller is the primary target, can stay marginally involved, make some type of offer at mediation, and get out of the case. This can save the home inspector substantial amounts of money.
When a case goes to arbitration, one of the most important factors in keeping the costs down is to reach an agreement, putting time limits on the arbitration. A case against a home inspector, should be able to be arbitrated in three or four hours. If the parties know this in advance and agree to these perimeters, the legal fees for arbitration can also be kept to a minimum.
Most home inspectors today need to worry less about exposure to big judgments or arbitration awards, and to be more concerned about economically defending claims that have questionable liability or limited damages. With effective safe guards and precautions in place, a home inspector should be able to resolve claims for a reasonable amount within a reasonable time period.
[/size][/FONT][/size][/FONT]

[quote=“rcooke, post:1, topic:62875”]

[FONT=Arial]http://www.torontosun.com/2011/09/23/the-high-price-of-justice](http://www.torontosun.com/2011/09/23/the-high-price-of-justice)

[FONT=Times New Roman]The high price of justice 0](http://www.torontosun.com/2011/09/23/the-high-price-of-justice#disqus_thread)[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman]Absurdly expensive legal fees turn woman’s court victory into a defeat[/FONT]

Patrizia Giuliani spun out on an icy patch, striking another vehicle on Derry Road in Halton on a snowy April day in 2003.
She suffered significant injuries resulting in chronic pain and functional limitations.
She hired a lawyer to consider a lawsuit.
She then sued the Regional Municipality of Halton, claiming it was negligent in its failure to properly maintain Derry Road.
Prior to trial, it was agreed her damage claim for personal injuries was worth $750,000 but the two sides couldn’t agree on liability, hence a trial took place in February, 2010.
The judge ruled the region was negligent but that Giuliani was 50% at fault, resulting in a judgment of $375,000.
The region has appealed, so it’s likely no part of the judgment will be paid for at least another year.
With the trial out of the way and a significant judgment in hand, Giuliani should have been smiling.
But what happened after the trial might well have left her crying.
As Justice John Murray of the Ontario Superior Court put it, “the plaintiff, a woman of modest means, who suffered serious injuries in a motor vehicle accident causing permanent impairment, is now faced with another burden of unimagined proportions — a second catastrophic event — her legal costs.”
The legal costs claimed, including GST, totalled $558,327 plus an additional $229,984 for litigation expenses.
That’s almost $800,000 in fees and expenses for a $375,000 award!
While the trial was 11 days long and the litigation wasn’t simple, how can any lawyer justify such fees?
Giuliani’s lawyer, Kathy Chittley-Young, attempted to do so based on the amount of time she, an associate lawyer and a law clerk spent on the file, an aggregate of about 1,700 hours.
True, the lawsuit was a bit complex.
But as Justice Murray pointed out, the total time spent on the file would equal the annual billed hours for many lawyers and “if one person worked on this file five days a week, seven hours per day, it would take more than 48 weeks work to reach 1,700 hours.”
The judge, therefore, had no difficulty concluding the number of hours billed was “excessive”.
In addition, Giuliani had signed a retainer agreement that specifically stated: “In the case of a personal injury action, a medical malpractice or a motor vehicle accident, the legal fee will be 35% of the total settlement achieved in the action.”
Therefore, the maximum fee the lawyer ought to have charged was $131,250 plus GST.
As if the huge legal fees weren’t enough of a headache, Giuliani also faces the risk of having to make interest and principal payments on a loan she took out to fund the expenses of the litigation.
In November, 2009 Giuliani borrowed $150,000 from Lexfund Inc.
This loan was high risk — nothing is paid unless there is recovery of a settlement or judgment — with an effective annual interest rate of 51%.
It’s estimated by the time the appeal is heard, the interest charges will likely exceed $180,000.
With interest and principal repayment, Giuliani may owe Lexfund $368,000 by late this year, leading to the absurd result she would have been better off had she lost the lawsuit.
However, the judge tabled the issues relating to the loan agreement for another day, noting it might be unenforceable.
The judge also pointed out this type of loan agreement does nothing to facilitate access to justice or advance the cause of justice and found it “difficult to believe that any lawyer would refer a vulnerable client to such a lender.”
By the time all of her legal troubles relating to the accident are concluded, I wonder if Giuliani will feel she would have been better off had she never stepped foot in a lawyer’s office?

[/FONT]Hi There, just want to provide these two links to the THE HAMILTON SPECTATOR, online newspaper that made an error in their article
about Kathy Chittley-Young and her law firm, KCY At Law and made a retraction with an apology- quote: “The Spectator regrets the error and any inconvenience it may have caused Ms. Chittley-Young.”

However, it was too late because a lot of websites automatically picked up (got syndicated to through) the www.thespec.com’s RSS FEED.


Hi There, just want to provide these two links to the THE HAMILTON SPECTATOR, online newspaper that made an error in their article
about Kathy Chittley-Young and her law firm, KCY At Law and made a retraction with an apology- quote: “The Spectator regrets the error and any inconvenience it may have caused Ms. Chittley-Young.”

However, it was too late because a lot of websites automatically picked up (got syndicated to through) the www.thespec.com’s RSS FEED.

Thanks for the upgrade >>> Roy