Legal fees measured by time dockets are a fundamental aspect of the lawyer-client relationship. However, they are not just a private matter between a lawyer and a client – they are also subject to audit by the court.
In Ontario, the court retains a supervisory jurisdiction over legal fees, and this role extends beyond mere mathematical calculations of time and hourly rates. The court ensures that legal services are billed fairly, in accordance with the principles under the Solicitors Act.
The decision in Belyavsky v. Monkhouse Law, 2024 ONSC 4970 illustrates that lawyers must be extra careful when docketing their time on a case.
In this case, the court was asked by the lawyer to assess the reasonableness of the fees charged in an employment law matter. The law firm did not provide an accurate description of its time dockets and instead used broad and generalized language in their bills to clients. For example, when the lawyers docketed for “correspondence”, they stated that this was meant to describe a variety of tasks including internal meetings, drafting and legal strategy discussions.
The judge who examined the time dockets found that this language was imprecise and made it impossible to assess the reasonableness of the time spent or the value provided for the charges. The judge pointed to one example where the docket was “correspondence” for 90 minutes. The judge stated that it was impossible to determine whether the time was spent efficiently or if the work was necessary.
Lawyers are required to keep detailed dockets, not only for the benefit of clients but also for the protection of their own fees. All time-based accounts must include a description of the specific activities performed in order to evaluate whether the charges are reasonable and justified.
When a lawyer fails to provide sufficient detail in their time docket, they risk having their fees reduced or even eliminated.
The legal test for an assessment of a lawyer’s bill was developed in the case of Cohen v. Kealey & Blaney, [1985] O.J. No. 160 setting out the nine principles when evaluating a lawyer’s account as follows:
- the time expended by the lawyer;
- the legal complexity of the matter dealt with;
- the degree of responsibility assumed by the lawyer;
- the monetary value of the matters in issue;
- the importance of the matter to the client;
- the degree of skill and competence demonstrated by the lawyer;
- the results achieved;
- the ability of the client to pay; and
- the reasonable expectation of the client as to the amount of fees.
The Belyavsky case highlights the importance of providing clear and detailed time docket entries to satisfy the test in Cohen v. Kealey & Blaney.
When billing clients, lawyers should docket their time with the following three objectives in mind:
- Explain what specific work was performed during each time entry;
- Describe how that work contributed to advancing the client’s case or achieving the desired outcome;
- Use language to convey that the time spent was efficient and necessary given the nature of the case.
The court ultimately reduced the law firm’s bill from $18,685 to $2,985, citing concerns over vague billing practices and inadequate documentation to justify the time spent.
In conclusion, the Belyavsky case serves as a cautionary tale for lawyers. To avoid disputes over legal fees and ensure that accounts are fair and reasonable, lawyers must exercise extra care when docketing their time. They should provide detailed and accurate descriptions of the work performed, ensuring that each entry reflects the value delivered to the client. Failure to do so can result in reduced fees, or worse, having the bill cancelled.
This article appeared in the Toronto Law Journal at:
https://www.tlaonline.ca/?pg=TorontoLawJournalPub&pubAction=viewIssue&pubIssueID=51375&mode=stream
Editorial note: This article was first published in February 2025; republished here for reference.
Steve Benmor, B.Sc., LL.B., LL.M. (Family Law), C.S., Cert.F.Med., C.Arb., FDRP PC, is the founder and principal lawyer of Benmor Family Law Group, a boutique matrimonial law firm in downtown Toronto. He is a Certified Specialist in Family Law, a Certified Specialist in Parenting Coordination and was admitted as a Fellow to the prestigious International Academy of Family Lawyers. Steve is regularly retained as a Divorce Mediator/Arbitrator and Parenting Coordinator. Steve uses his 30 years of in-depth knowledge of family law, court-room experience and expert problem-solving skills in Divorce Mediation/Arbitration to help spouses reach fair, fast and cooperative divorce settlements without the financial losses, emotional costs and lengthy delays from divorce court.
Share this article on: