Date Issued: May 11, 2023

File: SC-2022-005753

Type: Small Claims

Civil Resolution Tribunal

Indexed as: Acumen Law Corporation v. Weaver, 2023 BCCRT 390

Between:

ACUMEN LAW CORPORATION

 

Applicant

And:

SEAN WEAVER

 

Respondent

REASONS FOR DECISION
Tribunal Member:	Shelley Lopez, Vice Chair

INTRODUCTION

1.      This dispute is about payment of legal fees. The applicant law firm, Acumen Law Corporation (Acumen), says its former client, the respondent Sean Weaver, has failed to pay his $1,447.14 outstanding balance. Acumen claims the $1,447.14.

2.      In his Dispute Response filed at the outset of this proceeding, Mr. Weaver said he was not aware that Acumen was taking steps on his legal matter and was unaware that Acumen would charge him anything beyond the $2,000 retainer he provided. Mr. Weaver also says Acumen failed to inform him about his legal matter. I infer Mr. Weaver asks that I dismiss the claim.

3.      Acumen is represented by one of its lawyers, Shohrh Amini. Mr. Weaver is self-represented.

JURISDICTION AND PROCEDURE

4.      These are the formal written reasons of the Civil Resolution Tribunal (CRT). The CRT has jurisdiction over small claims brought under section 118 of the Civil Resolution Tribunal Act (CRTA). CRTA section 2 states that the CRT’s mandate is to provide dispute resolution services accessibly, quickly, economically, informally, and flexibly. In resolving disputes, the CRT must apply principles of law and fairness, and recognize any relationships between the dispute’s parties that will likely continue after the CRT process has ended.

5.      CRTA section 39 says the CRT has discretion to decide the format of the hearing, including by writing, telephone, videoconferencing, email, or a combination of these. As the CRT’s mandate includes proportional and speedy dispute resolution, I find I can fairly hear this dispute through written submissions.

6.      CRTA section 42 says the CRT may accept as evidence information that it considers relevant, necessary, and appropriate, whether or not the information would be admissible in a court of law. The CRT may also ask questions of the parties and witnesses and inform itself in any other way it considers appropriate.

7.      Where permitted by section 118 of the CRTA, in resolving this dispute the CRT may order a party to do or stop doing something, pay money or make an order that includes any terms or conditions the CRT considers appropriate.

ISSUE

8.      The issue in this dispute is whether Mr. Weaver owes Acumen the claimed $1,447.14 for unpaid legal fees.

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

9.      In a civil proceeding like this one, as the applicant Acumen must prove its claim on a balance of probabilities (meaning “more likely than not”). I have read all the submitted evidence and arguments but refer only to what I find relevant to provide context. Apart from his Dispute Response, Mr. Weaver chose not to provide any documentary evidence or written arguments, despite having the opportunity to do so.

10.   The background facts are undisputed. Mr. Weaver hired Acumen to represent him in several legal matters between January 2015 and April 2021. There was no written retainer agreement. The legal services were provided on a fixed-fee basis, rather than based on an hourly rate. I find it unnecessary to detail in this decision the nature of the underlying legal matters.

11.   Acumen seeks payment of its legal fees for services related to a judicial review, which it provided in around February 2021. At least some of Acumen’s earlier work for Mr. Weaver related to the same underlying legal matter that gave rise to the judicial review.

12.   For the judicial review, Acumen says it quoted Mr. Weaver $3,000 plus disbursements and tax. Acumen then invoiced Mr. Weaver $3,000 plus tax and court filing fees for a total of $3,560, under its invoice #19538 dated February 15, 2021.

13.   Acumen’s client ledger shows Mr. Weaver paid Acumen a $1,120 retainer for the Matter, in 2018. Contrary to Acumen’s apparent assertion, that $1,120 retainer was not applied to invoice #19538. Rather, it was applied to an earlier invoice for the underlying matter, in June 2019. Nothing turns on this. For invoice #19538, Acumen paid from trust Mr. Delgado’s remaining $2,112.86 trust balance. The difference is the claimed $1,447.14.

14.   As noted above, in the Dispute Response filed at the outset of this proceeding, Mr. Weaver said that Acumen failed to inform him of his case’s progress or that it was going to charge him more than what he had already paid. As also noted, Mr. Weaver chose to stop participating in this dispute in that he provided no documentary evidence or written argument. I agree with Acumen that given Mr. Weaver’s undisputed history with the firm representing him over 6 years in multiple legal matters, he likely knew and accepted the firm’s retainer and billing practices.

15.   I also find Acumen’s time and billing records show that for the judicial review the responsible lawyer, Kyla Lee, took instructions from Mr. Weaver, prepared documents for court, attended court, and communicated with Mr. Weaver and opposing counsel about the matter.

16.   Further, I find that a flat fee of $3,000 is not unreasonable for the scope of legal work described above for the judicial review, though I do note it would have been more helpful had Acumen’s business records detailed the dates on which Ms. Lee had done the work. I say this because I find it unlikely Ms. Lee did all the described work on the single day of February 15, 2021, as listed on the client ledger and statement of account. However, bearing in mind the CRT’s mandate that includes speed, efficiency, and proportionality, I decided not to ask to see Acumen’s client file in the circumstances here. I say this in part because of Mr. Weaver’s decision not to provide any evidence or arguments in response to Acumen’s detailed submissions. I also say this because the single date-entry is consistent with a fixed-fee price. I also find it unlikely Acumen would claim for attending a judicial review in court if it had not done so, since proof of its attendance or lack of attendance could be readily determined through court records. Given the above, I find Acumen is entitled to the claimed $1,447.14.

17.   The Court Order Interest Act (COIA) applies to the CRT. I find Acumen is entitled to pre-judgment interest on the $1,447.14, calculated from February 15, 2021 to the date of this decision. This interest equals $44.45.

18.   Under section 49 of the CRTA and the CRT’s rules, a successful party is generally entitled to reimbursement of their CRT fees and reasonable dispute-related expenses. As Acumen was successful, I find it is entitled to reimbursement of $125 in paid CRT fees. Neither party claims dispute-related expenses.

ORDERS

19.   Within 21 days of this decision, I order Mr. Weaver to pay Acumen a total of $1,616.59, broken down as follows:

a.    $1,447.14 in debt,

b.    $44.45 in pre-judgment interest under the COIA, and

c.    $125 in CRT fees.

20.   Acumen is entitled to post-judgment interest, as applicable.

21.   Under section 58.1 of the CRTA, a validated copy of the CRT’s order can be enforced through the Provincial Court of British Columbia. Once filed, a CRT order has the same force and effect as an order of the Provincial Court of British Columbia.