This endorsement addresses the determination of reasonable legal fees for counsel representing a person under disability in an accident benefits claim.
The court had previously approved a global settlement of $1.3 million for the catastrophically injured applicant, Robert Jones, after initially declining a lower proposed settlement due to concerns about its adequacy and the absence of a proper management plan.
The primary issue in this endorsement was the reasonableness of the applicant's counsel's proposed contingency fee of 23% (or 26.57% by the court's calculation) of the settlement.
Applying the principles from Henricks-Hunter, the court found the contingency agreement was not fair when made and the proposed fees were not reasonable, considering the minimal risk assumed by counsel due to the undeniable catastrophic injuries, and the fact that the settlement achieved was at the low end of entitlement.
