The applicant brought an application under section 23 of the Solicitors Act for a declaration that legal services provided by the respondent lawyer in an underlying veterinary malpractice action were rendered on a pro bono basis.
The respondent argued the oral retainer was a contingency fee arrangement and billed the applicant $34,000 after the action settled.
The court found that the respondent failed to discharge the heavy onus of proving the terms of the oral retainer over the client's understanding.
The court declared the services were provided pro bono and ordered the return of fees previously paid.
