Jordan Sobel

The plaintiff lawyer brought a motion for a charging order over settlement funds received by the defendant, his former client.

The settlement funds were from a professional negligence claim the client brought against the lawyer for missing a limitation period.

The client brought a cross-motion for an assessment of the lawyer's accounts from a previous action.

The court dismissed the motion for a charging order, finding the lawyer was not instrumental in recovering the settlement funds.

The court granted the cross-motion for an assessment, finding special circumstances existed, including inadequate communication about accounts, disproportionate fees, and involuntary payment.

Judgment creditors brought a motion seeking production of a law firm’s books, trust records, bank statements, and documents relating to mortgages held in trust for the debtor, and asserted that the mortgage interests themselves were garnishable debts.

The court considered whether mortgage interests held in trust constituted “debts payable” under r. 60.08 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and whether the requested records could be compelled under r. 60.18(6).

The court held that a mortgage interest in land is not a liquidated money demand and therefore not a debt subject to garnishment until converted into money.

It further held that the broad documentary disclosure sought would breach solicitor-client privilege and no recognized exception justified disclosure.

The motion was dismissed.