Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Client initiated a review under the Legal Profession Act of 16 bills from his former lawyer, who claimed approximately $390,000 in outstanding fees and disbursements for a contested estate matter involving a $1.4 million estate.

• Registrar found the Law Firm's billing of 629 lawyer hours and 78.2 staff hours was unreasonable, excessive, and constituted "running up the clock" with unproductive research and review.

• Pleadings filed by the Law Firm lacked proper legal analysis, consisting largely of "cut and paste" excerpts from case authorities without explanation of their application.

• Administrative staff time billed for reviewing court rules, preparing binders, and researching forms was deemed improper overhead not chargeable to clients.

• Mr. Liggett's disciplinary history with the Law Society of British Columbia for accounting practices and trust account restrictions was considered a relevant factor in the review.

• Total fees were reduced to $60,000 inclusive of all disbursements, taxes, interest, and prior payments, with the Law Firm ordered to pay the Client's costs of the review.

The death of Loretta Schellert and the family dispute

On August 2, 2023, Loretta Schellert passed away in hospital in British Columbia, leaving behind an estate valued at approximately $1.4 million, consisting primarily of her home in Delta. The Deceased had four beneficiaries: her two children, Alexander Schellert and Carmen Arnaldi, and her two grandchildren, Michael Paolo Arnaldi (the Client) and his sister Stephanie Arnaldi. The Deceased had made a will in 2022 giving each of her children only $1,000 and leaving the residue of the estate to be divided equally between her grandchildren — a significant departure from her 1987 Will, which allocated 80% to her children and 20% to her grandchildren. The Client's relationship with his mother and uncle was acrimonious, and the other beneficiaries were upset about the 2022 Will. When Carmen refused to release the Deceased's body from the morgue without an autopsy, the Client sought legal help and retained Andrew Liggett of Sea to Sky Law Corporation through an internet search, based on information on the Law Firm's website that Mr. Liggett had over 30 years' experience in family and estate matters.

The retainer agreement and early billing concerns

The Client entered into a retainer agreement on August 8, 2023, which provided for Mr. Liggett's hourly rate of $395 and a staff rate of $125, along with a retainer of $4,900. The agreement also stipulated interest of 3% per month, compounded monthly, on overdue accounts — an effective annual rate of 42.586%, which Mr. Liggett acknowledged now exceeds the criminal rate of interest following legislative changes effective January 1, 2025. Within weeks of being retained, the Client expressed concern about the fees, noting "very simple mistakes" in documents such as repeatedly identifying him as a physician, and asking for an estimate of total costs. Mr. Liggett apologized for the "invoice shock" but did not reduce any fees, and his office administrator testified that "critiquing" the accounts merely meant explaining entries rather than reducing them.

Filing the probate application and petition

Mr. Liggett advised the Client that the fastest way to have the Deceased's remains released was to be appointed administrator under the 2022 Will, telling him it could be done quickly by a desk order or a short application in court. However, both Carmen and Mr. Schellert promptly filed notices of dispute challenging the 2022 Will, which under the court rules meant the appointment could not proceed by desk order. On September 29, 2023, the Law Firm filed for probate and commenced a petition to appoint the Client as administrator. The petition sought orders authenticating the 2022 Will, appointing the Client as administrator, and removing the notices of dispute. Despite Mr. Liggett billing extensive hours for legal research and drafting, the Registrar found the legal basis section of the petition simply listed nine cases without any reference to the legal principles for which they stood or any explanation of how the law applied to the facts of the Client's case.

Repeated adjournments and escalating fees

From October 2023 through March 2024, the matter appeared in chambers on multiple occasions but never proceeded to a hearing on the merits. Justice Walkem adjourned the petition on October 23, 2023, and directed that it be put on the assize list for the week of November 20 for a full day. That hearing was rescheduled to the week of January 8, 2024, after Scheduling advised that no presiders were available. Justice Verhoeven heard the petition for a half day, granted an adjournment, and expressly ordered the Client to file an amended petition "to properly set out the Factual Basis and Legal Basis." The matter was rescheduled to the week of March 25, when Justice Stephens again adjourned it and ordered written submissions. By this point, Mr. Liggett's fees exceeded $100,000 for approximately five months of work with two appearances in chambers, neither of which were for more than half a day. Meanwhile, the Law Firm's staff continued to bill the Client for tasks such as researching court rules, preparing binders, drafting indexes, and making phone calls to the registry — tasks the Registrar considered purely administrative overhead.

The amended petition and quality of work

The amended petition filed January 30, 2024, added approximately 20 paragraphs to the factual basis but, in the Registrar's assessment, the legal basis remained an extensive "cut and paste" of excerpts from case authorities with no legal analysis or narrative explaining how they applied to the Client's case. The Registrar contrasted this unfavorably with the response prepared by Carmen's counsel, which set out relevant legal principles under clear headings and explained how the law applied to the facts. Mr. Schellert's counsel commenced a separate action in March 2024 regarding the 2022 Will, noting in his pleadings that the Client's amended petition did not seek an order declaring the 2022 Will proven in solemn form, nor did it seek relief under Rule 25-14(4).

Mediation and settlement

The parties agreed to attempt mediation, which took place over two days in early September 2024. Mr. Liggett prepared a four-page mediation brief that did not identify any legal issues or cite any relevant case authorities, while the joint brief prepared by Carmen and Mr. Schellert's counsel was eight pages and identified several legal issues with relevant authorities. By the time of the mediation, the Law Firm claimed the Client owed approximately $250,000 in legal fees. The mediation did not reach an agreement, but the parties continued to negotiate and entered into a settlement agreement dated September 9, 2024, agreeing to appoint Heritage Trust Company as a third-party administrator, divide the residue of the estate among the beneficiaries with each adult child receiving 27.5% and each grandchild receiving 22.5%, and bear their own legal costs. The Client testified he felt pressured to agree to the settlement because he just wanted it "to be over" and could not afford to continue, given Mr. Liggett had advised he owed $250,000 in legal fees by that point. The Client testified that as of the LPA review hearing, he had not received any of his share of the Deceased's estate.

The bill review proceedings

In February 2025, the Client initiated proceedings under the Legal Profession Act to review the Law Firm's 16 bills. The review hearing took place over four days in July 2025 and February 2026 before Registrar Gaily in New Westminster. Mr. Liggett appeared as his own counsel and was cross-examined, while the Client was represented by D.R. Greig. Registrar Gaily assessed the bills against the factors in s. 71(4) of the Legal Profession Act, finding that the issues were not particularly complex, difficult, or novel; that the time billed — 629 hours by Mr. Liggett and 78.2 hours by staff — was unreasonable and excessive; that the work product did not reflect the skill expected of a lawyer with Mr. Liggett's claimed experience; and that the results obtained were largely of little to no value to the Client. The Registrar also considered Mr. Liggett's disciplinary history with the Law Society, which the hearing panel in the most recent discipline decision described as "an extensive professional conduct history," and found that Mr. Liggett had minimized this history before the court.

The ruling and outcome

Registrar Gaily found the fees claimed by the Law Firm to be "indefensible" and substantially reduced them. The total amount allowed was $60,000, inclusive of all disbursements, taxes, applicable interest, and the approximately $35,000 the Client had already paid — a reduction from the approximately $390,000 in outstanding fees and disbursements originally claimed by the Law Firm. As the reduction exceeded one-sixth of the total amount of the bills, under s. 72(1)(a) of the Legal Profession Act, the Law Firm was ordered to pay the Client's costs of the review proceedings. The parties did not make submissions on costs, and the Registrar directed them to contact Scheduling if they were unable to resolve the issue so that written submissions on costs could be scheduled.