Skip to main content

Finding the Right Family Law Lawyer - A Follow up Thought

What I've Learned

Something I've learned is that it's so important to take a prospective client through the estimated costs of pursuing a legal matter. There will usually be turns in the road.

The turn in the road, Isaac Paonessa blog, photo by Jiang Hua

Photo credit: Jiang Hua

While the costs are still estimates, a frank discussion between lawyer and prospective client prior to deciding on a retainer is crucial to a person's satisfaction level. Also, it's crucial to understanding whether it's a good fit. 

The costs of litigation can mushroom in a short time because there are so many things that are out of your lawyer's control, such as how a court will decide a procedural matter or what the other side will do.

The expectations that are set early on will greatly impact the equality of your working relationship with your lawyer. You should be looking for this when on the initial consultation. I believe that in the intake phone call or questionnaire that you may be asked to fill out would not be the right time to discuss estimated costs of different paths. This is because you haven't had a full discussion about the situation. But at the consultation (which may be by video or phone I acknowledge), it's a good sign when a lawyer shoots straight with you about what things will cost and is not afraid to say it.

The lawyer can lay out the path, or paths, and like sign posts on the way, mark the steps with their estimated costs. There could also be a discussion about what types of events would make the costs go higher. No one has a perfect prediction ability. But what you want is a sober look at how things could go in certain bad scenarios.

For example, to bring a motion for parenting time, a client would have to pay his or her lawyer to write a Notice of Motion and at least one affidavit (a sworn statement of alleged facts that you want the court to accept as evidence.). By the time everything is edited, served, filed and you have a court date, the cost may have reached an estimated $5000-$7000 depending on your lawyer's hourly rate. Now the other party has to make a response. While you might expect a response within the timeframe given, the other party may not do so.

This makes the court appearance practically pointless and would often another hearing. Now you've paid for the motion materials, you've paid for you lawyer to show up to argue the motion, but you still don't have a decision because the court will often allow an extension for the other party late file their response. 

Once you get a response, you'll have to pay your lawyer to review it and discuss with you what to do. You can argue against on those materials or, if the response raises new issues, you will have to make a reply. This will raise the costs of the motion, depending on whether you will have supporters who give their own sworn statements with supporting material (e.g. text messages marked as exhibits). It may cost another $7000 by the time the reply materials are filed and uploaded to the court's system. Then there will have to be another appearance by your lawyer to argue the motion on its merits.

But there might be another turn. The body of material for the judge to read may be so large by this time that the court will require the parties to make a "special appointment." This is a hearing that is scheduled for longer than one hour. If the matter is put to a special appointment date, this would delay the hearing of your motion on its merits to several months down the road and require you to have you lawyer show up again for that longer session. The legal costs will have risen even higher by this point to perhaps $20,000.

This is why it is important to have a thorough and candid discussion with your prospective lawyer about the potential costs of a motion and other steps in litigation. Motions should be planned carefully with a war chest ready.

Read my previous article on this topic.

Find a family law & divorce lawyer

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Coming to a Court Near You: Dogimony for "Companion Animals"

New BC Law Changes How Pets Are Divided Up in Divorce & Family Law Cases Yesterday I had the pleasure of accepting Kristy Cameron's invitation to join her on her radio show in Ottawa to weigh in on the recent changes to the Family Law Act in British Columbia . You can find her show at iHeart Radio 580 CFRA News Talk Radio . One of my favourite parts of the show was when Kristy and her producer Chris coined the word "dogimony." It was on the topic of how the ownership and possession of pets is now decided in British Columbia courts. Photo credit: Yuliya Strizhkina. A pet's best interests are now one of the principles a BC judge must consider when deciding which party gets ownership and possession of the companion animal. The relationship a child has with the pet and the relationship the other spouse has are also required considerations. It's like a combined best interest of the pet + stakeholder principle.  What are the changes in s 92 and s 97 of BC’s Family L...

A New Path to Resolving Disputes: Binding Judicial Dispute Resolution

Binding Judicial Dispute Resolution Recently, I attended an opening of the courts ceremony in London where judges of the Ontario Court of Justice and the Superior Court of Justice were speaking. The local administrative judge for London updated the audience and said that the London family court branch would soon begin piloting an innovative way to move certain cases toward resolution.  Photo credit: Tyler Lastovich It’s called binding judicial dispute resolution (Binding JDR). It promises to be a helpful option for the right type of case to help move things along and clear up the backlog.  So far, what I know is that Binding JDR combines elements of a settlement conference and elements of a trial. The process is pursued in the courts with a judge that hears the settlement conference, and this same judge would be the one who hears the modified trial.  I wrote about settlement conferences in a previous post. This project has been tried with success in other regions in...