The Appellant law firm appealed the Chambers Judge’s Decision which found the contingency fee agreement (the “Agreement”) between the Parties did not substantively comply with the specific requirements of Rule 10.7, rendering it unenforceable.

The Appellant argued that the Chambers Judge should have adopted a more flexible approach by assessing whether the non-compliance with the specific requirements of Rule 10.7 was merely technical rather than substantive when determining the validity of the Agreement. Further, the Appellant contended that if no prejudice arose from the non-compliance, the Agreement should be enforceable.

The Court rejected this argument, emphasizing that Rule 10.7 establishes strict, mandatory requirements for contingency fee agreements, and that any non-compliance renders an agreement unenforceable. The Court noted that under Rule 10.8, a lawyer who fails to meet these requirements is limited to fair and reasonable compensation in accordance with Rule 10.2. The Court reaffirmed that Rule 10.7 serves as a consumer protection measure, ensuring clarity and certainty of the rights and obligations of both the lawyer and the client.

Additionally, the Court clarified that compliance with Rule 10.7 is the lawyer’s responsibility and cannot be excused by a lack of harm to the client and prejudice is only relevant when a lawyer fails to include a notice of the client’s right to review an account, as required by Rule 10.7(8). Further, the Court took issue with a provision in the Agreement requiring the Respondent to bear the costs of Arbitration or a Review Officer, finding that it discouraged challenges to the Agreement and undermined the Rule’s protective purpose.

In the end, the Court held that the Chambers Judge committed no palpable and overriding error in determining that the Agreement was not substantively compliant with Rule 10.7 and was therefore unenforceable. The Appeal was dismissed.