º£½ÇÉçÇø¹ÙÍø

Montrose sued, and in June of 2019, when his settlement cheque finally arrived, he couldn’t help but feel excited.

But the amount printed on the cheque was far less than he expected.

Of the $225,000 settlement, Montrose received just under $94,000. The personal injury law firm he hired to represent him, Naimark Law, got $63,000, while another legal service got $21,000 as a referral fee. The remaining amountÌýwent toward medical clinic fees, consulting fees and other third-party payments.

“It doesn’t make sense,” Montrose told the Star recently,Ìýwondering why he would get less than half of his own settlement.

Five years later, in the fall of 2024, a friend suggested Montrose may have been overcharged by his law firm for what are known as “disbursements.” Naimark had billed Montrose thousands of dollars for photocopies, along with another $95 for printing and 17 charges ranging between $10.61 and $68.14 billed simply as “transportation,” plus two additional charges for transportation to and from discovery, for a total of $813.52. The friend said MontroseÌýshould do something about it.Ìý

Now Montrose is one of four people set to join a proposed class-action lawsuit headed by lead plaintiff Omar Kalair, another former client of Naimark, and º£½ÇÉçÇø¹ÙÍølawyer Peter Waldmann, that claims the personal injury firm charged clients “exorbitant fees.”ÌýWhile the suit has yet to be certified by the courts, if it is successful it could put law firms across Ontario on notice about how much they charge clients for disbursements such as photocopies — which the suit alleges bring in “millions upon millions of dollars.”

According to the lawsuit, lead plaintiff Kalair was charged $2,673 for photocopies when his case ended in 2022. Meanwhile, Montrose was charged an even higher amount: a total of $4,465.85 for photocopies at the end of his case, according toÌýa copy of his disbursement fee bill shared with the Star.

By charging the fees, founder Ryan Naimark and his firm “breached their fiduciary duties,” the lawsuit alleges, adding the fees led to “unjust losses and harm” to Kalair and the other class members.

For their part, Naimark and his firm deny “each and every allegation” from the lawsuit in their statement of defence.

“At all relevant times, the defendants (Naimark and his firm) acted in the best interest of the plaintiff (Kalair) and were open and honest with him,” the Naimark statement of defence reads.

Neither the proposed class action nor Montrose’s allegations have been tested in court.

Unexpected charges

As Montrose looked through his bill from Naimark, he felt like he’d missed something, like he hadn’t been shown the fine print.

He knew that his lawyer would take a third of his settlement money as a fee when he signed his contingency retainer agreement back in 2016.

That same agreement, which was shared with the Star,Ìýalso mentioned that Naimark would charge for disbursements, but Montrose had no idea what these would include.

According to the Law Society of Ontario’s (LSO) website, disbursement fees cover expenses lawyers and paralegals incur on behalf of their clients during a case, like postage or hiring third-party services — and photocopies.Ìý

Montrose’s disbursements bill totalled $17,912.37 (not including tax),Ìýbut only about $8,000 of these fees were deducted from his $225,000Ìýsettlement. The remaining amount was “deferred” until other claims resolve or “the retainer is terminated,” according to his statement of account.

Most of the individual items on Montrose’s disbursement bill were made up of fees for “postage,” “courier services” and “clinical notes” from medical professionals. But the charges for things like “printing” and “transportation” left Montrose frustrated.

“I didn’t know IÌýhad to pay for transport,” Montrose told the Star recently, noting that he drove himself in his minivan to appointments.Ìý

In an emailed statement to the Star, Naimark Law did not address what the transportation fees covered, nor how the printing charge differed from the fee for photocopying.

But the firm said it “does not profit” from its disbursements.

“In fact, the Naimark Law Firm will lose money on disbursements because the firm finances these disbursements on a firm line of credit,” it said.

These fees, the firmÌýcontinued, were necessary in “retaining qualified experts” for client cases.

“Without doing so, there is a real risk of losing cases at trial or settling for far less than clients deserve,” the firm wrote.

‘The silent partner’

It was back in 1997, while questioning the general manager of a “large, nameless º£½ÇÉçÇø¹ÙÍølaw firm” at a hearing for a different case, that Waldmann, the lawyer representing the plaintiffs in the proposed class action, first learned how much lawyers were collecting for photocopying.

A few days before, Waldmann had gotten a copy of the firm’s financial statements and saw a $2-million item for “miscellaneous revenue” on the second page. When he asked during the trial what the money was for, the manager replied, “photocopies.”

“It stuck with me,” Waldmann told the Star recently at his office. “So when (Kalair) came to see me about this, I thought ‘Finally, maybe we can do something about this.’ ”

It’s not that charging clients for photocopies is wrong — the lawsuit acknowledges that they are “customary and permissible” — it’s the amount that’s being billed.

“If you’re saying this isÌýa cost or an expense, it should be a cost or expense,” Kalair said recently. “It shouldn’t turn around where they’re making it into a revenue stream.”

The lawsuit argues that firms should only be charging the “actual cost” of a photocopy — which Waldmann estimates to be no more than $0.04 a page. He said he charges $0.03 a page to his own clients.

The lawsuit alleges that Naimark and other firms charge “at least an amount of $0.25 per page,” and that some firms charge even more, up to $0.50.

“I had heard from some colleagues,” said Waldmann,ÌýspeakingÌýgenerally, “that the photocopying machine was referred to as ‘the silent partner.’ ”

Naimark’s firm did not say how much it charges per page of photocopying when asked by the Star, nor is it mentioned in the statement of defence or on Montrose’s bill.

The firm said that these costs are “a standard and necessary part of the litigation process” and that they don’t just cover paper and ink.

“They also cover specialized equipment, ongoing maintenance, organizational supplies (such as binders, dividers and covers), and the dedicated labour involved in assembling, organizing and producing professional legal documents,” the firm said. “These are not optional extras; they are essential to ensuring that complex cases are effectively and persuasively presented to obtain the best outcome for the client.”

Lack of action from regulators is also to blame, according to Waldmann. The lawsuit specifically names the Law Society of Ontario, alleging the provincial regulator isÌýaware of this “persistent and common practice” but does nothing about it.

A Law Society spokesperson said they could not comment on specific cases in an emailed statement to the Star, but noted that any clients who want to dispute their legal bill can contact the provincialÌýassessment office to have it reviewed.

Naimark’s statement of defence also points to this review process, arguing any concerns over photocopying fees are “required to be dealt with by way of individualized assessments,” not a class-action lawsuit.

Fees ‘reasonable,’ Naimark says

Naimark and his firm say they’ve done nothing wrong.

They stand behind their photocopy fees, and the disbursement fees in general, describing them as “reasonable and not excessive” in their statement of defence. They argue that the limitation period on Kalair’s claims, or time periodÌýin which he could challenge his bill, has expired.Ìý

They also note that Kalair is a “vexatious” litigant, who owes more than $1 million for court fees, and cite that as reason to dismiss the case.

The firm pointed to a March ruling in a separate case in which an Ontario Superior Court justice granted a defence motion labelling Kalair and a company he was involved with as “vexatious.”

“I cannot imagine a case more reflective of the very mischief that a vexatious litigant order is designed to foreclose,” the justice wrote in his ruling in that case.

Naimark’s firm also alleges that Waldmann has a conflict of interest because heÌýworked with Kalair during the personal injury case mentioned in the proposed class actionÌýlawsuit as a “limited scope retainer.”

“Given thatÌý(Waldmann)Ìýwill be a witness in these proceedings, the Defendants state that it is improper for him to act as counsel,” the firm argues in its statement of defence.

Both Waldmann and Kalair said these arguments are meant to distract from the issue of the photocopying fees.

Waldmann said he appealed the ruling from March that Kalair is “vexatious” on the grounds that his client is no longer part of the company involved in that case. However, Kalair said he planned to step down as the lead plaintiff on the proposed lawsuit, and allow another of Waldmann’s clients to take on the role to keep the focus on the photocopy fees.

Back to court

Nearly 10 years after the accident on that May evening, Montrose feels like nothing has changed — and he still hasn’t been able to return to work.

“I’m still the same me as I was,” he said. “I’m still broke, still fighting to pay rent and everything.”

Montrose’s experience with Naimark also impacted Montrose’s personal life. He says he could no longer trust his friend, Robby, who recommended Naimark back in 2015.

So when Robby started spamming Montrose with calls last fall, he ignored them. Until one day around late October when Robby showed up to Montrose’s house, asking that his friend hear him out.

Robby knew of a lawyer, Waldmann, who was taking Naimark and his firm to court for allegedly overcharging clients and he thought Montrose should join the suit to help the case. (Montrose doesn’t know how Robby learned of Waldmann’s case, but said his friend “likes to be around law people.”)

After the friends called Waldmann together, Montrose agreed to join the lawsuit.

“You know how nice it will be to have a bit of change?” Montrose said.

As Montrose stares down the prospect of another years-long court battle — the case is on hold until January 2026 due to the judge’s schedule — he has a more jaded perspective of the legal system compared to 10 years ago.

“I’m not hoping for anything,” he said. But if he’s successful, law firm clients across Ontario may one day thank him.Ìý