Lawyers now fighting over more legal fees

Dec 15, 2009 News

---

… Victor Bourne estate
More controversy is erupting over the estate of the late Victor Bourne with attorneys at law battling for further payment from the sale of properties.
Attorney at law Gentle Elias, who represented the estate of the late Victor Bourne on behalf of his 10 children, is claiming additional sums to make up the 33 percent fee agreed upon with administrator Norman Bourne. Senior Counsel Rex McKay is demanding his share of the pie for his work done in the initial stages of the case.
The attorneys are targeting funds from the potential sale of properties that are to be divided between the children and the dead man’s wife.  Elias has already pocketed $33M dollars.
The estate was settled in the High Court by Justice Roxanne George in November 2008, with the late Bourne’s wife, Yvette Leacock, getting half of the $600 million estate and the children the other half.
According to the settlement, in addition to an escrow account worth in excess of $80M, the estate consists of several expensive properties.
In a letter dated September 1 this year, Senior Counsel Rex McKay wrote to Devon and Vashema Bourne, who have since replaced their uncle as joint administrators of the estate, claiming fees that were owed to him by their father.
From all reports the children are not satisfied with their uncle’s representation and believe that he did not act in their best interests.
According to the letter, in 1996, the late Victor Bourne had contracted McKay for representation in a property battle against his wife Yvette Leacock with an arrangement to pay a percentage of the market value of the properties after the successful prosecution of the matter.
“It is therefore necessary to get a realistic value of the said properties in order to arrive at an amount to be paid for my services as lead counsel on the advice, preparation, institution of proceedings which resulted in the successful prosecution of the case,” Senior Counsel McKay wrote.
He did not state the percentage amount he was seeking.
With Bourne’s passing, his brother, Norman, was appointed administrator of the estate to act on behalf of his 10 children.
In March 2003, Norman Bourne, dissatisfied with the terms of settlement, was encouraged to sign by another attorney contracted, Gentle Elias, to continue the matter against Leacock.
According to Elias, fees were not immediately discussed with Bourne since he had known the deceased businessman and his foremost concern and desire was to genuinely offer his services.
Elias stated in a letter to the new joint administrators that their uncle Norman Bourne had explained that another attorney, Miss L. Crawford Abbensetts, was assigned to the case since he could no longer afford to pay Rex McKay whom he claimed had by his attitude toward him, totally lost interest in the conduct and outcome of the matter.
“It was his desire at the time to discharge both Mr. McKay and Ms. Abbensetts and to solely retain me. However, I advised him against this course since I believed that Mr. McKay’s name on record would be a great influence in the conduct of the matter and would be to their advantage,” Elias wrote.
However, Elias was formally retained and commenced representing the Bourne estate since March 2003.
He advised the administrator, Norman Bourne, that it would be best to retain additional counsel to assist him, given the high stake of the matter.
Elias said that with the assistance of Roger Yearwood and Lawrence Harris and to a very limited extent Rex McKay, he genuinely represented the estate of Victor Bourne as lead counsel up until the date of judgment.
At all material times, Elias said that he kept McKay abreast of the progress of the matter because of his loyalty and respect for the Senior Counsel and his initial involvement in the matter.
“I received an initial payment of approximately $33,500,000 on account of legal fees due to me under the retainer agreement. From this sum I made payments to myself, Mr. Roger Yearwood and Mr. Lawrence Harris only,” Elias wrote.
He said that after disbursing the initial fees, McKay then began making demands for payment of a portion of the fees received.
However, since the initial fees were already disbursed, Elias made a proposal to Mr. McKay to pay him one third of the balance due and to be collected.
But according to Elias, McKay did not find favour with the arrangement and has taken proceedings against him for the full sum of fees collected, including the $33M.
Elias said that the new joint administrators should seek proper legal advice since he understands that McKay has claimed that he was the lead counsel in the matter and is requesting fees directly from them.
He said though that he was still obligated from a moral standpoint to pay McKay from the balance of fees due to him.
With all this legal wrangling, the new administrators of the estate are wondering if at the end of it all, they will benefit in any significant way from what their father left for them.

---

---