BEARDY'S AND OKEMASIS CREE NATION — Legal fee agreements between a First Nation and its former law firm were unfair and, in some cases, unenforceable, a Saskatchewan judge concluded. Some legal experts say the issue is more common and causes more harm among First Nations than with the general population.
The decision, released last Tuesday, settles a 2021 dispute over millions of dollars in legal fees and penalties tied to historic claims against the federal government.
"This was obviously a big win for Beardy's and Okemasis Cree Nation, but this is also a big win for First Nations generally," said Edwin Ananas, chief of the nation, in a recent press release.
In 1999, Calgary-based Maurice Law, which describes itself as "the first and largest Indigenous-owned national law firm in Canada," was brought in to help prepare claims for treaty payments withheld by Canada after the 1885 Northwest Resistance.
At the time, Canada had labelled the nation and other Prairie First Nations as “Rebellion Nations” and cut off their treaty rights as punishment for their supposed role in the uprising.
By 2005, the communities had signed formal retainer agreements with Maurice Law. The Beardy’s case was chosen as a test to set a legal precedent, making it easier for others to succeed.
Over the years, the legal work expanded to cover multiple claims — annuities, salaries, agricultural benefits and flood losses. The law firm recommended its clients take out litigation loans and insurance to cover legal costs as the cases dragged on.
By 2015, Beardy’s had won a $4.5-million judgment for withheld annuities, and in 2024, the nation reached a $4.1-million settlement with Canada for unpaid salaries to chiefs and council.
However, concerns about legal fees and financing grew. According to the , Ananas and the council were worried about rising legal bills and debt from loans and insurance.
In 2021, they ended their contract with Maurice Law. After the termination, the law firm demanded more than $1.1 million in fees plus a share of future contingency payments, even though it had already been paid through loans and insurance.
The agreements included what the court called “poison pill” clauses: if the clients switched lawyers before a settlement, they could owe up to half the expected contingency fee, plus other charges.
“The penalty or ‘poison pill’ provisions in the retainer agreements are designed to punish and discourage the client from terminating Maurice or suffer severe financial consequences,” the judge wrote.
The nation argued the agreements were confusing and didn’t clearly say which claims were covered or what fees would be charged. The court found these penalty clauses unfair and ruled the law firm should be paid a reasonable amount for the services they provided, rather than the specific fees in the disputed contracts.
The judge ordered Maurice Law to reimburse Beardy’s more than $826,000, as well as $100,000 in enhanced costs, an additional penalty for the unfair agreements. About $492,000 — the 12 per cent contingency fee claimed by the firm — remains in trust until the final amount is decided.
The court also found troubling billing practices. Records showed one lawyer claimed 25 hours in a single day, and the nation was charged 338 hours just to draft a declaration of claim. The judge found many of the same problems with contracts Maurice Law had with another First Nation, One Arrow, including confusing terms and harsh penalty clauses, and ruled those agreements were also unfair or unenforceable in part. The judge did not order Maurice Law to pay a specific sum back to One Arrow at this stage. Instead, the court said any fees Maurice Law claims from One Arrow must be based only on the fair value of the legal work actually done. If One Arrow and the law firm can’t agree on what’s fair, they can return to court to have the fees reviewed again.
In a statement, Maurice Law said working on contingency is a way for the firm to take on clients who can't afford to pay up front.
"We have worked for decades on claims with no guarantee of success. We have spent thousands of hours on claims that were unsuccessful or have not yet been resolved. We believe this is fair – we are only paid a contingency fee when we win. In doing so, we enhance access to justice for Indigenous communities in need. When we are successful, we are paid a percentage of the award to our client, typically in the 4 to 12 per cent range, which is standard in our industry, and lower than what many other firms practising aboriginal law charge," the firm wrote.
Maurice Law said it intends to appeal the judicial decision. "We acknowledge a small number of our fee arrangements were recently overturned by the Saskatchewan Court of King’s Bench. We believe the decision of the Court of King’s Bench includes errors of law and we intend to appeal this decision to the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal."
The firm said it donates a portion of its contingency fees back to First Nations, amounting to $2 million so far in 2025.
Indigenous Services Canada did not respond to a request for comment by deadline.
Exploitative practices
Legal experts who spoke to Canada’s National Observer following last Tuesday's Maurice Law case say that while contingency fee arrangements were designed to improve access to justice, they have often led to predatory practices, windfall profits for lawyers and unfair outcomes that disproportionately harm First Nations clients.
This issue is especially common in Saskatchewan because the province has seen a surge in large, complex First Nations litigation and settlement activity in recent decades, drawing more law firms to the region in search of substantial payouts, said Sara Mainville, managing partner of JFK Law.
“There are more and more law firms that are really attracted to this work because of the large payouts," Mainville said.
She pointed out that the principle of “sharing” in Indigenous culture is sometimes taken advantage of by lawyers. Some firms have justified large bonuses or “contingency fees” as a way of sharing in the community’s success.
“First Nations feel like they should share, because they've been successful,” Mainville said. “[But] those don't really align with the fact that as lawyers under our law societies, we get paid. We get paid for the work we do, we don't necessarily get bonuses.”
Cynthia Westaway, senior counsel at First Peoples Law LLP and former founder of Westaway Law Group, said these issues are especially acute for First Nations, who often come to the negotiation table from poverty resulting from the loss of lands and other historic wrongs.
“Professional support should never take advantage of the limited resources and lack of leverage of First Nations to negotiate a fair contract,” she said.
Westaway said contingency fees make sense in certain class actions, such as the recent cases involving the forced sterilization of Indigenous women, but are less appropriate for claims already accepted by Canada for negotiation of compensation owed.
“While there may be situations where contingencies are reasonable, l have never had to go that route to successfully reach large settlements,” Westaway said.
Westaway said historically, Canada didn’t fund historic claims. Now it usually covers the cost of reports and provides about $110,000 per claim each year for negotiations. Given this support, contingencies are rarely needed, and courts are unlikely to find fees of five to 20 per cent reasonable on large settlements, which often range from $200,000 to $700,000.
These communities have already waited 120 to 150 years to be compensated for their losses, she said.
However, delayed funding forces councils to enter into contingency fee agreements to keep their cases moving.
She said in all cases, First Nations should not have to go to court over legal fees. Instead, any past contingencies should be reviewed for reasonableness and updated to ensure First Nations are paying reasonable fees in line with the case law.
“Canada should be providing funding earlier and more consistently, so there’s no need for a contingency," Westaway said.
Mainville said in her own practice, contingency fees are used “when there’s no other option” but “taking an unfair cut of damages that are justly given to that generation of citizens of that nation” is “distasteful” and undermines the purpose of reconciliation.
Likewise, Mainville said that “poison pill” clauses are not common in most law firms.
“It’s not a good model retainer, not best practice to use those kinds of [clauses] that suggest that there’s sort of a poison pill if you try to terminate that law firm,” Mainville said. “All my clients have the right to terminate me, they all have the right to seek another lawyer and there's no penalty for them going elsewhere.”
Westaway agreed.
“No First Nation should ever be punished for choosing a different service provider,” she said.
In its statement, Maurice Law blamed its competitors for "encouraging clients to challenge our fees."
"While they claim to be doing this for noble reasons, the truth is they are being opportunistic. Many of our competitors would never have taken these claims on several years ago, when the client could not afford to pay and the prospect of success was uncertain. These firms wait until Maurice Law has advanced the claim to the finish line, after years of work with no or minimal compensation, and then attempt to lure our clients away at the last minute, when success is guaranteed due to the hard work of Maurice Law."
Protecting Indigenous clients
Indigenous organizations are pushing for urgent reforms to how law societies regulate legal fees charged to First Nations.
In December 2023, the passed a resolution demanding that the Federation of Law Societies and all provincial and territorial law societies create rules — developed in partnership with First Nations — to ensure legal fees are fair and reasonable.
The Indigenous Bar Association has called for specific measures, including caps on the percentage lawyers can charge in contingency fee agreements, standardized forms for contingency fee arrangements, mandatory training for lawyers working with Indigenous clients and bans on fees that aren’t justified by the actual legal work performed, rather than simply being tied to the size of settlements.
Requests for an interview were sent to the AFN and bar association, but no responses were received by deadline.
Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada told Canada’s National Observer it cannot comment on legal fees charged to First Nations by independent law firms. The department says it does not provide legal advice to First Nations during negotiations, nor does it advise them on which firms to use. Lawyers are regulated by law societies in each province and are accountable to their clients.
A spokesperson for MLT Aikins LLP, the firm representing Bready’s in the matter involving Maurice Law, declined to comment, saying Maurice Law has initiated a defamation lawsuit in Alberta against the firm and three MLT Aikins lawyers in their personal capacity.
In an emailed statement, the Law Society of Saskatchewan said it is aware of the court decision and is reviewing it. The society said that its authority to investigate legal fees is tied to the courts under The Legal Profession Act, 1990, meaning the courts first decide if a contingency agreement or legal fee is fair and reasonable before the Law Society can investigate for potential breaches of its Code of Professional Conduct.
The Law Society noted it provides guidance to lawyers through practice advisors, management courses, and ethics rulings and participates in national reviews of ethical rules — including those addressing the needs of First Nations, Inuit and Métis clients — through the Federation of Law Societies’ Standing Committee on the Model Code of Professional Conduct.
"This shouldn't be happening in today's society ... I hope a lot of other First Nations review and take into consideration the path moving forward,” Ananas, Beardy's and Okemasis Cree Nation chief, told Canada’s National Observer.
He said the court’s decision sets a precedent for Indigenous communities across Canada to assert their rights so more settlement funds can be directed to community priorities instead of legal fees.
“At the end of the day, we’re saving millions and millions of dollars. Which First Nation out there doesn’t need millions to be saved? There are so many shortfalls we overcome on a daily, yearly basis. Fighting for that extra dollar was definitely well worth it.”
Broader trend
The Saskatchewan judge’s ruling is part of a broader trend of First Nations challenging the fairness and transparency of legal fee arrangements, especially in high-stakes, historic claims against the Crown.
In 2024, sued Maurice Law, claiming the firm took over $8 million in legal fees from their “Cows and Ploughs” settlement but failed to provide proper invoices or records. Mikisew says Maurice Law promised to return two per cent of the settlement (about $2.7 million) but only paid back $250,000, and then stopped. The First Nation also says it was not given a chance to challenge the fees at the time, and Maurice Law’s handling of loans and insurance was unclear. Mikisew is now asking the court to order the return of at least $2.25 million and to review all legal fees paid to the firm.
In 2025, went to court after Maurice Law demanded immediate payment of over $5.4 million in legal fees from a settlement trust. Sweetgrass had already ended its contract with the firm and wanted the fees reviewed first. The judge ruled that Sweetgrass’s right to have the fees assessed comes first, and Maurice Law cannot demand instant payment before a review. The court also found that the law firm’s agreements did not give it a special claim to the settlement money and ordered the funds to be held until the fees can be fairly assessed.
In 2016, the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal found that Maurice Law had already been hired on an hourly basis to represent in land and flooding claims, but after a multi-million dollar settlement was nearly finalized, the firm pushed Sakimay to sign a new deal that would give Maurice Law a three per cent bonus on the settlement. The court decided this bonus agreement was unfair and unenforceable because Maurice Law misled Sakimay about what other lawyers were charging, failed to advise them to seek independent legal advice, and did not clearly explain that the original hourly contract already covered the new work.
Beyond Maurice Law, the push for fairness and transparency in legal fees is happening across the country and involves other law firms as well.
In 2024,— Atikameksheng Anishnawbek and Garden River — challenged a massive $510-million legal bill related to the $10-billion Robinson Huron Treaty settlement, arguing the amount was excessive and should be reviewed before lawyers are paid.
In Alberta, challenged a 20 per cent contingency fee agreement with Rath & Company that would have paid the law firm $11.5 million from a $57.6-million agricultural benefits settlement. The court found this fee was unreasonable, given the expected work and outcome, especially since the actual legal work was valued at less than $400,000. In 2022, the Alberta Court of Appeal upheld a lower court’s decision to slash the fee to $3 million, ordering the law firm to refund more than $8.5 million to Tallcree.
— With files from Matteo Cimellaro
