Firm banned from representing survivors

Calgary’s Blott and Company had filed claims months after some clients had died

A B. C. Supreme Court judge has ruled a Calgary law firm can no longer represent Indian residential school survivors under Canada’s process to compensate them for past sexual and physical abuse, suggesting the firm was in it for the money.

Blott and Company, a small firm that had 20 lawyers working only on Indian residential school cases, stood to make millions of dollars from the federal government and had more than 5,600 clients seeking redress through the Independent Assessment Process ( IAP).

Lawyers representing claimants are paid 15 per cent of what a claimant receives from the federal government and can charge a client a further 15 per cent. The average compensation awarded to an individual is $ 100,000.

“It is undeniable that Blott’s operations were designed to maximize economies of scale,” Justice Brenda Brown wrote in her 59- page ruling.

“There can be no doubt that IAP claimants were, in the system established by Blott, treated not as individual people who had in many cases suffered traumatic personal experiences at a very early age, but rather as claims requiring little lawyer interaction.”

She noted that in five cases, Blott filed IAP applications on behalf of clients months after they died.

Brown also stated that 1,222 of Blott’s clients hadn’t had their applications filed with the federal government despite a looming Sept. 19 deadline for such filings.

She also criticized Blott for helping facilitate high- interest loans with lending companies for 77 clients in anticipation of their receiving awards, and noted 73 per cent of those loans exceeded the criminal interest rate of 60 per cent.

“Blott was aware of the fact that IAP claimants, as potentially vulnerable clients, demanded a high degree of conduct from their counsel.

“In my view, those clients were entitled to counsel and advocacy in relation to the provision of loans and their terms, at the very least. Blott’s clients did not obtain the benefit of such advice.”

She said company head David Blott testified he simply acted on his clients’ instructions despite the “objectionable nature of the loan terms offered to them.”

Brown said she does not believe Blott understands what it means to be a lawyer.

Blott had argued that

stopping him from participating in future IAP hearings would effectively terminate his law practice. But Brown said she does not agree and noted the settlement agreement process has a limited duration.

“The only interests to be served in letting Mr. Blott continue would be his own economic interests,” she said.

She said lawyers from the Blott company could represent IAP claimants in the future as long as the lawyers are supervised and working for a new firm.

Brown also appointed retired B. C. judge Ian Pitfield to oversee the transfer of Blott’s remaining clients to other law firms.