Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Yilmaz appealed a chambers judge's order dismissing his application to strike a solicitor's lien filed under section 79 of the Legal Profession Act.
   
• The court considered whether a lien can attach to settlement funds when the retainer was terminated before any settlement existed.
   
• Mussio Goodman LLP's entitlement to a lien turned on whether it had done work that resulted in recovery or preservation of property.
   
• Several prior authorities, including FitzGibbon, Hosseini, Cliffs, and Wang, were examined to determine the proper test for attachment of a solicitor's lien.
   
• Whether the registrar or the court was the appropriate forum to assess the quantum of fees owed was also disputed.
   
• Yilmaz further argued that the lower court failed to determine if the lien extended to funds recovered through his ICBC Part 7 benefits dispute.
   

Facts of the case

Ozgur Yilmaz retained Mussio Goodman LLP ("MG") in December 2020 on a contingency fee basis to pursue claims arising from an October 2019 accident. Eric Goodman, a lawyer at MG, had carriage of the matter and acted as Yilmaz's solicitor of record from 2020 until February 2025, when he withdrew from representing Yilmaz for cause. After an exchange of emails in which Goodman told Yilmaz there was no pressure to accept a settlement or stay with the firm but that MG would not change its position on proceeding to trial, MG withdrew from the representation. Three months later, Yilmaz settled his personal injury claim directly with the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (ICBC). MG subsequently filed a solicitor's lien, and Yilmaz applied to strike it. A chambers judge dismissed that application on January 28, 2026, concluding she was unable to find that there was no chance additional fees might be owing, so Yilmaz had not met the burden to discharge the lien. Yilmaz then appealed to the Court of Appeal for British Columbia.

Contractual clause at issue

The Contingency Fee Agreement provided that Yilmaz would pay MG legal fees "calculated as a percentage of any and all recovery on [his] claims." Section 79(1) of the Legal Profession Act was central to the dispute, providing that a lawyer retained to prosecute or defend a proceeding has a charge against any property recovered or preserved as a result of the proceeding, for proper fees, charges, and disbursements, including counsel fees.

Reasoning and analysis

Yilmaz argued the chambers judge made four errors: failing to determine whether MG had recovered or preserved property to which a lien could attach, treating Albion Securities Co. Ltd. v. Nathason as answering that threshold question, failing to apply the approach in Hosseini v. Oreck Chernoff and Cliffs Over Maple Bay (Re), and failing to determine whether MG was entitled to a lien over funds from his Part 7 benefits dispute with ICBC. Justice MacNaughton, writing for the court, found Yilmaz's position that no charge can attach to a settlement absent an existing settlement at the time of termination was irreconcilable with FitzGibbon v. Piters, where a law firm that withdrew before a subsequent lawyer negotiated a settlement was still entitled to a lien on those proceeds. She held that section 79(1), on its plain reading, requires only that a lawyer be retained to prosecute or defend a proceeding and that property be recovered or preserved as a result of that proceeding; there is no further requirement to show a precise causal connection between the lawyer's work and the recovery. Since Yilmaz admitted retaining MG on a 30% contingency basis for roughly five years before MG withdrew, and the settlement funds were obtained in relation to that proceeding, the conditions of section 79(1) were met. The court further held that Hosseini, properly read in its factual context involving property awarded entirely to an opposing party, did not support Yilmaz's argument, and that neither Cliffs nor Wang v. Jiang independently supported his position. The court agreed with the chambers judge that the extent to which MG's work contributed to the final settlement, the quality of that work, and the quantum of disbursements were matters for the registrar to assess, not the chambers judge. On the Albion point, the court found the chambers judge had properly relied on it only for its discussion of the registrar's role, citing the principle that absent little or no possibility of further fees being owed, an assessment before the registrar—rather than further proceedings—is the appropriate forum. Regarding the Part 7 benefits argument, the court agreed that this was also a matter for the registrar to address in assessing whether the retainer agreement extended to those benefits.

Ruling and overall outcome

The Court of Appeal dismissed Yilmaz's appeal, with Justice MacNaughton's reasons concurred in by Justices Riley and Brundrett. Mussio Goodman LLP and Eric Goodman, as the successful respondents, retained the benefit of the solicitor's lien against the settlement proceeds, with the chambers judge's order standing. The decision does not state a specific dollar amount awarded or ordered; rather, it confirms MG's entitlement to maintain the lien, leaving the quantum of fees, charges, and disbursements owed to be determined by the registrar in a separate assessment proceeding.