The Provincial Court of Orense condemns a lawyer to compensate his client with 12,000 euros, for the damages caused by initiating a judicial procedure that he knew would fail. The magistrates consider that the lawyer acted with negligence, since he chose to request an exorbitant compensation without previously informing the client of him, instead of asking them to carry out the work, which was expected.
The woman sued the community of owners where she lived to have a window installed in the same way as in the rest of the building. In said procedure, a transactional agreement was reached that was judicially approved and in which the community undertook to install the window within three months.
Community of owners
Although, the community of owners failed to comply with said agreement, for which the neighbor decided to sue her, thus initiating a procedure for “execution of the obligation to do not very personal” (replacement of the opening system of a window whose cost was less than 100 euros). However, the lawyer who represented her, now sued and convicted, chose to claim compensation for damages suffered by the woman. Therefore, he requested the payment of compensation of 50,000 euros, instead of urging the execution, by a third party, of the unfulfilled obligation.
The claim requested by the lawyer was dismissed and his client was sentenced to pay all the costs of the procedure, amounting to a total of 12,000 euros.
Professional negligence of the lawyer
Faced with such a situation, the client filed a professional civil liability lawsuit against the lawyer for negligence in defending her interests.
At first instance, the lawsuit was dismissed, since the judge considered that the plaintiff accepted her lawyer’s proposal to claim compensation for damages.
However, the Provincial Court revokes the judgment appealed against and declares the negligence of the defendant professional, who is condemned to compensate his client.
For the Court of Appeal, it is evident that the lawyer’s option to exercise a claim for damages was clearly doomed to failure, a circumstance that he should have been aware of, so his conduct was the causing the property damage suffered by his clientwhich she is now claiming from the lawyer, consisting of the amount of the procedural costs of both instances that were imposed on her.
By substituting the execution in nature for the compensation of damages, the lawyer omitted the inherent duties, to the exercise of his professional activity that imposed him to watch over the interests of his client with the utmost zeal and diligence, ensuring the success of the claim and in any case mitigating the risks derived from the imposition of costs, consubstantial to all types of process.
increased risk
Although it is true that the risk of imposing costs is an inherent risk in the judicial process, when the lawyer requests a absolutely disproportionate compensation to the circumstances of the case markedly increased this risk, so it is not covered by the professional assignment.
Obligation to inform the client
Likewise, the judgment states that, even though it may be true that the lawyer limited himself to following the instructions of his client, he was obliged to inform him of the chances of success or failureabout the consequences derived from the rejection of the claim and about the process costincluding the approximate amount to which the costs could rise, not stating that the defendant provided the plaintiff with the aforementioned information, proof that was incumbent on him.
For all these reasons, the Court condemns the lawyer to pay his client 12,000 euros for the economic damages caused by his lack of diligence, equivalent to the amount of the costs to which he was ordered in both instances.
–
