In case of negligence of a lawyer, what insurance is liable, that of the lawyer or that of the firm? The Provincial Court (AP) of the Balearic Islands had to answer this question in a judgment in which the conflict is resolved between a firm and the insurance company of one of its lawyers, who argued over which of the two should respond to the damage caused to a client by the professional’s carelessness. In this case, the court rules out that both entities must cover the debt jointly and severally and understands that it is only the office that must pay the compensation.
Why? The AP argues that the client contracted directly with the firm and did not choose the professional specifically. In fact, he stresses that the matter was initially brought up by another professional, who ended up referring him. In this way, the link was contracted with the firm, so it is the only one that can answer for errors that harm its clients.
Irene Cortes
–
According to the ruling, the conflict arose in 2017, when one of the clients sued the office for a mistake made by the lawyer handling his case. The Justice agreed with him and set a compensation of about 14,000 euros. The entity paid the amount, but after filed an appeal Before the Justice against the lawyer’s insurance company so that it paid part of the compensation. The firm alleged that the guilty party was the insured, as was recognized in the first litigation, so the debt had to be paid between both parties. He also claimed the fees of the lawyer and the attorney who hired for the litigation, which amounted to 8,400 euros.
The company refused to pay, claiming that, to begin with, there was no contractual relationship between the client and the lawyer. That is why the injured party acted against the firm, “which is with whom the services were contracted“In addition, they recalled that the firm” is not a beneficiary “of the insurer, so has no legitimacy to claim the fulfillment of an obligation “derived from a contract to which it is not even a party”. Or, in other words, that the law firm was not its client, so it could not require it to fulfill its responsibilities as an insurer.
Contract with the firm
In its ruling, the Balearic AP indicates that the law allows a debtor to demand the rest of those responsible to pay in solidarity. However, remember that, in this case, the firm you are not litigating the real culprit, which is the lawyer, but does it against his insurer. For the magistrates, the lawsuit should have been directed against the one who acted carelessly “in order to declare his joint liability.”
Pedro del Rosal
–
Along these lines, the court explains that, in order to get the insurer to respond to the debt in solidarity, “a statement of responsibility from the lawyer would be necessary.” But this was neither produced voluntarily nor required in court, recalls the AP. Now the magistrates admit that there could be a relationship of internal solidarity between the firm and the negligent lawyer as part of the staff. “But this solidarity does not extend or project its effects abroad; that is, in front of the third parties they hired,” they assert.
In this case, the court insists, the client contracted a link with the firm, and not with the attorney in a personal capacity. In fact, it underlines that the matter was initially brought up by another lawyer from the firm. The fact that it was the firm and not the lawyer who signed the service contract with the client is the main reason for the court to absolve the insurer from facing compensation.
–
In case of negligence of a lawyer, what insurance is liable, that of the lawyer or that of the firm? The Provincial Court (AP) of the Balearic Islands had to answer this question in a judgment in which the conflict is resolved between a firm and the insurance company of one of its lawyers, who argued over which of the two should respond to the damage caused to a client by the professional’s carelessness. In this case, the court rules out that both entities must cover the debt jointly and severally and understands that it is only the office that must pay the compensation.
–
