A client terminates a “lawyer contract” to evade 1.2 million dirhams

The Abu Dhabi Family, Civil and Administrative Cases Court – Appeals upheld a ruling from the Court of First Instance that ruled to reject a lawsuit filed by a man against his lawyer, in which he demanded that he be obliged to return 200 thousand dirhams (fee advance), and a check worth one million dirhams (remaining fees), after he terminated the agency concluded between them.

The Court of Appeal indicated that “the appellant is the one who unilaterally terminated the contract and dismissed the appellant against him, without a legitimate reason, and after the latter began carrying out the work entrusted to him, according to the agreement, and before its completion, his action is to obtain the full fees on a valid document, and in accordance with the Law of Advocacy and Legal Consultations.”

In detail, a man filed a lawsuit against a law firm, requesting that he be obliged to cancel a fee agreement, return the amount of 200 thousand dirhams, and the legal interest from the date of filing the lawsuit until full payment, and pay one million dirhams in compensation for the damage he suffered as a result of not adhering to the terms of the fee agreement, and oblige him to hand over the original check for the late fees, while obliging him to pay the fees and legal expenses and for the attorney’s fees, and as a precaution to assign an expert to review the papers and what is in them. Documents, the stage reached by the lawsuits and procedures, both commercial and criminal, carried out by the defendant, an explanation of the reason for non-compliance with the terms of the fee agreement, and an estimate of the defendant’s fees according to the stage they have reached, and the effort and care it took.

The plaintiff indicated his agreement with the defendant, as a law firm, to represent him in several lawsuits, and said that he had signed, pursuant to that, a contract for a total amount of 1.2 million dirhams, of which 200 thousand dirhams would be paid in cash and the remainder would be paid after the end of the lawsuit.

They agreed, in an appendix to a contract with an additional clause, that the deferred fees would be an amount of one million dirhams if he was sentenced to no less than five million dirhams.

He continued that despite paying the fees, the defendant violated the agreement by not exerting diligence and legal effort, presenting the memoranda to him, and failing to notify him of developments in the case.

In support of his claim, he provided scanned copies of a fee agreement, two receipts issued by the defendant, and a bank statement.

The court of first instance ruled to reject the case as it stands, and obligated the plaintiff to pay fees and expenses.

The plaintiff was not satisfied with this ruling, so he filed his appeal, demanding that the appealed ruling be canceled and that his requests be adjudicated before the court of first instance, for reasons that stem from an error in applying the law, and in conditioning the contractual relationship as just an ordinary agency, while the agreement concluded between the two parties is a contract binding on both parties, and that he failed to implement his obligations by not presenting memorandums to him, and not exercising due diligence in the cases entrusted to him, and notifying him of new matters in his case, pointing out that he canceled the agency issued to the appellant, He asked him to return the contract advance amount of 200 thousand dirhams delivered to him, return the check for the late fees, and hand over the files. However, he refused to do that, breached his obligation, and deposited the check and cashed it, ignoring that he was not entitled to it unless he was awarded an amount of five million dirhams.

The court refused to assign a legal expert to evaluate the respondent’s performance in implementing the agency.

It explained in the merits of its ruling that what is established from the litigation documents is that the appellant entered into an agency contract with the appellee to represent him in the cases referred to, and what was established in the judiciary was that the agent’s obligation was to exercise the usual care of a man and not to achieve a specific result, and that the point of holding him accountable is to prove his breach of the care and diligence imposed by the principles of agency, noting that what is clear from reviewing the minutes of the sessions and the documents submitted is that the appellant against whom the appellant appeared before the judicial liquidator in the overall commercial case, and submitted his memorandums. He also took the initiative to follow up on the criminal complaint that is the subject of the second lawsuit, and submitted evidence of his appeal against the decision to file them in accordance with what the law made available to him, which confirms that he carried out his duties entrusted to him under the agency and made a significant effort in representing his client.

The court indicated that what is clear from reviewing the WhatsApp messages exchanged between the two parties to the case is that the respondent was notifying the appellant of developments in the litigation on his behalf, and that failure to notify all developments is not considered a fundamental reason for terminating the contract, as this did not result in the loss of a fundamental interest or the loss of an established right for the appellant, and it did not prove to the court that the appellant against him had neglected or breached his contractual obligations or his obligations derived from the assets of the agency, which is what it stated. The appellant’s allegations are unsubstantiated and not supported by any evidence.

The court pointed out that what the appellant said about the appellant cashing the check submitted by him despite not being entitled to it, is rejected by the fact that what is proven from the case papers is that the appellant was the one who removed the appellee from the agency work and warned him to terminate the contract without a legitimate reason and after the latter started carrying out the work entrusted to him under the agreement and before its completion, which is his action by obtaining the full fees subject to the contract based on the claim and in accordance with the text of Article 57 of the Law on Advocacy and Legal Consultations, on a valid document, and it is not It is permissible to demand a refund of what was paid for the fees, based on the appellant’s unilateral termination of the contract and dismissal of the client without a legitimate reason.

The court ruled to accept the appeal in form, and to reject it in substance, upholding the appealed ruling, and obligating the appellant to pay the expenses.