Lawyer's Fees: Ruling No. 10464 of 2024 on the Promise to Pay

The recent order No. 10464 of April 17, 2024, issued by the Court of Cassation, offers significant insights regarding the fees owed to lawyers for judicial services. The decision, rendered in reference to a specific case, clarifies the importance of the promise to pay and the related burden of proof, a matter of considerable interest to legal professionals and clients who engage legal services.

Context of the Ruling

In the case at hand, the Court upheld the appeal filed by G. (G. R.) against M. concerning a dispute over fees owed for legal services. The dispute arose following an injunction order issued in favor of one of the two lawyers involved, and the central issue was whether the promise to pay had any bearing on the evidence to be presented.

The Court ruled that a promise to pay implies a procedural abstraction of the cause, shifting the burden of proof from the creditor to the debtor. In practice, this means that if the client promises to pay, the lawyer is not required to prove the existence of the retainer agreement, unless the debtor proves otherwise.

Headnote of the Ruling

In general. Regarding fees owed by a client to a lawyer for civil judicial services, a promise to pay entails the procedural abstraction of the cause, meaning it has the effect of relieving the recipient of the declaration from the burden of proving the existence of the underlying relationship, which is presumed until proven otherwise. It is incumbent upon the debtor to prove that the relationship never arose, is invalid, or has been extinguished. (In this specific instance, the Supreme Court upheld the appeal against the judgment which, despite the presence of a promise to pay concerning the defense provided by two lawyers in the same civil proceedings, had upheld the opposition to the injunction order, issued in favor of only one of the defenders, on the grounds that the defender had not proven the performance of the services rendered).

Implications and Legal References

This ruling is particularly relevant for several reasons:

• It establishes an important precedent for lawyers' rights concerning fees.
• It clarifies the burden of proof, making it more difficult for the debtor to contest the validity of the promise to pay.
• It strengthens the position of lawyers, who can now rely on greater legal protection in case of fee disputes.

The legal references cited in the ruling, such as Article 1988 and Article 2697 of the Civil Code, provide a solid legal framework for understanding the issue. These provisions outline the general principles regarding obligations and burdens of proof, confirming the direction taken by the Court of Cassation.

Conclusions

In conclusion, order No. 10464 of 2024 represents a significant step forward in protecting lawyers' rights regarding their fees. Through this decision, the Court of Cassation has reaffirmed the importance of the promise to pay and has clearly established the responsibilities of each party. It is crucial for lawyers and clients to be aware of these dynamics to avoid future disputes and ensure a productive collaboration that respects current regulations.