A client’s petition to collect expenses from his attorney is denied if the mandate was canceled without cause. Abu Dhabi: The Abu Dhabi Civil Family and Administrative Court affirmed a lower court decision that dismissed a case brought by a man who had unilaterally terminated his lawyer’s contract in order to recover legal expenses. The claimant had requested that the court order the lawyer to refund a Dh1 million check for the remaining balance under a Dh1.2 million legal services contract, as well as Dh200,000 paid as a down payment on costs. He claimed that because the attorney had not kept him informed or submitted sufficient memoranda in his cases, he had revoked the power of attorney.
According to Emarat Al Youm, the appeal court’s ruling affirmed that the appellant unilaterally terminated the contract and fired his attorney without cause, even though the attorney had already started working under the terms of the agreement. The court determined that the lawyer was entitled to keep the entire agreed-upon fee under the UAE Law on Advocacy and Legal Consultancy, and the client had no right to request a refund. According to court documents, the claimant signed a contract worth Dh1.2 million, with Dh200,000 paying up front and Dh1 million due upon obtaining a judgment of at least Dh5 million. The claimant had hired the law company to defend him in a number of commercial and criminal situations.
The claimant provided copies of the fee agreement, receipts, and a bank statement to bolster his allegations of subpar performance and refusal to inform him of developments. The entire complaint was dismissed by the Court of First Instance because there was no proof that the attorney had not used the degree of caution mandated by a mandate. The appeal court concurred, pointing out that the lawyer had filed memoranda, attended hearings, and pursued a related criminal complaint, including challenging a decision to close the case, according to hearing minutes and papers.
The court also looked at the parties’ WhatsApp chats, which showed that the attorney had kept the client updated on the status of the case. It decided that insufficient updates did not constitute a fundamental violation or cause a demonstrable loss of rights. Regarding the contested check, the court decided that the attorney had the right to deposit it. According to article 57 of the Advocacy and Legal Consultancy Law, the lawyer was entitled to the whole contractual fee as the client had terminated the mandate without cause after work had started. The lower court’s decision was affirmed, the appeal was denied on its merits, and the appellant was directed to pay the costs.
