Following a unilateral contract termination, the client’s appeal was denied, and the lawyer retained Dh1.2 million. Abu Dhabi: The Abu Dhabi Civil Family and Administrative Court has upheld a lower court’s decision to dismiss a case brought by a man who unilaterally terminated his lawyer’s contract in order to recover legal expenses. The claimant had requested that the court order the attorney to restore Dh200,000 that had been provided as a down payment and a Dh1 million check that represented the remaining amount under a Dh1.2 million contract for legal services. 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 had unilaterally terminated the contract and fired his attorney without cause, even though the attorney had already started working under the terms of the agreement. As a result, the client had no legal right to request a refund under the UAE Law on Advocacy and Legal Consultancy, and the attorney was allowed to keep the entire agreed-upon fee. 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 verdict 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 complaint was completely rejected by the Court of First Instance because there was no proof that the attorney had not used the degree of caution mandated by the 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 examined the parties’ WhatsApp conversations, which showed that the attorney had updated the client on the status of the case. It concluded that neither a fundamental breach nor a demonstrable harm resulted from incomplete updates.
The court determined that the attorney had the right to deposit the contested check. According to Article 57 of the Advocacy and Legal Consultancy Law, the lawyer was entitled to the full contractual fee as the client terminated the mandate without cause after work had started. The lower court’s decision was supported by the appellate court, which dismissed the case and mandated that the appellant reimburse the expenses.
