Obligating clients to pay 2.2 million dirhams to a “law firm”

The Dubai Court of Cassation rejected an appeal filed by two clients with a law firm, to overturn a ruling ruled by the Court of Appeal in favor of the office for compensation worth two million and 244 thousand dirhams, after they evaded payment, despite the office’s success in obtaining a final ruling for them from the Court of Cassation, stating their right. In obtaining 24 million and 419 thousand dirhams, the value of profits for a stock company that they co-founded, amounting to only 80 thousand dirhams.

The Court of Cassation explained in the merits of its ruling that, according to Article 52 of Federal Decree Law No. 34 of 2023, regarding the organization of the legal professions and legal consultations, “the lawyer shall receive his fees in accordance with the contract drawn up with his client, and the court that heard the case alone and no one else may reduce the fees based on a request.” The client, if she sees that it is exaggerated in relation to the effort required by the case, and the benefit it has brought to the client, and she may also increase it upon the lawyer’s request, if he spent more effort and time on it than prescribed.

She pointed out that the appealed ruling, which supported a preliminary ruling, obligated the appellants to pay the amount of two million and 244 thousand dirhams, based on what was established in the agreement drawn up between the two parties to the appeal, after the aforementioned rulings were issued, and that the services provided to the appellants were crowned with success, and they did not provide any evidence that they had paid the value of the fees. Due to the appellant, and therefore, what the appellants claim in the two rulings, the first instance and the appeal, that they were deceived when signing the agreement, is nothing more than a controversy, which the trial court is independent in its discretion, and it is not acceptable to raise it before the Court of Cassation.

According to the details of the contractual relationship between the office and its clients who evaded paying its fees, it obtained for them huge compensation, the value of profits for a stock company they co-founded, despite the fact that their names were not included in the contracts or official papers of the company when it was established, after the Dubai Courts established its three degrees. The “partnership of reality” rule.

The legal representative of the law office, legal advisor Muhammad Naguib, said that the office was an agent for the defendants in a case against a third partner. They agreed in 2009 to establish a pharmaceutical consulting company, and it was registered as a sole proprietorship in the name of the third partner, because they were government employees and could not register their names. In the contract in two different proportions.

He added that the first and second partners remained committed to their third partner until 2020, until the first left his job and decided to officially join the company that he had helped establish, but he was surprised by the third partner secretly turning against them and seizing the company’s assets, after he had manipulated the issue of its registration from the beginning. .

He pointed out that the plaintiff’s office made every effort to prove the right of the first and second partners to the company’s profits, and demanded proof of the existing partnership between them and the third partner since the date of incorporation, and demanded that the latter pay their profits since the date of its establishment, pointing out that the office’s efforts resulted in them obtaining a final ruling from the Court of Cassation. They are entitled to 24 million and 419 thousand dirhams.

He explained that the law firm signed a fees agreement with the defendants in which they acknowledged their right to receive fees worth two million and 440 thousand dirhams, which would be obtained from the implementation of the initial ruling. However, they violated their obligations stipulated in the agreement by tying the office’s hand and preventing it from submitting requests for implementation or disbursing amounts. Despite the deposit of about five million dirhams of the total compensation they obtained in the case.

The two clients filed a cross-suit, demanding that the office pay them an amount of five million dirhams in compensation for the damages it caused to them as a result of its breach of its contractual obligations and its errors during the initiation of the case.

They also demanded the dismissal of the original lawsuit he filed against them, due to its lack of validity, and the invalidation of the fees agreement supporting the lawsuit due to their dissatisfaction with it, as a result of the deception they were subjected to.

After examining the requests of both parties, the Court of First Instance appointed an expert who, in his report, concluded by proving the benefits achieved by the office for the benefit of the defendants in the case in which they appointed him, and included ruling on their entitlement to a total amount of 24 million and 419 thousand dirhams, following up on the implementation file, and issuing travel ban decisions against them. Their opponents in that case, issuing precautionary and executive seizure decisions on the opponents’ properties and real estate for their benefit, and seizing the opponents’ shares and profits in the disputed companies.

The Court of First Instance ruled that the office was entitled to the amount of fees, and the Court of Appeal upheld the ruling. The two clients appealed to the Court of Cassation, which rejected their appeal, deciding the legal dispute between the two parties.