Lawyer's fees and competent jurisdiction.

[:it]

Recently, with the ruling of the 12.10.2011 n. 2100the Supreme Court has pronounced itself by stating that "the remuneration for professional serviceswhich is not conventionally established, is a illiquid pecuniary debtto be determined according to the professional tariff; it follows that the optional hole of the place where the obligation is to be performed (Art. 20 c.p.c., second hypothesis)'should be identified, pursuant to the last paragraph of Art. 1182 c.c.in the debtor's domicile in that same
tempo".[1]

Applying this principle to a lawyer's professional activity, the practical implications of the aforementioned judgment are evident. As is well known, in fact, Art. 20 c.p.c.which regulates as an alternative forum to the general forum of the defendant (Article 18 c.p.c.). states that 'in actions relating to rights of obligation, the court of the place where [...] the obligation in question is to be performed shall also have jurisdiction".

According to the Supreme Court, therefore, if it is not established "ab origine"The parties are entitled to the payment of the remuneration of a professional, the claim cannot be characterised as liquid since it can only be determined once the service has been rendered. Therefore, Article 1182 para. 3 of the Civil Code, which provides that ".the obligation relating to a sum of money must be performed at the domicile of the creditor at the time it is due. "

Given the non-liquid and determinable nature of the claim should instead be applied, according to the Supreme Court Article 1182 last paragraphwhich provides instead for performance of the obligation at the debtor's domicile.

This principle is clearly also applicable to the profession of lawyer. In fact, its remuneration most of the time cannot be determined in advance, especially if it concerns judicial activity, since it is not possible to foresee the actual activity to be performed in the course of the proceedings. Therefore, according to this orientation of the Supreme Court, should a lawyer proceed to recover a debt arising from his own professional activity, he will have to act at the defendant's forum ex Art. 18 c.p.c. or of the debtor ex art 20 c.p.c.

ABSTRACT

  • Remuneration for professional services, which is not agreed upon, is an illiquid pecuniary debt, to be determined according to the professional tariff
  • The optional forum of the place where the obligation is to be performed (Art. 20 c.p.c.) is to be identified, pursuant to the last paragraph of Art. 1182 c.c., in the domicile of the debtor
  • A lawyer wishing to proceed for the recovery of his own claim must act either at the defendant's court pursuant to art. 18 c.p.c. or at the debtor's court pursuant to art. 20 c.p.c..

[:]

by admin