Por: Paulo Guilherme de Mendonça e Alexandre Paranhos
Rescisão de contrato de prestação de serviços advocatícios com previsão de pagamento ad exitum não impede advogado de receber honorários
Introduction
The existence of legal services contract with a provision for the payment of fees only due ad exitum, does not prevent the lawyer from seeking in court to get paid for the proportional time they worked on the case, independently if the contract was terminated in a unilateral, early or unmotivated manner.
This was the understanding of the 2nd Chamber of Private Law of the Court of Justice of Mato Grosso during the judgment of Appeal No. 1026979-07.2022.8.11.0041. A decision was rendered to order the bank to pay legal fees to the law firm in cases in which they provided services until the contract was terminated.
Background
This judgment dealt with, among other subjects, the validity of the legal services contract and the provision for unilateral termination by the contractor, as well as the form of remuneration and conditions for payment when the contractual relationship was terminated.
Since the legal services contract had a provision stablishing the firm would be paid legal fees upon the success of the judicial claim and because it was terminated, there was a question on whether such fee was still valid.
Case Law
In their appeal, the financial institution argues that the contractual provisions signed between the parties, which establish the payment of legal fees for stages in the process and unilateral termination, should be respected.
When analyzing the case, rapporteur Maria Helena Gargaglione Póvoas explained that even if the client’s objective has not been fully achieved, the attorney should be remunerated for the services actually rendered up to the termination of the contract.
“This is because a contrary understanding would be contemplating unjust enrichment of the contractor, since he would benefit from the services provided to him without paying the respective value,” she said.
“To deny plausible remuneration to lawyers who have actually provided legal services would mean not only denying validity to the Binding Precedent No. 47, which attributes a staple nature to legal fees, but also violates the worker dignity principle.”
As for the amount set, the rapporteur decided to apply article 22, § 2, of Law No. 8.906/94 (Statute of the Legal Profession), as amended by Law No. 14.365/2022. The provision states that, in the absence of a stipulation or agreement, the fees shall be determined by judicial arbitration, at a compatible payment with the work and the economic value of the matter that was under legal discussion.
The amount set was 10% of the updated value of the case.
Comments
This case law represents an important milestone in discussing the controversial issue of eligibility and arbitration of legal fees after the termination of the provision of legal services.
Publicado originalmente no Lexology.
