Abu Dhabi court rejects bid to reclaim Dh1.2m legal fees after lawyer dismissal

Abu Dhabi: The Abu Dhabi Civil Family and Administrative Court has upheld a lower court ruling rejecting a lawsuit filed by a man seeking to recover legal fees from his lawyer after unilaterally terminating their agreement.

The claimant had asked the court to order the lawyer to return Dh200,000 paid as a down payment on fees and a Dh1 million cheque representing the balance under a Dh1.2 million legal services contract. He argued that he had revoked the power of attorney because the lawyer had failed to keep him informed or submit adequate memoranda in his cases.

In its judgment, the appeal court confirmed that it was the appellant who unilaterally revoked the contract and dismissed his lawyer without a valid reason, despite the lawyer having already begun work under the agreement, Emarat Al Youm reported. Under the UAE Law on Advocacy and Legal Consultancy, the court held that the lawyer was therefore entitled to retain the full agreed fee, and the client had no legal basis to demand a refund.

Court records show that the claimant had engaged the law firm to represent him in several commercial and criminal matters, signing a contract worth Dh1.2m, Dh200,000 payable upfront and Dh1m due upon securing a judgment of at least Dh5m. 

The claimant alleged poor performance and failure to notify him of developments, submitting copies of the fee agreement, receipts and a bank statement to support his case.

The Court of First Instance had dismissed the lawsuit in its entirety, finding no evidence that the lawyer failed to exercise the level of care required under a mandate. 

The appeal court agreed, noting that hearing minutes and documents showed the lawyer had attended hearings, filed memoranda, and pursued a related criminal complaint, including contesting a decision to close the case.

The court also examined WhatsApp messages between the parties, which demonstrated that the lawyer had kept the client informed of case progress. It ruled that incomplete updates did not amount to a fundamental breach nor result in any proven loss of rights.

On the issue of the disputed cheque, the court held that the lawyer was legally entitled to deposit it. 

Since the client had terminated the mandate without justification after work had begun, the lawyer was entitled to the full contractual fee in accordance with article 57 of the Advocacy and Legal Consultancy Law.

The court dismissed the appeal on its merits, upheld the lower court ruling, and ordered the appellant to pay the costs.