In a dispute over the fees of a lawyer, the opinion of the council of the order and the decision of the judge are not the same. The distinction, recalled by former stickman Nader Kaspar in a column published by Mahkama on 10 November, is based on the special rules of Lebanese law governing the profession. It should not be presented as a new court decision: the chronicle does not give a date or number of a judgment identifying recent case law.
The Convention and the absence of written agreement
Article 69 of the Law of 11 March 1970, in its amended version available from the Legal Information Centre of the Lebanese University, provides that fees shall be fixed by agreement between the lawyer and his client. In civil cases, where the amount exceeds 20% of the value of the dispute, the judge may reduce it. This threshold opens up the possibility of judicial review; it does not mean that a reduction occurs automatically.
Without a written agreement fixing the fees, the same article entrusts their determination to the court after consulting the council of the order. The text cites the importance of the case, the work accomplished and the situation of the client as one of the factors to be taken into account. The absence of an agreed amount in writing therefore does not render the benefits free and does not leave their assessment to the lawyer alone.
The order gives an opinion, the judge decides
Article 73 describes the procedure for fee applications. The lawyer may apply for payment of his or her fees and expenses, after authorization by the barrister. The first President of the Court of Appeal shall appoint a Presiding Officer to consider the application, to hear both parties and to seek the advice of the Council of the Order.
This distribution explains the distinction put forward by Kaspar: the ordinal opinion contributes to the examination of the case, but is not the judicial decision that settles the dispute. In his column, the former sticker states that this notice is not the subject of an independent appeal. It is up to the parties to discuss the elements of the case in the appropriate judicial framework, rather than treat the notice as a separate judgment.
A challenge framed by the text
Article 73 provides for an objection to the decision of the President-designate before the Chamber chaired by the first President. The latter may also refer it to a chamber other than the chamber whose decision the chairman has made. The period laid down in this Article shall be 15 days from the date of notification of the decision. The text states that the decision on this opposition is not subject to any appeal.
These rules concern this specific mechanism. They must not be confused with the execution of a written agreement, also provided for in Article 69 after the baton has been authorised. In the case of objections to enforcement, this article provides, inter alia, that their filing does not suspend enforcement unless the competent court of appeal decides otherwise.
In order to understand a case, it is necessary to first identify the act received: agreement, ordinal notice, court decision or enforcement act. The qualification of that act and its notification shall determine the procedural question to be examined. This reminder of the texts does not allow the calculation of the time limit applicable to an individual situation without consulting the relevant documents and notification rules.
Comments