The Supreme Court found that the financial penalty imposed on a lawyer who had been misleading his client for almost three years was just. However, it dismissed the cassation appeal filed by the injured party, who argued that the penalty imposed on the attorney was grossly disproportionate – reports Prawa.pl.
The case concerns lawyer Andrzej C., who was accused by the disciplinary spokesman of the Bar at the request of the injured client Katarzyna B. The woman accused him of improper legal services: the lawyer misled the injured client (of whom he was the attorney), claiming that he had filed lawsuits in the courts, which he did not do. – reportsPrawo.pl.
The Disciplinary Court of the Bar Association in Płock agreed with the spokesman’s opinion that the lawyer is responsible for his omission and attitude towards the client. Therefore, the court sentenced the accused to a reprimand and a ban on patronage for three years.
According to Prawa.pl, the accused appealed against this judgment to the Higher Disciplinary Court of the Bar, accusing the judgment of gross disproportion of the punishment in relation to the offense. And he asked for the easing of sanctions. However, the victim did not agree with this opinion because she believed that the punishment should be even more severe because she had suffered severe losses.
Dispute over the amount of the penalty
The Higher Disciplinary Court of the Bar in Warsaw changed the judgment of the disciplinary court of the first instance by changing the penalty to a financial penalty of PLN 4,500. plus trial costs, as well as a patronage ban for three years.
The injured client did not agree with this ruling and her attorney filed a cassation appeal to the Supreme Court. Katarzyna B. demanded a more severe penalty – reports Prawa.pl.
The cassation appeal by the injured party’s representative turned out to be groundless. As the judge-rapporteur Marek Motuk explained, the injured party already in the second instance wanted a more severe penalty to be imposed and the Higher Disciplinary Court complied with these demands by imposing a financial penalty.
In the cassation appeal, the injured client pointed out that the penalty was still disproportionately, grossly too low. Supreme Court However, he did not share this opinion because he agreed with the financial penalty as adequate, without noticing any signs of disproportionality of the penalty.
Main photo source: TVN24