PROFESSIONAL FEES
TARIFF ACT OF THE PROVINCE OF CORDOBA
AND REFORM PROJECT
Through this work, I propose to analyze what is the reason for the existence of the tariff laws and law enforcement regime in the province of Cordoba, in addition to considering reform proposals today undergoing treatment in our Provincial Legislature.
Professional Fees
professional fees in our profession are due payment for professional work developed, timely attention to the case that we were entrusted and therefore treated.
can try a first classification of them in care that they be attended by the same client (or client) or by a third party who has been sentenced to pay, how to integrate these legal costs occurred in a particular case.
Within the first group in the Client - lawyer, may be the case that they have previously agreed amount of remuneration for the professional service you provide, as the price of a lease service (Art. 1627 CC), which may well be linked to the outcome of litigation, consisting as a percentage of what is recognized or perceived by the client, what we call "contingency fee" or a sum of money, or even provide that the compensation will amount to regulate the court based on the application respective tariff standards.
In the second case, when the required payment of the fee is a third in the attorney - client relationship, that is the counterpart, it is obvious that the same can not be agreed (except when the end of the lawsuit by a transaction) but must always be about what regulates the examining magistrate.
might add a third possibility, which is the newly appointed, but in the case of a counterparty to pay the costs that is insolvent and can not collect the fees covered, so should require that they be served by the principal.
can also happen that the fee agreement entered into with the client, has stated that they will be treated the same, notwithstanding that the professional can turn counterpart claim them, if that were ordered to costs.
these different situations we face the need arises and consequently it is this the reason of being or existence of tariff rules, whatever the name that is given to them: Fees Act, Tariff Code, etc.
The characteristics of our professional work does not in all cases is possible to make a convention on the remuneration of the same. For this reason and for the purpose of maintaining social order, while serving also as a reassurance of fair rewards for all parties involved, there is the need for legal regulation.
Because of the direct linkages between climate judicial proceedings where attorneys fees of the members of so-called "costs" of them, there is no doubt that we are facing an institute purely procedural and therefore is a matter reserved to the local, provincial ie under the federal character of our country. (Art. 126 of the Constitution)
Tariff Act of Cordoba and its reform plans
At this point I will discuss some aspects that I consider relevant in the form that are regulated professional fees in our province of Córdoba (8226 Act of the year 1992), and what they are basically two reform bills currently under consideration.
First reform (unit economic and jus)
The first such project of comprehensive reform proposes a modification of the Tariff Act, while the latter only seeks the amendment of art. 34 for the purpose of updating what is called "economic unit" and its hundredth which is called "jus," which are amounts of reference for the economic valuation of the lawyer's professional duties.
comprehensive reform - some points
(Art. 29 - Base)
Among the reforms which are conducive for the other project, the amendment provides the article that states what should be the basis for calculating the adjustment, as in the case of the lawyer participated by the plaintiff or the defendant and total or partial success each has achieved in the lawsuit.
The current scheme (Article 29), as I said, provides that the basis adjustment will consist of different percentages of what has been the subject of litigation or if any of those recognized in the statement:
a) To the lawyer for the plaintiffs, the basis of regulation is the amount of the sentence, which if fully host the scale is directly applicable law (Art. 34) on 100% and if rejected the demand base is set at 10% or 30% of the loan value or property because of the demand.
b) To the lawyer for the defendant, in reverse, if the claim is rejected completely, legal scale applied on the full value of the loan plus interests or property because of the demand . If the application is received in part, the basis of regulation is between 10% and 50% of demand, which will merituado by the Tribunal. If the claim was received in full, the basis of regulation is set between 10% and 30% of the amount of the verdict.
In local doctrine (Adam Ferrer, Martínez Crespo) was considered unfair as well as differentiating the remuneration of the lawyer who wins or loses the fight with a greater or lesser percentage on the basis of estimate, also set a different calculation base for each case.
was therefore agreed that the treatment is not just that current law gives the determination of the regulatory basis for the defendant's lawyer, because if the application is received in a very small percentage, it does not translates into real success that it has obtained.
The aforementioned reform bill would provide that: "In any trial or performance based regulation is the value of the credit or assets based on demand. The amount of the trial, for the purposes mentioned, is the totality of the rights, property or claims in litigation and their interests. In case of settlement, the amount agreed to be the regulatory basis for the lawyers involved in it. "
In my opinion, it is necessary to amend the current rule in order not to create unjust inequalities in the treatment attorney for the defendant in the cases mentioned, but also must take care not to fall into the easy to wipe out all of the above, because if we always take the value of the defendant, regardless of which ultimately is admitted, we can create other injustices to the detriment of the obligors.
We care for this latter situation, because lawyers have been criticized in some cases, because the fees be set to what values \u200b\u200bare sued totally divorced from reality, when it upheld the complaint, but the actual values \u200b\u200bof the object requested, the fee was much higher by the latter.
Finally, on this point I think we should continue using the difference between the defendant and receptive to the demand for each case, but without making the substantial differences that set the current standard for the case of the defendant's attorney.
34 - Scale rates
I turn now to the current art. 34 of the Tariff Act, which is one of the foundations on which turns the tariff code of Córdoba, as is the one that establishes the existence of so-called "JUS" as "... unit tariff of professional fees of counsel ... " and which corresponded to the origin of the standard 1% of monthly basic pay of the position of Justice of the House. At this time, the law from 8616 (July 1997) is reduced to 4 ‰. It also establishes the call "Economic unit", which originally represented 100% of the remuneration of a Judge of the House, but also reduced it to 40% from the 1997 law indicated above.
Both projects aim to reform the updating of these values, even considering different remedies.
must be said that the need to update the unit tariff is given on the grounds that it is not accompanied by corresponding increases made in the salaries of Judges Chamber, because of the high incidence in the remuneration of judges "concepts non-remunerative."
This should be a simple arithmetic operation to be applied by the judge at the time of regular fees, has become a fixed amount for ten years is rooted in the jus $ 24.51 and $ 2,451 the economic unit, failing to observe even the four per thousand should be established by law.
The project promotes a comprehensive reform of the Customs Code (driven by the Bar of the City of Cordoba) fosters JUS set the value of a fixed amount that would occur in the sum of Fifty dollars ($ 50 .-).
also states: "Such value is increased by the same proportion that will increase the salaries or total assets, assigned to the office of Judge of House with a length of eight, including paid and unpaid items, with the term "economic unit" one hundred percent (100%) of the remuneration, in both cases at the time of the payment made ".
This project is not clear as to why the amount of $ 50 must be the value of JUS, as well nor indicates whether the same arithmetic operation is given by some that depends (as in the current regime) to a parameter for its establishment. On the other part, to establish a fixed amount and they adapted their variations as the salary of a judge chamber, means forming a sort of "indexation", which is forbidden in our legal system and could lead to arguments and discussions regard.
In my opinion, is more clear and convenient to other reform proposal (led by the Federation of Bar Associations of the Province of Córdoba), and that for the purposes of achieving appropriate parameters to reality, as well as to avoid long parliamentary discussions, only seeks the outright repeal of the 8616 Act which reduced these values, full force then repurchasing the original law (Law 8226) that established the economic unit in 100% of the salary of the Judge of the House and the jus in 1% of such compensation.
Economic Unit is used for the purposes of determining the scale of percentages to be applied on the basis of regulation, setting as do almost all the laws in this area, minimum and maximum in inverse relation to the magnitude of the base. Eg if the amount of trial is equal to 5 affordable units, the minimum fees set shall be 15%, and so on to the case of more than 100 EU where the minimum is 5%. In all cases, the maximum is 30%. So is that higher economic units contained within the regulatory basis, the minimum fee is declining.
Thus, and considering 100% of salary, always will be closer to the "higher minimum."
is for the lawyers (and it is up today), to require judges to set the value of the unit tariff for each regulation, and not be left subject to a fixed value that is now outdated in relation to what really comes Chamber Judge.
General Rules
fees
(characteristic food)
Finally, I can not fail to mention some points of the draft reform of the Tariff Act, which I consider important because they relate to the character and purpose of the professional fee:
First, it seems important qualification that gives professional fees in the proposed comprehensive reform. So it was with the art. 6 of the project:
"Professional fees of lawyers, attorneys and experts food material nature. All professional activities are presumed onerous"
While this is something that has been repeatedly been this way for national jurisprudence, that is expressly contained in an Act gives greater significance and certainty, preserving to that of possible attack.
We know that as professionals, we and our families depend on the income we get from our own work, so it is important that they be protected from attack by any creditor, who may not be such.
Imagine the case of non-professional fees in the nature of food, any person who is pushing a lawsuit against us, could easily give notice to each of the courts to report whether there were trials in which we intervene, and if so, proceed to lock lien on the fee for when they are regulated producing a choking financial consequences.
is why we welcomed the proposal to recognize the nature of credit fees food.
fees Pact
Article 2 of the present Tariff Act 8226 provides that:
"Lawyers and prosecutors agreed freely with his client the amount of their fees, which may be reduced or waived, no other limit than the maximum established in this law. "
The reform bill amending that article statement as follows:
"The lawyers and attorneys may agree freely with his client how much their fees on all types of processes, within the limits laid down in this Act . The amount of the fee may be reduced or waived in accordance with the free will of the parties and the form and timing of payment.
fee contracts governing the obligations between the parties with total independence of the condemnation costs that will correspond to the other party "
The current law provides only restriction pact fees, the amounts referred to in this Act referred Nothing regarding minimum fees and covenants which shall be made under those.
words, adheres to current law enforcement system, but only the customer's favor because it sets a ceiling on the recruitment, but not for the minimum.
regard to the draft reform, the same concerns that the pact by the amount of fees to be charged will limit the provisions of that law, so the minimum appearing also part of the ceiling. He adds that the fee may be reduced or waived.
In my opinion, I believe that this reform proposal is unclear, because although recognized as the limits established by law, which apparently also applies to the legal minimum, then expresses that the amounts of fees can be reduced and waived (it is understood that early), so changing the article adds nor removes anything about the statement contained in the current law Far from it, just add confusion.
This possibility of agreeing on the fees below the minimum established by the Act, which imposed against the previous 8226 Act 7269, which in turn had repealed the law and order that prevented the hiring below the legal minimum ultimately remains the same regime of "freedom of contract" established by law that aims to reform.
If what is wanted is to be returned to the system of public policy in favor of not allowing the contract under minimum down to protect the dignity of pay consistent with professional ethics, should let them in explicit and clear. While this is not done this way, governing the free contract system, no limits for the lawyer. There is only protecting the client against the alleged greed of the lawyer.
This maintains absolute liberal line has strongly rooted in our country in the last decade of last century, which reflected in the art. 2nd paragraph have the 1627 Civil Code (incorporated by Law 24 432) which states:
"The parties may freely set the price of services, without such a power may be curtailed by local law. "
This has been a deregulation in the delivery of our professional work, because there is no standardization minimum costs for work performed and therefore we often see our revenues decreased as finished charging what the customer intends to pay and did not really work hard.
therefore believe that lawyers must protect the integrity and fairness of the compensation of our professional work, but always taking care to work properly and being aware that our remuneration should not be disproportionate to the values \u200b\u200bthat are a matter of our work. Otherwise, give rise to penalties imposed rules such as Article 1627 Civil Code cited above, incorporated by Law 24,432 (Consumer Protection Act), which governs us in general, when the motivations of its adoption have been only isolated cases of actions that discredit our profession colleagues.
14 - liable for the payment
Finally I will mention to the provisions of current law regarding the responsibility to pay the fees and where the lawyer can claim the same of his principal.
That law states that you can go against the beneficiaries of the work, "... only when it has exhausted the possibility of recovery against those ..." (refers to principals not ordered to pay .)
The draft states that no reform is necessary to excute the assets of the counterparty that has been ordered to pay costs, nor any other activity in order to enable the ability to demand payment thereof to the client itself, and / or beneficiaries of the work interchangeably and / or joint.
Is the intention reform because the current rule that would allow one who has commissioned a work has no responsibility to pay for services rendered, would violate principles of common law, which alters the normative hierarchy because a local standard would be available on matter of obligations without discussion pertains to the federal sphere.
Possibly because the purpose of avoiding the pendulum reforms, I believe that the reform could be the adoption of an intermediate system, similar to that provided by Article 48 et seq. National Law 21,839 which establishes the procedure prior to claim fees from the client, require the reliably payment to the counterparty to pay the costs and wait for thirty days.
0 comments:
Post a Comment