The Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court has dismissed the appeal of a lawyer from Lanzarote, confirming his conviction to pay compensation of 5,000 euros to a client for negligence in his defense. The ruling ratifies the sentence previously issued by the Provincial Court of Las Palmas, which considered proven the “negligent” action of the lawyer, due to a succession of errors in the process.
That ruling of the Court annulled the one initially issued by the Court of First Instance, which had rejected the claim. That first sentence already recognized that the lawyer had filed an appeal in an "untimely" manner. And also that later, when it was not admitted, he addressed a letter of complaint to an incompetent body. However, it concluded that there was no “damage or compensable harm” to his client, given the possibilities that she would not have won the trial anyway. Later, the Court considered “incongruent” that sentence, revoking the ruling and condemning the lawyer for moral damages, since he deprived his client of the possibility of appealing the first sentence that had ruled against her.
The initial procedure originated when the woman was evicted from the hairdressing salon she ran inside a hotel in Puerto del Carmen, which also offered a spa service linked to the hotel. She then decided to file a claim for forced dismissal, hiring the services of this lawyer, who lost the first instance judgment and also the opportunity to appeal, by registering the writing out of time. In this regard, the ruling of the Court, which has now been ratified by the Supreme Court, pointed out that the relationship of the plaintiff with the hotel exceeded a simple lease agreement for use, that it was a "complex relationship”, and that she did have options to have won the litigation.
Therefore, he upheld the claim that the woman decided to file against her lawyer. In that sentence, the Court refused to set compensation equivalent to the money that the plaintiff claimed from the hotel, but did condemn the lawyer, together with his insurer, to jointly pay the amount of 5,000 to the affected party, for moral damages.
After that ruling, the lawyer decided to file an appeal with the Supreme Court, which has not even admitted it for processing and has ratified the conviction.