Cassation No

- The contested decision, holding the appellant disciplinary accountable for breaching his professional obligations, due to his negligence and procrastination in filing the lawsuit within the legally prescribed deadlines. Shall be deemed valid, because the lawyer’s act undermines confidence in his person in such capacity.

Whereas, it is prescribed that the breach of the professional obligations set forth in Article 47 of Law No. 23 of 1991 on the Regulation of the Legal Profession is deemed materialised by a lawyer’s act that would degrade the profession or affect the rights of his client. Also, it is prescribed - as per the text of Article 35 of the same law - that the lawyer shall abide in his work by the principles of honour and honesty, as well as by the ethics of the legal profession.

Whereas, it is upheld from the documents, that the appellant was appointed on behalf of the complainant before all courts of all types and degrees, in the manner indicated in the power of attorney listed in the file and that the complainant had paid him his fees and the lawsuit fees; however, the appellant procrastinated and delayed in filing the lawsuit during the legally prescribed time-limits, which prejudiced the rights of the complainant and then, the appellant's act has undermined the reputation of the legal profession and confidence in his person as a lawyer, which constitutes inevitably a disciplinary offence for which he shall be punished - in his capacity as a lawyer - by the penalty prescribed therefor in the provisions of the Law on the Regulation of the Legal Profession, and since the contested decision held the appellant disciplinary accountable for breaching his professional duties, it has, thus, applied the correct rule of the law, and therefore, the cassation shall be deemed ungrounded, and consequently, it shall be dismissed.

Whereas, in the facts - as apparent in the appealed decision and all other documents - the Public Prosecution referred the appellant to the Lawyers Disciplinary Board in the lawsuit No. 13 of 2018 to hold him disciplinary accountable for violating the provisions of Article 47 of Federal Law No. 23 of 1991 on the Regulation of the Legal Profession, based on the complaint filed by the complainant............. with the Lawyers Disciplinary Committee at the Ministry of Justice, against the ............... Law Office, on the grounds that he appointed the latter to file a civil lawsuit against... ....... Insurance Company, after the ........ Transport Company was robbed. A judgment was issued in his favour, imposing on the insurance company to pay to him the amount adjudged by the court of first instance and the court of appeal; however, after presenting the case to the Abu Dhabi Court of Cassation, it ruled not to hear the case since it was filed after the time-limit prescribed therefor by law, and because the ...... Transport Company, represented by the office of the lawyer appellant neglected to register the case until after the passage of time, which led the insurance company to request him to return the amount paid to him and to file an execution lawsuit against him.

Upon the appellant lawyer’s interrogation in the Public Prosecution’s investigation, he denied the charges against him and stated that the complainant had agreed with the counsellor ......., paid the advance amount and issued a cheque for the remaining fees. He added that a ruling was issued in his favour before the court of first instance and the court of appeal and that it was sealed with the executory formula, without informing the office which took the insurance amount and was asked to pay the fees. Therefore, he filed a lawsuit to claim the fees, and was surprised that the complainant has filed his complaint. He added that the lawsuit was filed on 18/3/2017 within the deadline and that the Court of Cassation erred when it decided that the case was registered on 27/3/2017 and that the complaint is vexatious.

On 28/3/2019, the Disciplinary Board decided to suspend the appellant’s legal profession for a period of two months on the grounds of the violation attributed to him. The appellant was not satisfied with this decision, and therefore, he lodged against it an appeal by virtue of a statement of claim deposited with the clerk office of the court on 11/4/2019, whereby he requested the cancellation of the contested judgment and his acquittal, on the grounds that the contested judgment contained deficiencies in reasoning and flaws in inference and breached the right of defence, despite the fact that the lawsuit was filed within the legal deadline and that the error was due to the Registration and Accreditation Division of the Judicial Department, which procrastinated in recording the registration and paying the fees on time. The contested judgment also disregarded the appellant's defence as to investigating the foreign cause for the delay in filing the case.

The Public Prosecution submitted a memorandum whereby it requested the dismissal of the cassation. Likewise, the appellant submitted a memorandum whereby he requested the dismissal of the cassation.

The appellant attended the pleading session, with the lawyer, Mr. .......... Upon his interrogation as regards the charges against him, he denied them and stated that he had registered the case within the prescribed time-limit. Also, the appellant’s representative, explained the circumstances of the case, requested to be adjudged the demands stated in the appeals memorandum, and provided a copy of the computer extracts. The present date's session was scheduled for the pronouncement of the judgment.

Whereas, in the merits, it is prescribed that the breach of the professional obligations set forth in Article 47 of Law No. 23 of 1991 on the Regulation of the Legal Profession is deemed materialised by a lawyer’s act that would degrade the profession or affect the rights of his clients. Also, it is prescribed - as per the text of Article 35 of the same law - that the lawyer shall abide in his work by the principles of honour and honesty, as well as by the ethics of the legal profession.

Whereas, it is upheld from the documents, that the appellant was appointed on behalf of the complainant before all courts of all types and degrees, in the manner indicated in the power of attorney listed in the file, and that the complainant had paid him his fees and the lawsuit fees; however, the appellant procrastinated and delayed in filing the lawsuit during the legally prescribed time-limits, which prejudiced the rights of the complainant and then, the appellant's act has undermined the reputation of the legal profession and confidence in his person as a lawyer, which constitutes inevitably a disciplinary offence for which he shall be punished - in his capacity as a lawyer - by the penalty prescribed therefor in the provisions of the Law on the Regulation of the Legal Profession, and since the contested decision held the appellant disciplinary accountable for breaching his professional duties, it has, thus, applied the correct rule of the law, and therefore, the cassation shall be deemed ungrounded, and consequently, it shall be dismissed.