13 Feb 2022 - Uncategorized
I'll tell you what happens in front of the courts and how public money is managed by certain entities.
Case.
A private individual receives penalties, by an institution, For about 200 euros Cadauna and proposes opposition before the Justice of the Peace. The judge welcomes him.
The public body appears and loses it.
The private individual's lawyer obtains payment of his fees from the institution for the two levels of the judgment for over 15 thousand euros (There are different procedures defined and decided in first and second degrees).
Not wanting to give up, the public body appeals to cassation with external lawyers.
In the relevant proceedings the private individual does not appear also due to the need to contain the costs and expenses of justice including the lawyers' fees considering the object of the dispute relating to a report of approximately 200 euros.
The Court of Cassation annuls the sentence of the appeal judge and orders the reinstatement of the second degree judgment.
The public body summarizes the judgment.
The first sentence of the summary judgment comes out.
It again rejects the public body's appeal.
Another professional judge of the Court, following the reinstatement judgment, once again rejects the appeal of the public body which, undaunted, notifies a new appeal in cassation against the sentence issued by the judge of the Court.
The company lawyer receives notification of the appeal and literally jumps out of his chair informing his client of yet another appeal brought by the counterparty.
The company goes into a rage and wonders on the one hand how public money can be managed and on the other what else a company has to suffer that every day has to fight for its survival and face corporate problems, economic and instead finds himself having to worry about facing yet another dispute with the related costs and legal fees for reports of around €200.
What does the lawyer do at this point??
Instead of securing yet another fee for the appeal in cassation, for which the company he decided to get help, contact the offices of the Presidency of the Public Body via telephone to draw attention to the management of disputes by the Body and above all to the methods of managing public money which, instead of being used for services and goods for the benefit of the community, was squandered to pay the lawyers' fees.
Official and formal communications are sent: it is not possible that in the face of a report of 200 euros the organization continues to propose disputes claiming the payment of tens, tens and tens of thousands of legal expenses and fees.
The legal representative of the organisation, capable person and above all honest and correct, decides not to pursue yet another appeal in cassation.
The conduct of the lawyer who denounced the careless use of public resources for a dispute involving a few hundred euros meant that an affair which theoretically could have continued indefinitely with costs and a truly significant waste of public money was put to an end..
Il change of perspective in the management of disputes by lawyers who care about the fate of their clients and who act reasonably and with “the diligence of a good family man” it should spread like a virus on many legal practitioners, of the economic and institutional world.
In this way a high service would be rendered to Justice, to efficiency in the management of public resources and the Lawyers Office would be strengthened in its image and prestige.