Può l’avvocato essere chiamato a rispondere per responsabilità professionale per non aver consigliato al proprio cliente di porre in essere una determinata azione che avrebbe permesso di “aggirare” le prescrizioni di leggi?
Secondo la Suprema Corte ciò non può determinare in capo al professionista alcuna responsabilità professionale, in quanto tra i doveri di un professionista non può essere compreso quello di "aggirare" le prescrizioni di legge, deviandole dallo scopo loro proprio (nel caso di specie l'accettazione di eredità con beneficio di inventario non ha il fine di eludere il termine stabilito per la presentazione della dichiarazione di successione, bensì mantenere distinti i patrimoni del de cuius e dell'erede, per evitare la responsabilità ultra vires).
Il legale, dunque, non può e non deve fornire al cliente indicazioni o soluzioni che permettano l’aggiramento della norma vigente, non rientrando This "task" from those of their profession.
http://www.mondodiritto.it/giurisprudenza/corte-di-cassazione/diritto-civile-la-responsabilit-a-professionale-dell-avvocato-per-le-indicazioni-fornite-al-cliente-limiti- cass-and-duties-civ-23-February-2011-n-4422.html
The Court of Piazza Cavour, then raised the following legal principle: "It is a source of professional liability for the lawyer who has been responsible the submission of a declaration of succession near the end of its term and in the absence of the necessary documentation for the timely fulfillment of performance, fail to advise the customer to accept the inheritance with benefit of inventory, so you do qualify for the extension provided by law for such an eventuality, it is a diversion from its primary purpose of the act. "
_______________________
Cass. Civ. Sec. VI, Ord., 23-02 - 2011, No. 4422
Conduct of the process and reasons for the decision
- the report prepared pursuant to art. 380a Code of Civil Procedure, paragraph 1, reads as follows:
"By February 1, 2005 ruling of the Court of Bologna revoked the injunction issued against [...] [...] and [...], having as its object the payment of compensation claimed by the Advocate [...] for professional activities, is to engage in practices on succession mortis causa of [...], also condemned the professional to recover damages arising from failure to timely submission of the declaration of succession.
contested by both sides, the decision was reversed by the Court of Appeal of Bologna, which in its ruling of October 6, 2009 upheld the monitors and rejected the claim for damages brought by the opponents.
[...] [...] and [...] have asked the Supreme Court in that case, for three reasons. [...] Has made a counterclaim.
The defendant challenged the admissibility of the appeal, noting that it contains the wording of questions of law nor the rules mentioned in cases not properly applied by the court.
The exception does not appear to accept, in both profiles in which it is articulated as: the first of these requirements is not required for the decisions published, as here, after July 4, 2009, date of entry into force of L. June 18, 2009, No 69, Article. Article 41 is repealed. 366 bis cpc, and those provisions which it is proposed the violation are regularly listed in the header and in the context of the grounds for appeal in which this defect, together with a lack of motivation, is denounced by the applicants.
With the first two of these reasons [...] [...] and [...] complain that the appeals court wrongly ignored the existence of professional liability lawyer [...], which they say is made clear by this fact: "even at the time the assignment was missing much of the documentation , and near the end of 6 months for the lodging of the complaint of succession, he omitted to submit to the heirs, by that date, a declaration of acceptance with the benefit of inventory that, under Article 31. Lett. d) Dlg . News 31.10.1990 No 346 ante, he would have postponed the final date for submitting the succession of another 6-month period following the deadline for the submission of the benefit inventory.
The complaint is manifestly ill-founded, is excluded, as noted in substance the court of second instance, that among the duties of a professional is understood to "circumvent" the requirements of the law, diverting them from their own purpose (for the acceptance of inheritance with the benefit of inventory is not circumvent the deadline for the submission of the declaration of succession, but rather to separate the assets of the deceased and the heir to avoid responsibility for ultra vires).
The unfounded detected the first two grounds of appeal makes it unnecessary to examine the third, which relates to another ratio decidendi of the judgment-based e-mail: the validity of the clause in which the lawyer [...] was exonerated "from any responsibility for any delays, just because the legal deadlines for registration are about to expire."
It is therefore possible to define the action under Article. 375, No 5, the second hypothesis.
- the applicants have submitted a statement, appeared in private on the defender of the defendant and the prosecutor;
- the Board agrees with the arguments contained in the report and makes her own, noting that they are not effectively countered by the objections made in the statement lodged: There is no doubt the legitimacy on which the applicants insist, acceptance of inheritance with the benefit of inventory, but its use for a purpose (the deferral of the deadline for submission of the declaration of succession for tax purposes) that is different from his own (the maintenance of the distinction between the assets of the deceased and inheritance), so that its achievement can not be considered between the duties of the profession responsible for the presentation of a statement;
- to enunciate the principle is thus: "It is a source of professional liability for the lawyer who has been responsible for the submission of a declaration of succession near the end of its term and in the absence of documentation necessaria per il tempestivo adempimento della prestazione, omettere di consigliare il cliente di accettare l'eredità con beneficio di inventario, in modo da farlo beneficiare della proroga prevista per tale ipotesi dalla legge, trattandosi di una deviazione dell'atto dal suo scopo precipuo";
- il ricorso deve essere pertanto rigettato, con conseguente condanna dei ricorrenti in solido - stante il comune loro interesse nella causa - a rimborsare alla resistente le spese del giudizio di cassazione, che si liquidano in 200,00 Euro, oltre a 3.000,00 Euro per onorari, con gli accessori di legge.
P.Q.M.
Rigetta il ricorso; condanna i ricorrenti in solido a rimborsare;
alla resistente le spese the court of cassation, paid in Euro 200.00, 3000.00 Euro plus fees, with the accessories of the law.
Note Att. Augusto Carena.
http://www.mondodiritto.it/giurisprudenza/corte-di-cassazione/diritto-civile-la-responsabilit-a-professionale-dell-avvocato-per-le-indicazioni-fornite-al-cliente-limiti- cass-and-duties-civ-23-February-2011-n-4422.html
0 comments:
Post a Comment