Portuguese 
English 
Spanish 
5 min of reading 
0 comments 
Client Won The Lawsuit Against A Telecommunications Company, But Only Later Discovered That The Amount Had Been Paid And That Her Lawyer Withheld The Entire Amount Without Passing It On Or Informing Her Of The Case’s Conclusion.
A lawyer was ordered by the Justice of Rio Grande do Norte to return R$ 3.6 thousand to a client and pay R$ 6 thousand in moral damages after unlawfully withholding the entire amount from a judicial settlement made in a lawsuit against a telecommunications company.
The decision is from the Special Civil, Criminal, and Tax Court of the Municipality of Extremoz, in Greater Natal, and was made by Judge Diego Costa Pinto Dantas.
According to the case, the client approached the lawyer in 2022 to file a lawsuit against the telecommunications company, claiming issues with the service provision.
-
Electrolux surprises, closes colossal factory and lays off 400 people in a mass dismissal that will have a direct effect later this year, following a cost review, with an impact of R$ 272.5 million and R$ 109 million in cash in Chile.
-
The Lula government is pursuing re-election and is therefore preparing a package with discounts of up to 80% on debts, subsidies for diesel, gas for 15 million, and energy, after reaching 51% disapproval six months before the election.
-
The chamber approves a project that transforms plots of up to 2,000 square meters into official rural properties, allowing thousands of small producers who were invisible to the government to now access credit, tax exemptions, and technical assistance.
-
Factory 52, in the USA, cost over $5 billion, covers 270,000 square meters, and manufactures cutting-edge chips: it was named Project of the Year by the world’s largest engineering magazine, marking the global race for semiconductors.
It was agreed that, in case of success, the amount obtained would be divided equally, with 50% for each party.
This agreement, although informal, was recognized in the case analysis by the potiguar (Rio Grande do Norte) Justice.
The lawsuit against the telecommunications company was found to be valid in September 2024 and concluded with a settlement of R$ 7,200.
According to the records, the amount was fully deposited in favor of the client, but the lawyer received the total and did not pass on the portion that was due to the plaintiff, breaching the initial agreement.
At the same time, she failed to provide clear and updated information regarding the progress of the case.
Client Discovers On Her Own That The Case Had Already Been Closed
After the period she considered reasonable to receive any news had passed, the client reported attempting to contact the lawyer several times.
However, the responses were described as vague, without indication of dates, amounts, or concrete stages of the judicial process.
The messages, according to the plaintiff, suggested that the lawsuit was still ongoing.
In light of the lack of clarity, the woman decided to seek information on her own.
Upon checking the procedural status, she discovered that the case had already been closed and that the settlement with the telecommunications company was approved, with the payment duly made.
It was at this moment that, according to the case, she realized that the amount had been received by the lawyer without any transfer.
In the petition presented to the Special Court, the plaintiff stated she felt deceived and emotionally distressed.
She argued that there was a breach of trust in the professional relationship, as well as undue enrichment on the part of the lawyer.
The claims were accompanied by documents that proved both the payment of the settlement and the lack of transfer.
Lawyer Did Not Present A Defense And Became Revel
The Court of Extremoz officially summoned the lawyer to present a defense and respond to the allegations.
Even so, she did not submit a defense within the legal timeframe.
In light of the inertia, the judge acknowledged her default, a situation in which the claims of the plaintiff tend to be accepted as true when supported by evidence.
In the judge’s analysis, there was documented proof that the compensation was received and that there was no accounting provided to the client.
This set of evidence, combined with the lawyer’s silence throughout the case, led the judge to conclude that there was a serious failure in professional conduct.
When justifying the sentence, Judge Diego Dantas highlighted the emotional impact of the situation.
According to him, “the undue retention of amounts, combined with the psychological suffering caused by the lack of information, is sufficient to justify the defendant’s condemnation to pay compensation for moral damages.”
Sentence Orders Return And Compensation For Moral Damage
Based on the elements presented, the Special Court ordered the lawyer to return R$ 3.6 thousand to the client, the amount corresponding to the portion due to the plaintiff in the settlement with the telecommunications company.
Additionally, the professional must pay R$ 6 thousand in moral damages, an amount set considering the severity of the conduct, the incurred harm, and the educational nature of the decision.
The sentence also stipulated that all amounts be updated monetarily and subject to interest.
This type of correction seeks to prevent the time between the event and the payment from effectively reducing the scope of the financial reparation defined by Justice.
Although the case involves an individual relationship between the client and the lawyer, the decision reinforces the understanding that the lawyer has the duty to account for all amounts received on behalf of the client and transparently transfer what is owed.
When this does not happen, besides being an ethical violation, there may be civil liability and even criminal repercussions, depending on the conduct and legal framing.
Relationship Between Client And Lawyer Requires Transparency
Cases like the one judged in Extremoz highlight the importance of trust in the relationship between lawyers and clients.
The professional has access to sensitive information, personal documents, and often amounts deposited due to judicial decisions.
Therefore, the Statute of Advocacy and the Code of Ethics require transparency, loyalty, and clear communication regarding any financial transactions made on behalf of the represented party.
In addition to the ethical duty, there is a legal duty of information.
When the client is not informed about the closure of a settlement or the receipt of funds, they become vulnerable and solely dependent on the lawyer’s good faith.
The practice of withholding amounts without authorization, if proven, can be seen as a serious violation of professional duty.
In this specific case, the absence of adequate responses and the lack of clear information influenced the characterization of moral damage.
The judge recognized that the violation of trust in the professional relationship brings consequences that go beyond financial loss.
In a situation like this, an inevitable reflection arises for the reader: to what extent do episodes of this nature influence the trust of the population in the professionals who advocate for their rights?
-
2 pessoas reagiram a isso.