Federica Bertuzzi, Noa Cohen, Montserrat Fabregat, Aran Fontanet, Diana Marquez, Karyll Mendoza, Lucia

Miranda, Rahma Mostafa.

LEGAL FEES CASE - GROUP 6

POSSIBLE ARGUMENTS

Position: EU IURIS, lawyers representing the interests of Mrs. López.

FACTS/BACKGROUND:
Mrs. López hired GOWNS FOR JUSTICE, a law firm, to seek legal advice regarding two
matters: her divorce and determination of her child’s custody, and the dismissal of an
employee who had allegedly been subtracting money from Beuting, a cosmetics company she
owns.

The law firm’s fees were determined at a flat rate of 150 euros/hour. Seems important to
recall that no details or explanations were given to the unbelievably high price of Gowns for
Justice’s legal fees.

The problem arose when an invoice from Gowns for Justice of 25.000 euros, which Mrs.
López and her future law firm - EU IURIS - found extremely excessive.

Mrs. López decided to find legal advice elsewhere, and ended up with EU IURIS, a law firm
who is determined to find an agreement between Mrs. López and her former law firm, by
studying whether their professional agreement is abusive or not under Article 4(2) of
Directive 93/13/CEE, which states that a contract’s main subject matter and the price and
remuneration specified in the contract are subjected to assessment for unfairness if they are
not clearly and understandably stated in the contract, trying to prevent ambiguity regarding
essential terms in the contract.

While studying the case, EU IURIS received a communication notifying that GOWNS FOR
JUSTICE sued Mrs. López for non-payment and sought immediate invoice execution.

MOST RELEVANT APPLICABLE LAW/CASE LAW:

➔ Article 80 of the Royal Legislative Decree 1/2007 on the Recast Text of the General
Law for the Protection of Consumers and Users
➔ Art. 8.1, b) of the Royal Law Decree, of the General Law for the Defense of
Consumers and Users
➔ Article 3.1 Directive 93/13/CEE
➔ Article 4.2 Directive 93/13/CEE
➔ Article 5 Directive 93/13/CEE
 Federica Bertuzzi, Noa Cohen, Montserrat Fabregat, Aran Fontanet, Diana Marquez, Karyll Mendoza, Lucia
Miranda, Rahma Mostafa.

GENERAL ARGUMENT:

EU Iuris, after studying the professional agreement between Mrs. López and Gowns for
Justice, considers it abusive under Article 4(2) of Directive 93/13/CEE. The fees charged by
Mrs. López’ former law firm are unfair and unreasonable considering the nature and
vagueness of the agreement. The hidden contract language leads to confusion and uncertainty.

EU IURIS assesses the fairness of the dispute, not only for their client but also to ensure that
customers are protected from abusive practices by service providers and overall. Ensure the
fairness of legal fees.

We ask the court for the revision of the terms regarding the fees in the contract and
consequent termination of the contract without a damages fee.

SPECIFIC ARGUMENTS:

1. Directive 93/13/CEE, art. 3.1, prohibits the existence of a significant imbalance between
contracting parties, especially when it is at the detriment of the consumer. EU IURIS believes
that not adding a price cap to the service fee, nor adding more terms to clarify the price and
way of paying for this service, allowed for that imbalance to happen between Mrs. López and
GOWNS FOR JUSTICE.

art. 3.1: “A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as
unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the
parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer.”
in the directive exposed by my collegue
2. Directive 93/13/CEE, art. 4.2, allows the consideration of the unfairness of the terms to be
related to the adequacy of the price and remuneration when those terms are not in plain
intelligible language.

art. 4.2: “Assessment of the unfair nature of the terms shall relate neither to the definition of
the main subject matter of the contract nor to the adequacy of the price and remuneration, on
the one hand, as against the services or goods supplies in exchange, on the other, insofar as
these terms are in plain intelligible language.”

In the case of Mrs. López’s contract with GOWNS FOR JUSTICE, the terms of the fees were
not stated in plain unintelligible language. And, according to jurisprudence of the Spanish
Supreme Court (Tribunal Supremo) in the judgement of the 9th of May of 2013, the terms
where plain unintelligible language has not been applied, even regarding to the price of the
service, can be subjected to judicial control due to unfairness according to art. 4.2, Directive
93/13/CEE.
 Federica Bertuzzi, Noa Cohen, Montserrat Fabregat, Aran Fontanet, Diana Marquez, Karyll Mendoza, Lucia
Miranda, Rahma Mostafa.

moreover
3. Art. 5 of Directive 93/13/CEE, introduces the idea of transparency when referring to “plain
unintelligible language” and instructs that the interpretation of any term where there is doubt,
must be done in favour of the consumer.

art. 5: “In the case of contracts where all or certain terms offered to the consumer are in
writing, these terms must always be drafted in plain, intelligible language. Where there is
doubt about the meaning of a term, the interpretation most favourable to the consumer shall
prevail…”
we mention a
Along those lines, EU case law regarding the Judgment of Gómez del Moral Guasch,
C-125/18, especially regarding paragraphs 46 and 50, establishes that transparency and the
use of “plain unintelligible language” in the terms regarding the price of the service provided
must guarantee the consumer’s complete understanding of the economic consequences that
agreeing to said term will imply.

Moreover, paragraph 40 on the judgement of 12/1/2023, case C-395/21, concludes that

establishing an hourly fee without more information regarding the determination of payment
for the service provided does not enable an average consumer who is reasonably well
informed to estimate the financial consequences of that term, hence declaring it unfair.

4. Art. 8.1, b) of the Royal Law Decree, of the General Law for the Defense of Consumers
and Users, establishes as one of the rights of consumers the “protection of their legitimate
economic and social interests; in particular against unfair commercial practices and the
inclusion of abusive clauses in contracts”. Having previously established that the term
regarding the flat fee of GOWNS FOR JUSTICE was unclear and, therefore, unfair, Mrs.
López is a victim of an attack to this right, allowing for the judicial control of this contract
and a re-defining of the payment for the service.

5. Art. 47. 1. l) of the Royal Legislative Decree 1/2007, 16th November, on the Recast Text
of the General Law for the Protection of Consumers and Users

In compliance with the section “l” of article 47.1 Royal Legislative Decree 1/2007, 16th
November, on the Recast Text of the General Law for the Protection of Consumers and Users,
we consider the fact that GOWNS FOR JUSTICE established a flat rate of 150€/hour without
specifying the services provided is a clear unfair practice to our client, Mrs Lopez.

“ 1. The following are infringements in matters of consumer protection:

l) The use of unfair commercial practices in respect of consumers or users. (...)”

Moreover, in art. 48. 2. a) of the Royal Legislative Decree 1/2007, violations of point l) are
classified as minor, and therefore subject to judicial control.

"2. When the provisions of the previous section are not applicable, the infractions will be
initially qualified by the characteristics of the action or omission and the guilt of the person
responsible in accordance with the following rules:
Federica Bertuzzi, Noa Cohen, Montserrat Fabregat, Aran Fontanet, Diana Marquez, Karyll Mendoza, Lucia
Miranda, Rahma Mostafa.

a) Violations of sections f), g), i), k), l), m), n), ñ), p), q) and t) of article 47 will be classified
as minor, unless they have the considered serious in accordance with the third section of this
article. ”

6. Mrs. Lopez, as a consumer, agreed with GOWNS FOR JUSTICE a flat rate of 150€/hour to
seek legal assessment regarding her divorce from her husband, the determination of their
children's custody and the dismissal of an employee of her cosmetic chain. After
accomplishing these requests, GOWNS FOR JUSTICE issued an invoice for 25.000 euros
which we consider excessive for the services agreed.

Art. 80, Requisites on clauses not negotiated individually. Royal Legislative Decree
1/2007, 16th November, on the Recast Text of the General Law for the Protection of
Consumers and Users

“1. In contracts with consumers and users using non-individually negotiated clauses,
including those promoted by public administrations and entities and companies of which they
are dependent, they shall comply with the following requirements:

a) Concrete, clarity and simplicity in the drafting, with the possibility of direct
understanding, without forwarding to texts or documents that are not provided prior to or at
the same time as the conclusion of the contract, and to which, in any case, express reference
must be made in the contract document.

b) Accessibility and readability, in such a way as to allow the consumer and user the
knowledge prior to the conclusion of the contract on their existence and content.

In no case will this requirement be understood to have been fulfilled if the size of the
letter of the contract is less than 2.5 millimeters, the space between lines is less than 1.15
millimeters, or the insufficient contrast with the background makes reading difficult.

c) Good faith and fair balance between the rights and obligations of the parties,
which in any case excludes the use of unfair terms.

2. Where individual actions are exercised, in case of doubt as to the meaning of a clause, the
most favorable interpretation to the consumer shall prevail.

In this case, the term in the contract referring to the payment of the services provided by
GOWNS FOR JUSTICE, clearly does not comply with the requirements set forth by the cited
legislation, therefore it can be submitted to judicial control.

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, we observe how GOWNS FOR JUSTICE violated the rights of the consumer Mrs.
López and failed the principle of equality between the parties (Directive 93/13/CEE, art. 3.1), the right
to be informed in a clear and simple way (Directive 93/13/CEE , article 4.2). The principle of good
faith is also affected, since by adding abusive clauses the company is taking advantage of the
ignorance and economic precariousness of the consumer [art. 8.1, b) of the Royal Law Decree, of the
General Law for the Defense of Consumers and Users].
Federica Bertuzzi, Noa Cohen, Montserrat Fabregat, Aran Fontanet, Diana Marquez, Karyll Mendoza, Lucia
Miranda, Rahma Mostafa.

It is an unfair contract because there is no clarity in the language and, therefore, it is abusive and
creates unequal stands of power between the parties (art 47, 48 and 80 RLD).
For all these reasons, the offender is violating the rule of law, going against the principle of legality.
The European Union protects consumer rights, therefore, member states are obliged by the principle
of confederation to act in accordance with EU law.