In The Name Of God
Failure to accept power of attorney on the pretext of the amount of attorney's fees
By: Kioumars Sepehri
One of the concerns of the people in referring to lawyers is related to the honorarium of attorney. Although in many cases this concern is not real, the fact is that in some cases, unfortunately, for various reasons, some colleagues use the issue of proxy as a tool for not accepting the case and the client, and this can have serious consequences for the representation and credibility of lawyers. An attorney may not want to accept an honorarium of attorney in various ways, and may or may not be able to state the main reason for this to the client. It is problematic to state the merits of the case, and it is not correct to use the honorarium of attorney as a weapon and a stick for this issue. It is an exaggeration to say that he regretted his decision as soon as possible. And choosing a lawyer is a very bad method, and it’s kind of anti-advertising and anti-value for the legal profession.
For example, "We have a difference of opinion with the judge of a certain branch and we agree that the case will not end with our client's judgment, or that the status of the case in terms of subject matter and previous reasons and decisions is such that it is clear what the outcome will be." The client will not be able to reach the desired goal and the defense will be ineffective, or the case is such that it takes a lot of effort and requires effort in different directions that we do not see in our ability, or the subject of the case is issues in which experience and we may not have the expertise and ability to do scientific and professional defense, or we may not be able to do it ourselves. Feeling we have 'Run out of gas' emotionally. Stated that the client should withdraw.
What's wrong with honestly and intelligibly telling the applicant problems and not hurting his or her soul?
Is it right to know the honorarium of attorney for our convenience and hassle-free response?
Wouldn't this be a blow to the credibility of the lawyer?
What's wrong with giving the applicant accurate and correct guidance and information?
Wouldn't it be better to send him to a colleague who has the ability and experience to do the work, so that both the client's work is done and the work is divided among the colleagues, and we encourage the colleagues to work professionally and acquire knowledge and skills?
That our sole purpose is to accept specific and simple cases, the outcome of which is clear, and to refrain from accepting cases that require effort and due to the complexity of the possibility of failing to achieve the desired result, lest our reputation be damaged and imagined. We are created in some people, it is not correct at all and it is against the tradition of chivalry and it can be said that it is a kind of exemption. On the other hand, the art and duty of an advocate is giving solving advices in complex and technical cases. It is in this way that in various issues and subjects and people's problems, the solution of It should be a matter of creativity, not just "in the direction of pre-determined opinions of the judiciary and the daily and ordinary issues of motion and litigation." In addition, in principle, "one of the duties of a lawyer is to find a solution to the problems of the accident for the people. Adapt to it, of course, "any solution and solution that has a logical, rational, useful, and just basis, although it may be due to discrimination." The loft, with its usual procedures, is difficult to implement at first, but ultimately "results."