Background
In 2016, M. [V] retained M. [L], an attorney, to represent him in proceedings concerning a request for expert evidence before the Paris Administrative Court of Appeal. The parties signed a fee agreement, but M. [V] later disputed the attorney’s fees. On September 1, 2017, the attorney asked the head of his bar association to determine the amount owed.
Following an earlier cassation and remand, M. [V] filed a declaration referring the dispute to the First President of the Paris Court of Appeal. On January 24, 2025, the First President declared that filing void because M. [V] had not formally served it on M. [L] within the period calculated from the court registry’s hearing notices, relying on Article 1037-1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Cassation held that Article 1037-1’s service requirement does not apply to remand proceedings involving disputes over attorneys’ fees. Under Article 177 of Decree No. 91-1197 of November 27, 1991, together with Article 946 of the Code of Civil Procedure, such proceedings before the First President are oral and do not require representation by counsel. They therefore are not ordinary proceedings of the kind governed by Article 1037-1.
Because the First President applied Article 1037-1 and invalidated M. [V]’s referral declaration for lack of timely service, the First President violated that provision. The Court quashed the January 24, 2025 order in its entirety and remanded the case to a differently composed panel of the First President’s court at the Paris Court of Appeal. It ordered M. [L] to pay costs, rejected the request under Article 700 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and did not address M. [V]’s remaining ground of appeal.
Key Takeaways
- Attorney-fee disputes before the First President of a court of appeal follow an oral procedure without mandatory legal representation.
- The special service-and-forfeiture rules in Article 1037-1 for ordinary appellate proceedings do not govern an attorney-fee dispute returned on remand after cassation.
- A referral declaration in such a fee dispute cannot be declared void merely because it was not formally served within the Article 1037-1 deadline.
Why It Matters
The decision clarifies that procedural requirements governing remands after cassation depend on the nature of the underlying appellate procedure. Courts may not import the formal service sanction applicable to ordinary proceedings into the distinct oral procedure for reviewing attorneys’ fees.
For attorneys and clients litigating fee disputes, the ruling prevents loss of appellate review through application of a service formality that the governing special procedure does not require.