2023-11-07 20:08:00
Conclusions: TENTH. – That, with respect to the Exception of Lack of Legitimacy to Act, it is clearly unfounded, since it is evident that it is not supported by a real factual legal argument, given that the person who hired the complained lawyer was the complainant. ; Whoever paid the fees to the complained lawyer was the complainant; Therefore, the contractual relationship maintained was between the complainant and the defendant, with the complainant being his client contractually. Furthermore, it is evident that the complainant does have an interest in acting, since he was the contractor of the legal services, as stated by both parties. That it appears from the contract that the complained lawyer will have to advise a third party; That is another issue, so an improper defense is evident in that sense.
Then, according to the investigative actions carried out and the evidentiary elements and the review of the actions in the record, a conviction has been created of the Ethical Infraction carried out by the complained lawyer EMILIO IVÁN PAREDES YATACO, who in his actions transgressed articles 5, 6 paragraph), 8, 12 and 13 of the Lawyer’s Code of Ethics, given that he charged fees and did not carry out the entrusted legal work, it being, to say the least, anecdotal that the complainant intends to constitute himself as an economically aggrieved party, because By not continuing with the advice, the complainant has caused harm, which is not, even in the slightest, protectable.
Illustrious Bar Association of Lima
Ethics Council
RESOLUTION OF THE ETHICS COUNCIL N° 0665-2023 CE/DEP/CAL
OFFICE HOUR:N° 327-2022
COMPLAINER: XXX
COMPLAINED: EMILIO IVÁN PAREDES YATACO
Miraflores, September 4, 2023.
VISTA:
The Complaint filed on December 27, 2022, by the complainant XXX, identified with DNI XXX, against the complained lawyer EMILIO IVÁN PAREDES YATACO, with registration CAL No. 18016 for alleged violation of the Lawyer’s Code of Ethics.
CONSIDERING:
1.- ACTIONS CARRIED OUT IN THIS RESEARCH.
FIRST: On December 27, 2022, Mr. XXX, identified with DNI XXX, files the complaint against the complained lawyer EMILIO IVAN PAREDES YATACO, with CAL Registration No. 18016 for alleged transgression of the Lawyer’s Code of Ethics.
SECOND.- That, through Resolution of the Ethics Council No. 0053-2023 CE/DEP/CAL dated February 1, 2023, it was resolved to ADMIT to processing the Complaint filed by the complainant XXX, for alleged violation of articles 5, 6, paragraph 1 ), 8th, 12th and 13th of the Lawyer’s Code of Ethics, TRANSFER of this and its precautions to the complained lawyer in order for them to present their RELEASES AND EVIDENCE within a period of 10 business days.
THIRD.- That, with Resolution of the Ethics Council No. 0102-2023 CE/DEP/CAL dated February 24, 2023 to the document presented on February 22, 2023, by the complainant XXX, through which he requests impetus and speed, It was considered resolved by Resolution of the Ethics Council No. 0053-2023CE/DEP/CAL dated February 1, 2023.
ROOM: That, by resolution of the Ethics Council No. 0486-2023- CE/DEP/CAL dated April 13, 2023, a material error was incurred in the second last name of the complainant in the introductory part of the Ethics Council Resolution No. ° 0053-2023, CE/DEP/CAL remaining as appropriate, XXX.
QUINTO: That, through Resolution of the Ethics Council No. 0563-2023 CE/DEP/CAL, dated July 25, 2023, which, having presented its written defense dated July 24, 2023, the complaint was considered answered within of the legal deadline and in accordance with the status of the process, a SINGLE HEARING is CALLED for August 24, 2023, at 5:50 pm with the CONCURRENCY of the complaining party and the NON-CONCURRENCY of the complaining party.
2.- COMPLAINTS FORMULATED BY THE COMPLAIANT
SIXTH: As a sign of his good faith and willingness to pay, at the request of the undersigned Mr. XXX, on April nineteen, two thousand and twenty-one, he paid Dr. EMILIO ÍVÁN PAREDES YATACO the sum of US$3,500.00 (Three Thousand Five Hundred and 00 /100 American Dollars) deposited to the interbank account 00219319613804613512, owned by the complaining lawyer, as a first-payment advance for his professional fees, leaving the sum of US$ 1,500.00 (One Thousand Five Hundred and 00/100 American Dollars, since then The complaining lawyer agreed with the undersigned to file a criminal complaint and would present it to the Public Ministry, which, as explained below, was never carried out. A total of payments for professional services was agreed upon, amounting to sum of $10,000.00, with a first installment of $5,000.00, a second installment of $5,000.00, the amount paid being $3,500.00 and pending amount of $1,500.00 and despite said payment, Dr. EMILIO IVAN PAREDES YATACO has not complied with what was agreed with the undersigned, that is, to formulate the criminal complaint, coordinate with the undersigned for its signature, present it and carry out the criminal process, for this reason, the aforementioned lawyer has chosen to demonstrate intimidating conduct with the undersigned , his former student Mr. SERGIO ANTONIO CARLOS MEZA.
So much so that Dr. Emilio Iva Paredes Yataco did not diligently communicate with the undersigned about the reasons for the delay in preparing the complaint, and, on more than one occasion, he has not responded to messages from Mr. XXX, nor the undersigned through of the WhatsApp application, showing poor professional ethics, knowing that the subscriber has given him documentation for more information about the case, he has advanced the monetary sum in dollars described above, which I prove with the letter issued by the BBVA bank that I accompanied to the present.
Due to his negligence and professional ethical deficiency as a lawyer of the Illustrious Bar Association of Lima. The undersigned makes the decision not to rely on the professional services of Dr. EMILIO IVAN PAREDES YATACO, proceeding to request through WhatsApp, such as phone calls, all the documentation sent, as well as the return of the sum of US$ 3,500.00 (Three Thousand Five hundred and 00/100 American Dollars) it is a clear fact that Dr. No has acted with probity and good faith, when the undersigned as Mr. XXX, have requested the complaint or the status thereof, he has not responded and has given an excuse after excuse even his person has been the victim of threats.
In accordance with the previous paragraph, the lawyer has demonstrated conduct that discredits the legal profession, not clearly exposing the facts, the law applicable to the case, and the claims of the undersigned as a client; on the contrary, he has stated falsely, attempting to present as a personal work, a format that Mr. XXX, (Law student and brother of the undersigned) has sent to the complainant with the aim of elaborating and detailing the facts better, however, said format was not intended to be the final complaint that was going to be made. present to the Public Ministry, but only a project.
The complainant argues that he is aware that the lawyer’s Code of Ethics protects and safeguards the social function at the service of law and justice, with its essential objective being to act for his well-being, which until the report of this complaint has not been demonstrated by the complained lawyer, violating article three of the fundamental principles of the lawyer’s mission, duties and prohibitions that exist in the Code of Ethics of the Illustrious Bar Association of Lima.
On the other hand, there is a need to inform once again that, as a way to avoid the return, through the WHASAPP application the complaining lawyer has insulted and slandered, intimidating and threatening Mr. XXX and his person. Likewise, his assistant, Mr. Hugo Palacios, has had the same behavior of intimidating us with the same purpose of not returning the money, which we have requested on more than one occasion because he did not make or process the complaint that was part of the treatment at the time of contracting the professional services, likewise, no receipt was issued for the fees, having been complained to repeatedly and without obtaining a positive result.
3.- RELEASE MADE BY THE COMPLAINING LAWYER
SETIMO: Deducts the Exception of Lack of Legitimacy to Act.
That, having learned that Mr. XXXX (hereinafter complainant) hired his professional services to sponsor a legal entity (SEMEQUIV SAC) in the preparation of a criminal complaint to be filed by said legal entity before the Public Ministry for the alleged commission of the crimes of aggravated usurpation and damage, filed a deontological complaint against the appellant for alleged transgression of the norm established in the Lawyer’s Code of Ethics, which was admitted for processing by Resolution of the Ethics Council No. 0053-2023CE/DEP/ CAL, therefore, deduces against said claim, THE EXCEPTION OF LACK OF LEGITIMACY TO ACT of the complainant, which must in due course be declared FOUNDED and, consequently, order the annulment of the present proceedings and conclude the procedure.
[continúa…]
Download the resolution here
#sanction #lawyer #URP #charging #fees #carrying #entrusted #legal #work #Resolución #CEDEPCAL