Opinion of the Swiss Federal Court in the Matter of Dr. Haass, Defendant-Appellant v. Leopold Wyler, Plaintiff-Respondent

The wife of Dr. Haass (defendant) had an interest as a legatee in two estates. Another legatee, Gustav Reber, was managing the estates as a fiduciary, and Dr. and Mrs. Haass were concerned about improper management. Dr. Hass retained Leopold Wyler (plaintiff), an attorney, to represent Mrs. Haass in her dealings with Reber. Wyler negotiated with Reber, and the parties agreed that Reber would buy out Mrs. Haass’s interests in the estates. During further negotiations to set a price for the buyout, Wyler and Dr. Haass agreed that instead of the usual statutory fee for attorney services, Wyler would receive a broker’s commission on the estate sale price over a threshold figure. The sale of Mrs. Haass’s estate interests to Reber was finalized at a price well above the threshold for the broker’s commission. Reber made a partial payment on the deal, leading Dr. Haass to pay a partial fee to Wyler. However, Dr. Haass refused to tender any further fee payments to Wyler when Reber paid the remainder due. Wyler sued for additional payment, and Dr. Haass counterclaimed, alleging that the fee agreement was an illegal contingency fee and demanding reimbursement of the amounts already paid. While the case was ongoing, Wyler was censured for illegally stipulating to compensation greater than the statutory fee. The trial court dismissed Wyler’s complaint, holding that the fee arrangement was invalid. The trial court also dismissed Dr. Haass’s counterclaim, finding that Dr. and Mrs. Haass had shown equal turpitude by contributing to creating an illegal instrument and could not recover. Dr. Haass appealed to the Federal Court—the court of last resort in Switzerland.