Skip to main content

LUP Student Papers

LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

Advokatens skadeståndsansvar vid vårdslös rådgivning – Det är uppenbart! Eller?

Westberg, Allis LU (2020) LAGF03 20202
Department of Law
Faculty of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
I juni 2018 meddelade HD ett avgörande (NJA 2018 s. 414) gällande förutsättningarna för att en advokat ska anses skadeståndsansvarig vid vårdslös rådgivning. Rättsfallet som blev uppmärksammat möttes även av kritik då det inte ansågs sprida mycket ljus över frågan med undantag av att ribban för skadeståndsansvar numera var hög. HD hade nämligen konstaterat att skadeståndsansvar förelåg först vid uppenbara fel. 2019 tog HD upp frågan i ett nytt mål (NJA 2019 s. 877) där 2018-års fall söktes förtydligas, däribland hur kravet på uppenbart ämnades att förstås.

Med NJA 2019 s. 877 som utgångspunkt är syftet med denna uppsats att undersöka förutsättningarna för advokatens skadeståndsansvar gentemot en klient vid vårdslös rådgivning. Arbetet... (More)
I juni 2018 meddelade HD ett avgörande (NJA 2018 s. 414) gällande förutsättningarna för att en advokat ska anses skadeståndsansvarig vid vårdslös rådgivning. Rättsfallet som blev uppmärksammat möttes även av kritik då det inte ansågs sprida mycket ljus över frågan med undantag av att ribban för skadeståndsansvar numera var hög. HD hade nämligen konstaterat att skadeståndsansvar förelåg först vid uppenbara fel. 2019 tog HD upp frågan i ett nytt mål (NJA 2019 s. 877) där 2018-års fall söktes förtydligas, däribland hur kravet på uppenbart ämnades att förstås.

Med NJA 2019 s. 877 som utgångspunkt är syftet med denna uppsats att undersöka förutsättningarna för advokatens skadeståndsansvar gentemot en klient vid vårdslös rådgivning. Arbetet riktas särskilt in på HD:s utformning av culpabedömningen, vad rådgivningsansvaret innefattar samt vad kravet på uppenbarhet innebär. Vad gäller culpabedömningen tas även frågan upp varför omständigheterna ifråga beaktas.

Utredningen visar att advokatsamfundets vägledande regler om god advokatsed kombinerat med uppdragsavtalet i det enskilda fallet utgör utgångspunkten i culpabedömningen. I culpabedömningen ska omständigheterna i det enskilda fallet beaktas. Samtidigt pekar HD ut sex omständigheter som bör beaktas. Slutsatsen av detta är att omständigheterna har ställts upp för att syna det konkreta avtalsförhållandet, vilken kravnivå som gäller i det enskilda fallet samt vem av parterna som bör bära den sammanhängande risken för skadan som uppkommit. I frågan om vad advokatens rådgivningsansvar omfattar framkommer att det är beroende av uppdragets karaktär. Har uppdraget aktualiserat komplexa sakliga och svåra rättsliga frågor riktas prövningen främst mot advokatens metod och i uppdrag där svaren varit enkla eller lätta att finna riktas prövningen främst mot rådets innehåll. Detta har också betydelse för vad uppenbart fel kan bestå i.

Avseende uppenbarhetsrekvisitet framkommer att kravet inte innebär en fördel för advokater eller en förhöjd culpatröskel. Uppenbarhetsterminologin ska ses mot bakgrund av att gällande rätt många gånger ger utrymme för att argumentera olika lösningar. I sådana situationer ska skadeståndsansvar aktualiseras först då advokatens rättsbedömning uppenbart gått utanför ramen för sådana varierande lösningar. (Less)
Abstract
In June of 2018 the Supreme Court delivered a judgment regarding a lawyer’s liability for damages due to negligent advice. The case (NJA 2018 s. 414) was met with criticism as it was not considered to bring much clarity to the matter. It was suspected that the bar concerning lawyer’s liability had been raised since the Supreme Court had stated that liability for damages only existed when the lawyer’s negligence was considered obvious. In 2019, the Supreme Court delivered a judgement regarding a similar legal matter in a new case (NJA 2019 s. 877). In the case an attempt was made to clarify the 2018 precedent, including the requirement of obvious.

On the basis of the last precedent, the purpose of this thesis is to examine the... (More)
In June of 2018 the Supreme Court delivered a judgment regarding a lawyer’s liability for damages due to negligent advice. The case (NJA 2018 s. 414) was met with criticism as it was not considered to bring much clarity to the matter. It was suspected that the bar concerning lawyer’s liability had been raised since the Supreme Court had stated that liability for damages only existed when the lawyer’s negligence was considered obvious. In 2019, the Supreme Court delivered a judgement regarding a similar legal matter in a new case (NJA 2019 s. 877). In the case an attempt was made to clarify the 2018 precedent, including the requirement of obvious.

On the basis of the last precedent, the purpose of this thesis is to examine the professional liability of lawyers when a client suffers damage due to lawyer’s advice. The focus will be on the following three aspects. The assessment of lawyer’s liability defined by the Supreme Court, if the professional liability entails responsibility of method or result and lastly the court’s requirement of a lawyer’s negligence being obvious.

The examination has shown that the guiding rules on good legal practice developed by the Swedish Bar Association in combination with the agreement between the lawyer and client forms the basis of the assessment. In the assessment, the circumstances in the individual case should be taken into account as well as the six circumstances pointed out by the Supreme Court. In conclusion, these are to determine the contractual relationship, the lawyer’s obligations and which of the parties should bear the risk for the damages. Regarding the question whether the professional liability entails responsibility of method or result, the conclusion is that it depends on whether the client’s legal problem is to be considered difficult or not. In the case the answer to the legal problem is simple or easy to find the focus of the assessment is the lawyer’s result, otherwise the focus is the lawyer’s method. This is also relevant concerning the court’s requirement of obvious.

Concerning the requirement of obvious, the study has shown that it does not mean that gross negligence is required. Instead, the terminology reflects the fact that legal issues often can be argued and that the law rarely present one correct answer. In order for a lawyer to be held liable the advice must be deemed beyond the margin of appreciation. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Westberg, Allis LU
supervisor
organization
course
LAGF03 20202
year
type
M2 - Bachelor Degree
subject
keywords
civilrätt, förmögenhetsrätt, skadeståndsrätt, advokater
language
Swedish
id
9034056
date added to LUP
2021-02-09 10:56:27
date last changed
2021-02-09 10:56:27
@misc{9034056,
  abstract     = {{In June of 2018 the Supreme Court delivered a judgment regarding a lawyer’s liability for damages due to negligent advice. The case (NJA 2018 s. 414) was met with criticism as it was not considered to bring much clarity to the matter. It was suspected that the bar concerning lawyer’s liability had been raised since the Supreme Court had stated that liability for damages only existed when the lawyer’s negligence was considered obvious. In 2019, the Supreme Court delivered a judgement regarding a similar legal matter in a new case (NJA 2019 s. 877). In the case an attempt was made to clarify the 2018 precedent, including the requirement of obvious. 

On the basis of the last precedent, the purpose of this thesis is to examine the professional liability of lawyers when a client suffers damage due to lawyer’s advice. The focus will be on the following three aspects. The assessment of lawyer’s liability defined by the Supreme Court, if the professional liability entails responsibility of method or result and lastly the court’s requirement of a lawyer’s negligence being obvious. 

The examination has shown that the guiding rules on good legal practice developed by the Swedish Bar Association in combination with the agreement between the lawyer and client forms the basis of the assessment. In the assessment, the circumstances in the individual case should be taken into account as well as the six circumstances pointed out by the Supreme Court. In conclusion, these are to determine the contractual relationship, the lawyer’s obligations and which of the parties should bear the risk for the damages. Regarding the question whether the professional liability entails responsibility of method or result, the conclusion is that it depends on whether the client’s legal problem is to be considered difficult or not. In the case the answer to the legal problem is simple or easy to find the focus of the assessment is the lawyer’s result, otherwise the focus is the lawyer’s method. This is also relevant concerning the court’s requirement of obvious.

Concerning the requirement of obvious, the study has shown that it does not mean that gross negligence is required. Instead, the terminology reflects the fact that legal issues often can be argued and that the law rarely present one correct answer. In order for a lawyer to be held liable the advice must be deemed beyond the margin of appreciation.}},
  author       = {{Westberg, Allis}},
  language     = {{swe}},
  note         = {{Student Paper}},
  title        = {{Advokatens skadeståndsansvar vid vårdslös rådgivning – Det är uppenbart! Eller?}},
  year         = {{2020}},
}