Track Record: Unpaid Legal Fees of Deceased Client Are a Debt of the Estate

Mr. Vincent Besters represented a law firm in proceedings concerning unpaid invoices charged to an estate

In March 2023, the Amsterdam District Court issued an interlocutory judgment in main proceedings in which mr. V.M. Besters acted as counsel for the claimant law firm. The firm had provided legal services for years to a client who died during the divorce proceedings, leaving unpaid invoices. The question was: can these invoices be recovered from the heirs through the estate?

What was the case about?

The law firm had represented an entrepreneur from September 2014 in various proceedings arising from his separation from his former partner. Because the client could no longer pay his bills in full, a payment arrangement was agreed: €300 per month with payment of the remainder “at the end of the case”.

In December 2016, the client died during the appeal proceedings in the divorce case. He left no will. His former partner and three children accepted the estate with benefit of inventory (beneficiair).

At the time of death, €23,668.79 in invoices remained outstanding. The law firm sought payment of this amount — plus interest and costs — from the estate.

The heirs' defence

The heirs raised several defences:

• It would be unacceptable under standards of reasonableness and fairness to recover the claim from the estate, because the work had been carried out in proceedings conducted against the former partner, who was now herself an heir. She would effectively be paying the costs of her own opponent.
• The firm had been aware of the client's psychological problems and had exploited his situation.
• By agreeing to the payment arrangement, the firm had itself accepted the risk that invoices might remain unpaid.

What did the court decide?

The court did not accept the heirs' reliance on reasonableness and fairness:

• A debt of the deceased is in principle a debt of the estate, even if the services rendered were detrimental to one of the heirs.
• There was no basis for concluding that the firm had breached its duty of care or exploited the situation: the client had not been placed under guardianship and had retained legal capacity.
• The payment arrangement deferred payment, but did not extinguish the claim.

The court ordered the law firm to produce hourly billing records (under Article 22 of the Dutch Code of Civil Procedure) so that the amount of the claim could be further verified. Further consideration was adjourned.

What does this mean for lawyers and entrepreneurs?

This ruling is relevant to anyone dealing with outstanding claims against a deceased person:

• Debts of the deceased are debts of the estate. Even if heirs consider a claim ‘unreasonable’, that is generally not a sufficient defence.
• A payment arrangement does not extinguish the claim. Deferral of payment is different from remission.
• Acceptance with benefit of inventory limits the personal liability of heirs, but does not eliminate the debt: it must still be paid from the estate to the extent it is sufficient.
• Lawyers must be able to substantiate their invoices. Hourly billing records are crucial when the amount of a claim is disputed.

Case Reference

This post is based on ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2023:1453.

Mr. V.M. Besters acted as counsel for the claimant in this case.