Facts
In 1987, A. F.-G., C. G. and E. G. commissioned lawyer Dr. X. to safeguard their interests in a probate dispute over their father's estate. In May 1988, they revoked his mandate. Dr. X. then demanded a fee of CHF 62,000.-- plus reimbursement of cash expenses, while the clients only acknowledged and paid CHF 18,750.-- plus cash expenses. By a claim filed on January 17, 1989, Dr. X. asserted the unpaid CHF 43,250.-- plus interest.
The District Court of Unterrheintal upheld the claim to the extent of CHF 15,000.-- plus interest by judgment of July 12, 1989. On the plaintiff's appeal and the defendants' cross-appeal, however, the Cantonal Court of St. Gallen dismissed the claim in its entirety on April 26, 1990. The plaintiff has filed an appeal against the judgment of the Cantonal Court, which was dismissed by the Federal Supreme Court.
Considerations
The Cantonal Court qualifies the legal relationship of the parties as a fee-based mandate and determines the compensation owed to the lawyer in accordance with Art. 394 para. 3 CO, since in the absence of a fee agreement, the lawyer's services that were not rendered in court proceedings are to be remunerated not based on the cantonal law on lawyers' fees, but rather in accordance with Art. 394 para. 3 CO.
The Federal Supreme Court examines whether the fee awarded by the Cantonal Court for the lawyer's out-of-court efforts is in compliance with federal law. It finds that the Cantonal Court has set the fee based on general principles, according to which the compensation must correspond to the services rendered and be objectively appropriate. The Cantonal Court has determined an objectively justified expenditure of the plaintiff of 93 working hours and considered an hourly rate of CHF 200.-- as appropriate, which the Federal Supreme Court…