Creditor's Claim against the Lawyer for Payment of a Claim from a Mandate Relationship

Facts

The facts can be summarized as follows

• M. commissioned lawyer X. to conduct legal proceedings and provided him with an advance of CHF 20,000.-.
• The Debt Collection Office Arlesheim seized CHF 10,000.- from M.'s credit balance with X. upon the request of creditor A.
• A. filed a criminal complaint against X. for disposing of seized assets and filed a civil claim for payment of CHF 7,690.85 and CHF 1,200.-.
• The High Court of the Canton of Bern dismissed the civil claim, as the civil claim did not result from the same event as the criminal offense.
• A. subsequently filed a claim against X. with the Court of Appeal of the Canton of Bern for payment of CHF 10,000.- plus interest.
• The Court of Appeal dismissed the claim without examining the merits, as it interpreted the judgment of the High Court as a judgment on the merits.

Considerations

The Federal Supreme Court sets aside the judgment of the Court of Appeal and remands the case to the lower instance for a decision on the merits of the claim. It states the following:

• The plaintiff A. has a claim under federal law to have the judge materially assess his claim from the mandate relationship between M. and X.
• The cantonal procedural law may determine how the judge is to formulate the judgment if he denies the…