## Facts

- Dr. Haass retained attorney Leopold Wyler to represent Mrs. Haass regarding her interests as a legatee in two estates managed by another legatee, Gustav Reber.
- The parties pursued an amicable resolution through a sale of the Haass spouses’ inheritance claims to Reber.
- Wyler and Haass agreed that Wyler would be paid, not by the usual regulated attorney fee, but by a success-based “broker” commission calculated as a percentage of the sale price above a specified threshold.
- Wyler negotiated a sale to Reber at a price above the threshold, and Haass made a partial payment to Wyler when Reber made a partial payment on the purchase price.
- After Reber paid the balance, Haass refused to pay additional sums under the fee agreement.
- During the dispute, Wyler was disciplined for unlawfully contracting for compensation exceeding the statutory fee regime.
- Wyler sued for the unpaid balance; Haass asserted the agreement was illegal and counterclaimed for restitution of amounts already paid.

## Issues

1. Whether an attorney–client agreement granting the attorney a contingent, percentage-based “broker” commission tied to a transaction outcome is invalid under mandatory attorney fee regulations.
2. If the fee agreement is invalid, whether the client is barred from restitution of sums paid because the client participated in the unlawful agreement (*in pari delicto* / equal fault).

## Decision

- The Swiss Federal Court held the success-based, percentage “broker” fee arrangement violated mandatory attorney-fee rules and was invalid.
- The court ruled Wyler could not enforce the agreement to recover further payment.
- The court reversed the lower court’s denial of Haass’s restitution claim and allowed recovery of the sums already paid.
- The court rejected a strict equal-fault bar, emphasizing the protective and public-policy purpose of attorney-fee regulation and the lawyer’s primary professional responsibility to comply.

## Legal Principles

- Attorney-fee rules that limit or regulate remuneration may be mandatory; agreements that give lawyers a speculative share in the client’s proceeds can be void as contrary to those rules.
- When invalidity serves client protection and the integrity of the legal profession, courts may permit client restitution even if the client participated in the unlawful agreement.
- Allowing an attorney to retain benefits from an illegal fee arrangement would frustrate the purpose of the fee rules and improperly reward professional misconduct.
- Payments made under a void fee agreement may be recoverable in unjust enrichment as transfers made without legal cause.

## Conclusion

The court invalidated a contingent, broker-style attorney commission as contrary to mandatory fee regulation and held that public-policy and client-protection objectives justify ordering restitution to the client, notwithstanding the client’s involvement in the unlawful bargain.


Haass v. Wyler, BGE 41 II 474 (Switz. Fed. Ct. 1915)