Visit these Sites for your hair fashion Dilemma

Lawyers always win

An attorney for tripled on the process income his fee on its own at 1.8 million francs. Acceptable means , the Federal Court.

For 1289 work hours at 469 francs, the lawyer from Geneva had already made statements . But that was not enough , for he had 90 million francs fought for for its clients. He did what every carpenter or painter can only dream of: He increased in retrospect his hourly rate to 1400 francs. As if a plumber could triple his fee when the toilet is working again.

But the Federal Court gave to the lawyer its blessing : contingency fees are provided in the Geneva attorney law to justify the five judges for their decision. They did not care that a federal law prohibiting lawyers since 2002 contingency fees . This prohibition applies only when implementation of the fee agreements were taken , said the judge. That is not the case. Regardless of the federal judges was that the attorney had his fee practice not informed in advance , as in question federal law required by also explicitly .

" This ruling led prosecutors to leave their clients over fees in the dark. So that they could , if successful, an salted additional invoice " pull out of his hat, warns legal scholar Daniel Schwab , who has written extensively on the case. His advice : " Consumers should with lawyers the fee agree always writing and contingency fees exclude . "

Well-protected interests

Explosive: The Geneva practice could soon Switzerland's become the norm. The professional ethics of the Swiss Bar Association ( SAV) contains indeed a very similar formulation, such as the Geneva Bar Act.

Is it at least so that a lawyer must refrain from failure on his fee in whole or in substantial parts? No, that not even he , according to law , says the SAV. To notify the client costs and a reasonable profit ever invoice , even in total process defeat . Ride the wave of on success and cashing in failure: lawyers appear to be making more profit.

Polanski's lawyers want case roll re-

's lawyers Roman Polanski want to bring the abuse case against the director from the 70s once again on the table. They assumed procedural errors , said in a lawsuit.

did At that time a judge not behave properly, how close to put new evidence , the lawyers said in Los Angeles. Against the judge , meanwhile, a former prosecutor had testified . In the lawsuit , the lawyers put also an appeal against a court decision , after which the volatile director trotting personally must with the U.S. justice system.

Polanski's defenders argued that the California law does allow her client that he would be convicted without having to personally go back to Los Angeles. The 76- year-old is accused of sexual abuse of minors. He is currently in Switzerland, under house arrest.

U.S. Attorney prosecuted Polanski since 1977

In January, a judge in Los Angeles Polanski's application is rejected on conviction in absentia. His decision to be done with regard to the integrity of the judicial system , the judge said. The deputy prosecutor of said the accused was a fugitive and there should not be that he the court dictated the terms of proceedings.

The U.S. Justice Polanski pursued since 1977, when this a then 13- year-old girl was drugged and raped. The director put then on a plea of guilty and was sitting 42 days in prison withdrew in 1978 but the continuation of the process by fleeing abroad.

The director was on 26 September 2009 due to a U.S. arrest warrant, on entry arrested to Switzerland. On payment of a deposit and in compliance with additional requirements imposed he was released in early December from custody and with a foot ankle provided in his chalet in Gstaad placed under house arrest.