Wang Baofu v. Sanxin Law Firm
(Case on Dispute over Compensation for Property Damage)@#
[Judgment Abstract]@#
Under Paragraph 1 of Article 49 of the Lawyers Law, where a will witnessed by a lawyer is held invalid due to inconsistency with statutory formal requirements and as the result the beneficiary of the will suffered economic losses, the law firm with which the lawyeris affiliated shall assume the compensation liability for its fault.@#
BASIC FACTS@#
Plaintiff: Wang Baofu, male, 56 years old, dwelling in Madian Xichun, Haidian district, Beijing Municipality@#
Defendant: Beijing Sanxin Law Firm, domiciled at the Nongzhanguan Nanli, Chaoyang district, Beijing Municipality@#
Legal representative: Liu Cheng, director of Beijing Sanxin Law Firm@#
Wang Baofu brought a lawsuit with the People's Court of Chaoyang District, Beijing Municipality against Beijing Sanxin Law Firm (hereinafter referred to as Sanxin Law Firm) concerning the dispute over compensation for property damage.@#
The plaintiff claimed that: The will made by Wang Shouzhi, father of the plaintiff, which had been witnessed by the defendant, was ruled as invalid by the court in an action for inheritance due to its failure to meet the legal formal essential elements of two or more witnesses. The plaintiff, as the defeating party in the action for inheritance, could not inherit his father's bequests according to the will but had to pay monetary compensation at the market price to other inheritors so as to inherit the house according to statutory inheritance. The plaintiff had faults when witnessing the process of Wang Shouzhi making a will, injured the plaintiff's right to the bequests under the will and incurred property losses to the plaintiff and thus should be subject to compensation. The plaintiff pleaded the court to adjudicate that the defendant should compensate for such losses as monetary compensation at the market price, agency fees for will witness, agency fees for the first and second instances of the action for inheritance and court hearing charges, which come to a total sum of 134, 893. 75 yuan.@#
．．．．．．

王保富诉三信律师所财产损害赔偿纠纷案@#
【裁判摘要】@#
根据律师法第四十九条第一款的规定，经律师见证的遗嘱因不符合法律规定的形式要件被确认无效，致使遗嘱受益人蒙受经济损失的，律师所在的律师事务所应当承担过错赔偿责任。@#
@#
原告：王保富，男，56岁，住北京市海淀区马甸西村。@#
被告：北京市三信律师事务所，住所地：北京市朝阳区农展馆南里。@#
负责人：刘成，该事务所主任。@#
原告王保富因与被告北京市三信律师事务所(以下简称三信律师所)发生财产损害赔偿纠纷，向北京市朝阳区人民法院提起诉讼。@#
原告诉称：经被告见证的原告父亲王守智生前所立的遗嘱，由于缺少两个以上见证人这一法定形式要件，在继承诉讼中被法院认定无效。原告作为继承诉讼中的败诉方，不仅不能按遗嘱继承得到父亲的遗产，还得按法定继承向其他继承人付出继承房屋的折价款。被告在见证原告父亲立遗嘱的过程中有过错，侵害了原告的遗嘱继承权利，给原告造成了财产损失，应当赔偿。请求判令被告赔偿房屋折价款、遗嘱见证代理费、两审继承诉讼的代理费、诉讼费等损失共计134893．75元。@#
被告辩称：王守智委托被告代理的事项是见证签字，不是见证代书遗嘱。被告是根据王守智的委托，才指派了一名律师去见证王守智签字，已经履行了自己的义务，且在见证过程中没有过错。至于经被告见证签字的遗嘱，其内容和形式是否符合法律规定，被告没有提示义务。王守智所立的遗嘱，是因代书人未签字而被认定无效。被告不是该遗嘱的代书人，不应该承担代书人的法律责任。综上，不同意原告的诉讼请求。@#
北京市朝阳区人民法院经审理查明：@#
2001年，原告王保富之父王守智与被告三信律师所签订了《非诉讼委托代理协议》书一份，约定：三信律师所接受王守智的委托，指派张合律师作为王守智的代理人；代理事项及权限为：代为见证；律师代理费用为6000元；支付方式为现金；支付时间为2001年8月28日；协议上还有双方约定的其他权利义务。王守智在该协议书上签字，三信律师所在该协议书上加盖了公章，但该协议书未标注日期。同年9月10日，王守智又与三信律师所指派的律师张合签订了一份《代理非诉讼委托书》，内容为：因见证事由，需经律师协助办理，特委托三信律师所律师张合为代理人，代理权限为：代为见证。9月17日，三信律师所出具一份《见证书》，附王守智的遗嘱和三信律师所的见证各一份。王守智遗嘱的第一项为：将位于北京市海淀区北太平庄钟表眼镜公司宿舍11门1141号单元楼房中我的个人部分和我继承我妻遗产部分给我大儿子王保富继承。见证的内容为：兹有北京市海淀区北太平庄钟表眼镜公司宿舍3楼4门2号的王守智老人于我们面前在前面的遗嘱上亲自签字，该签字系其真实意思表示，根据《中华人民共和国民法通则》第五十五条的规定其签字行为真实有效。落款处有见证律师张合的签字和三信律师所的盖章。王守智于9月19日收到该《见证书》。@#
2002年12月9日，王守智去世。原告王保富于2003年1月起诉至北京市海淀区人民法院，要求按照王守智的遗嘱继承遗产。2003年6月30日，北京市第一中级人民法院的终审判决认定：王守智所立遗嘱虽有本人、张合律师签字且加盖北京市三信律师事务所单位印章，但该遗嘱的形式与继承法律规定的自书、代书遗嘱必备条件不符，确认王守智所立遗嘱不符合遗嘱继承法定形式要件，判决王守智的遗产按法定继承处理。王保富因此提起本案诉讼，要求三信律师所赔偿经济损失。@#
经核实确认，按法定继承，原告王保富所得遗产比按遗嘱继承少114318．45元。@#
上述事实，有双方当事人陈述、《非诉讼委托代理协议》、《代理非诉讼委托书》、《见证书》、三信律师所接待笔录、(2003)海民初字第3229号民事判决书、(2003)一中民终字第5122号民事判决书等证据证实。@#
．．．．．．