The Supreme Court (TS) has confirmed that warning about offers from “divorcetas” – the reported vans that offer divorce lawyers for 150 euros – does not harm the honor of the lawyers who provide this type Services. The magistrates ruled thus after having studied whether or not there was a conflict between the right to professional honor of lawyers and the freedom of expression of those who criticize “a certain manner of exercise and publicity of the profession of ‘lawyer in the field of law’. “of family”. The Superior Court looked into the specific case of a lawyer who, between the end of 2020 and the beginning of 2021, had announced his professional activity in labeled vans, known as “divorcionetas”, proposing a divorce procedure for 150 euros. According to the judgment, to which Europa Press had access, the Spanish Association of Family Law Lawyers (AEAFA) warned the General Council of Spanish Lawyers against the “risk of misleading advertising on 150 euro divorces”. He also denounced it on his social networks and on his website, with echoes in different media. The lawyer filed a complaint against the association, arguing that being accused of misleading advertising and professional misconduct was defamatory and violated his right to honor. He requested that the AEAFA and its president be ordered to compensate him to the tune of 3,600 euros and to delete the messages against him from their social networks and their website. Related news standard No The ‘squadra’ of Spaniards entrusted to the Pope in the Vatican Javier Martínez-Brocal The Pontiff surrounded himself with a large number of Spaniards in key positions The association opposed the trial and defended that it was not his responsibility that the press had echoed his position. Concerning the publications he made on his website and social networks, he alleged that “they were simple information” and that they had “never” referred “expressly” to the lawyer . Freedom of expression In the resolution, of which Judge Pedro José Vela was the rapporteur, it is indicated that the court which took up the case at first instance rejected the complaint considering that in fact, the association had not directly appointed the lawyer. , but which rather referred to “sectors of lawyers” who advertised the handling of divorce proceedings at “low prices” in vans. Dissatisfied with the decision, the man took his case to the Provincial Court, where the magistrates understood that there was no violation of rights since the expressions made by the association were protected by freedom of expression “with regard to methods of attracting customers”. in matters of public interest and, therefore, subject to criticism. The Court concluded that “in no case” was the association referring to a procedural practice or behavior “far removed from ethical duties, but rather to the possible misleading nature of the advertising used to attract these customers by mentioning a very high price. down”. Ultimately, the lawyer took the case to the Supreme Court, which also rejected his arguments. The Civil Chamber explained that the professional activity criticized by the association was in the “public domain” and that there is no proof that it used the image or name of the lawyer nor that the vans of the “divorcionetas” contained data allowing him to be identified.
