A company sued its lawyer and its accountant before the Court of Rome, seeking a declaration of their professional liability for tax‑related advisory services and asking that they be held jointly and severally (or, in the alternative, pro rata) liable for the damages allegedly suffered.
After reviewing all the documents filed in the proceedings, the judge reiterated that professional liability cannot be established merely because the service was performed incorrectly. It is necessary to verify:
– whether the event that caused the damage of the client is attributable to the conduct of the professional;
– whether there was an actual damage; and
– whether the client—based on probabilistic criteria—would likely have achieved a favorable outcome, if the professional had acted as required.
If legal assistance (or, as in the instant case, tax advice) is involved, liability arises only if there is a positive forward‑looking assessment that the underlying action would probably have succeeded.
In other words, to obtain compensation for damages, the client shall prove that, in the absence of the professional’s wrongful conduct, the desired result would likely have been achieved.
Briefly, a client claiming damages deriving from a professional’s omission shall prove:
1. the existence of damages; and
2. a causal link between the negligent conduct and the damages.
Lacking the above proof, even demonstrable negligence does not entitle the client to obtain compensation for damages.