Courts must check whether agreed professional fees are exploitative
Prohibition of exploitation of one person by another. When reviewing performance of a professional services agreement, the judge must verify that the agreed consideration does not breach it.
Official heading (Spanish): PROHIBICIÓN DE EXPLOTACIÓN DE LA PERSONA POR LA PERSONA. CUANDO SE ANALICE EL CUMPLIMIENTO DE UN CONTRATO DE SERVICIOS PROFESIONALES, LA PERSONA JUZGADORA DEBE VERIFICAR QUE LAS CONTRAPRESTACIONES PACTADAS NO LA INOBSERVEN.
The ruling
A firm sued a nonprofit association for fees to handle the deed formalization of a property; the fees were close to the property's value, plus default interest and a contractual penalty. Ordered to pay at trial, the association filed a direct amparo. The Collegiate Circuit Court held that the judge must verify that the agreed consideration does not amount to exploitation of one person by another.
Our take
Freedom of contract has a limit that no longer applies only to promissory notes with usurious interest. This ruling extends it to professional services agreements, including those of lawyers and consultants. For service providers, ourselves included, it is a healthy warning: fees, interest and penalties must bear a relation to the value of the engagement and be clearly explained. For clients, it opens a defense where there is material inequality and excessive charges. The ruling's weakness is vagueness: it sets no clear benchmark for disproportion, leaving wide discretion to the judge.
What to do
- Check that fees, default interest and contractual penalties are proportionate to the engagement's value.
- Explain in the engagement letter how fees are determined.
- If charged excessive fees, consider this defense when answering the lawsuit.
Details
- Court
- Collegiate Circuit Court
- Type
- Isolated precedent
- Identifier
- I.10o.C.14 C (12a.)
- Digital registry
- 2032426
- Published
- July 10, 2026
- Area
- Commercial and civil
- View official source ↗
Does this ruling affect your company? Let’s talk.
Schedule a conversationOther precedents in the same area
Prepared by Artegia for information only; not legal advice. Headings in English are unofficial translations. The official text is the one published in the Semanario Judicial de la Federación or the TFJA journal.