II UKN 240/98
AI generated
Retired lawyer's appeal dismissed because he failed to prove continued practice in a law office or partnership.
Poland (PL)
Legislator summary
AI generatedThe Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by a retired lawyer against a social insurance decision. The lawyer argued for continued representation rights, but the Regional Bar Council confirmed he had not notified them of active practice since 1995. The court ruled that the appeal was inadmissible because the lawyer failed to demonstrate he was currently practicing within a law office or partnership as required by law.
Legislator headnote
AI generatedArt. 8 ust. 2 ustawy o radcach prawnych; Art. 393 ust. 1, 5, 8 KPC: A retired lawyer may file an appeal only if they prove they are currently practicing within a law office or partnership; failure to meet this requirement renders the appeal inadmissible.
Keywords
AI generated
retired lawyer appeal
law office practice
partnership representation
admissibility requirement
social insurance dispute
Cited Legislation
AI generatedArt. 8 ust. 2 ustawy z dnia 6 lipca 1982 r. o radcach prawnych
Art. 393 ust. 1 KPC
Art. 393 ust. 5 KPC
Art. 393 ust. 8 KPC