Question III: Whether an advocate is liable for light fault

The AFFIRMATIVE answer is given by Villalobos Tomo 2, Tract. 10, diff. 4; Iom. Valer. in differ. utriusque fori, V. damnum, differ. 1, num. 7; Ledesma summa, part. 2, Tract. 8, cap. 36; Salon. 2, 2, quaest. 71, art. 2, controv. unica, conclus. 2; Rebell. part. 2, lib. 1, quaest. 10, num. 7; Molina Tom. 3, tract. 2, disp. 730; Sayrus L. 10, tract. 2, cap. 8, num. 11; Reginaldus tract. 2, Lib. 10, cap. 9, sect. 3, num. 90; Navarrus in restit., lib. 3, cap. 3, num. 3; Bannes 2, 2, quaest. 71, art. 4, dub. 2; Cruz in direct., part. 1, prac. 8, art. 5, dub. 19.

BUT this opinion would be the ruin of Advocates. Therefore the opposite is maintained by Lessius lib. 2, cap. 7, num. 31; Azorius part. 3, lib. 13, cap. 29, dub. 5; Malderus 2, 2, tract. 6, cap. 3, disp. 10; Fernandez in exam., Lib. 4, q. 44; Graff., decis., part. 1, lib. 3, cap. 8; Navarrus, man., cap. 25, num. 28; Rodriquez, sum., tom. 1, cap. 6, num. 6; Ortiz, summa, cap. 8, numero 3; Turrianus, Tom. 2, 2, 2, disp. 11, dub. 4, num. 5, etc.; Diana, p. p., Tract. 15, resol. 59.

The same is D. Bonaventura's, in speculo animae, cap. 3, where he condemns only grave fault in the undertaking of the office. Therefore if he loses the cause, he is not bound to restitution, because he acted quite prudently, even if negligently in a light way. Bassaeus implies this, V. Advocat., num. 3.