Civil Law and UAE Professional Standard of Care in Specialised Fields

1. Introduction

The professional standard of care is the level of skill, caution, competence, diligence and judgment that a reasonably competent professional should exercise when performing specialised work.

In UAE civil law, the standard becomes particularly important where the defendant possesses specialised knowledge that an ordinary person would not ordinarily have, such as:

doctors and medical professionals;

engineers and architects;

lawyers and legal consultants;

accountants and auditors;

financial and investment professionals;

surveyors and valuers;

technical consultants;

expert witnesses;

construction professionals; and

other licensed specialists.

The central question is not simply:

"Did the professional achieve the desired result?"

It is generally:

"Did the professional exercise the level of skill and care reasonably expected from a competent professional performing that specialised function?"

For current UAE law, the new Civil Transactions Law, Federal Decree-Law No. 25 of 2025, has applied since 1 June 2026. Earlier judicial authorities based on the 1985 Civil Transactions Law remain useful for understanding continuity of civil-liability principles, but the current statutory provisions should govern matters falling within the temporal scope of the new law. (UAE Legislation)

2. Meaning of Professional Standard of Care

A professional standard of care is an objective but specialised standard.

The court does not normally ask whether the professional personally believed that his conduct was reasonable.

Instead, the inquiry considers:

the nature of the professional activity;

the professional's qualifications;

the circumstances in which the service was provided;

foreseeable risks;

accepted professional practices;

applicable legislation and regulations;

contractual obligations;

available information;

urgency of the situation;

expert evidence; and

whether the alleged breach caused legally recoverable damage.

The standard therefore changes according to the profession.

Example

The standard expected from:

a general practitioner is not necessarily identical to that expected from a specialised surgeon;

a general contractor is not identical to that expected from a structural engineer;

an ordinary accountant is not identical to that expected from a specialist forensic accountant.

3. General Civil-Law Foundation

Professional liability can arise from both contractual obligations and non-contractual/civil liability.

A professional may have:

Contractual duty

The client has retained the professional to perform a particular service.

Statutory duty

The professional is subject to legislation regulating the profession.

General civil duty

The professional must not unlawfully cause damage to another person.

Professional/ethical duty

The professional must comply with applicable professional standards.

Consequently, professional negligence can potentially produce:

contractual liability + civil/tort liability + disciplinary liability

depending upon the facts and applicable regime.

4. Reasonable Professional Care

A particularly useful formulation appears in the DIFC legal framework.

In George v Gloria Beauty Lounge LLC [2016] DIFC SCT 086, the Court explained that reasonable care for a professional means the care exercised by an ordinary skilled person possessing and exercising the relevant special skill. Where different professional approaches exist, a professional may satisfy the standard by following an approach supported by a responsible body of professional opinion. (DIFC Courts)

This provides a useful analytical model for specialised professional negligence in the UAE legal environment.

Formula

Ordinary competent professional + relevant speciality + circumstances + accepted professional practice = standard of care

5. Standard of Care Is Not a Guarantee of Success

An important distinction is:

Duty of care

The professional must exercise appropriate skill and diligence.

Guarantee of result

The professional promises that a particular outcome will definitely occur.

These are not the same.

For example, a doctor ordinarily does not guarantee that surgery will succeed merely because the doctor exercised appropriate professional care.

Likewise:

a lawyer does not guarantee victory;

an engineer does not guarantee that every construction project will encounter no problem;

an accountant does not guarantee that a company's financial performance will improve.

The relevant question is normally whether the professional performed the undertaking with the required skill and care.

6. Factors Used to Determine the Standard

A. Nature of the profession

The more specialised the service, the more specialised the expected standard.

B. Professional qualification

A person holding himself out as a specialist may be judged according to the skill reasonably expected from that specialist.

C. Complexity

A highly complex medical procedure or engineering project may require greater specialist expertise than routine work.

D. Foreseeability

The professional should take reasonable precautions against reasonably foreseeable risks.

E. Accepted professional practice

Courts frequently require expert evidence to determine what competent professionals ordinarily do.

F. Regulatory requirements

Licensing and professional regulations may establish minimum requirements.

G. Contractual undertaking

The contract may impose obligations exceeding the basic professional standard.

H. Causation

A departure from professional practice is not necessarily enough. The claimant must ordinarily establish the necessary causal connection between the breach and the damage.

7. Medical Professionals

Medical negligence is one of the clearest examples of specialised professional standards.

The physician's obligation is ordinarily an obligation of professional care, rather than an absolute guarantee of recovery.

In Dubai Court of Cassation Judgment No. 377 of 2025, the Court considered findings of the Higher Medical Liability Committee concerning gross medical negligence. The reported decision identified factors including unjustified departure from established medical principles, gross ignorance of accepted medical practices relative to the physician's specialisation, insufficient experience for the surgery and failure to take account of ultrasound information. (Al Tamimi & Company)

Principle

The doctor's professional standard is assessed against:

recognised medical principles;

the physician's speciality;

professional experience;

available diagnostic information;

appropriate medical precautions; and

the circumstances of the treatment.

The case illustrates that specialisation matters.

A doctor undertaking a highly specialised procedure cannot necessarily be assessed as though performing an ordinary medical task.

8. Engineers and Architects

Engineers have specialised responsibilities concerning:

structural safety;

design;

supervision;

specifications;

construction quality;

certification;

inspection;

payment certificates;

compliance with technical standards.

An engineer may therefore be liable where a failure to exercise appropriate professional care causes legally recognised damage.

The standard may be assessed using:

engineering codes;

contractual specifications;

approved drawings;

project requirements;

industry practice;

inspection records;

expert evidence.

Payment certificates

In International Electro-Mechanical Services Co. LLC v Emirates Speciality Hospital FZ-LLC [2020] DIFC CFI 114, the Court considered the significance of payment certificates issued by engineers/consultants and referred to Dubai Court of Cassation authorities concerning the evidential significance of such certificates. (DIFC Courts)

This demonstrates that an engineer's professional act can have significant legal consequences.

9. Lawyers and Legal Consultants

Lawyers have a specialised standard because legal advice requires professional knowledge.

The standard can include:

correct identification of legal issues;

reasonable research;

competent drafting;

procedural compliance;

appropriate client advice;

confidentiality;

conflict avoidance;

diligence;

protection of limitation periods.

A lawyer is not normally liable merely because a case is lost.

However, circumstances such as:

missing a critical deadline;

giving advice outside the lawyer's competence;

failing to identify an obvious legal issue;

knowingly providing incorrect information;

acting despite a conflict;

may potentially constitute professional misconduct and/or civil negligence.

In Obie v Osric [2025] DIFC CFI 095, the Court considered allegations that a legal consultancy had represented that its operative individual was a qualified lawyer and found that the advice/drafting fell below the reasonable standard of care in the circumstances. (DIFC Courts)

Principle

A professional cannot create an expectation of specialist legal competence and then avoid responsibility by denying the corresponding professional standard.

10. Accountants and Auditors

Accountants and auditors occupy positions of professional trust.

Their standard may involve:

reasonable examination of financial information;

compliance with applicable accounting standards;

professional skepticism;

identification of material inconsistencies;

proper documentation;

appropriate reporting;

avoidance of misleading statements.

An auditor is not necessarily an insurer against every financial loss.

The critical issue is whether the professional exercised the degree of competence and diligence expected in the particular engagement.

11. Financial and Investment Professionals

Financial professionals may have specialised duties relating to:

risk disclosure;

suitability;

financial information;

compliance;

due diligence;

client instructions;

conflicts of interest;

record keeping.

The applicable standard can be influenced by financial-services legislation and regulatory rules in addition to general civil law.

Where a professional's contractual undertaking is highly specialised, the court may need expert evidence to determine whether the conduct fell below the accepted professional standard.

12. Expert Witnesses

Expert witnesses occupy a special position because they assist the court rather than merely advocating for the party who appointed them.

Dubai's Law No. 13 of 2020 regulating the Expert Witness Profession requires an expert to perform assigned duties with the highest degree of accuracy, honesty, dedication and objectivity, while also maintaining professional standards and confidentiality. The law additionally addresses conflicts involving the expert and relatives. (Dubai Land Department)

The DIFC Courts similarly provide that an expert's overriding duty is to assist the Court. The expert must provide objective and unbiased evidence and must not assume the role of an advocate. (DIFC Courts)

Therefore:

Expert → independent technical assistance

not:

Expert → advocate for the party paying the fees.

13. Professional Standard and Expert Evidence

Expert evidence is particularly important in specialised negligence cases.

A judge may be able to determine:

what the law requires;

whether a contract was breached;

whether documents establish certain facts.

But the judge may require specialist evidence to determine questions such as:

whether a surgical procedure complied with accepted medical practice;

whether a building design was structurally adequate;

whether an accounting procedure complied with professional standards;

whether a technical system was appropriately designed.

The DIFC Courts' Part 31 specifically recognises the role of expert evidence in matters requiring expertise beyond the Court's own knowledge. (DIFC Courts)

14. Expert Evidence Must Be Independent

A professional standard cannot be established reliably through biased expert evidence.

Under DIFC rules:

expert evidence should be independent;

the expert should consider material facts;

contrary facts should not be ignored;

limitations in the expert's knowledge must be disclosed;

insufficient information should be acknowledged;

the expert should not act as an advocate. (DIFC Courts)

This is particularly important in professional-negligence litigation because both parties may appoint competing experts.

15. Construction Professionals

Construction disputes frequently involve multiple professionals:

owner;

architect;

engineer;

contractor;

subcontractor;

project manager;

quantity surveyor;

consultant.

The standard of care must therefore be allocated according to the specific professional function.

For example:

Architect

Design and architectural responsibility.

Structural engineer

Structural calculations and safety.

Consultant engineer

Inspection, certification and supervision according to the contractual role.

Contractor

Execution according to plans, specifications and applicable technical requirements.

A professional cannot automatically be responsible for every defect in a project merely because that professional participated in the project.

16. Causation Remains Essential

Professional negligence requires more than proving that the professional made a mistake.

The claimant generally needs to establish a causal relationship between:

professional breach → damage

Example

An engineer makes a minor administrative error, but the error has no connection to the building collapse.

The error alone should not automatically produce liability for the entire loss.

Similarly:

A doctor makes a technical error, but expert evidence establishes that the patient's injury would have occurred even with appropriate treatment.

Causation becomes the decisive issue.

17. Multiple Professionals

Modern projects often involve several specialists.

For example:

Architect + structural engineer + contractor + consultant

may all contribute to the same damage.

The court may need to determine:

who owed a duty;

what standard applied;

who breached it;

whether multiple breaches existed;

whether each breach caused damage;

whether responsibility should be apportioned.

This prevents the professional standard from becoming an automatic doctrine of liability.

18. Specialisation Increases the Standard

A professional who holds himself out as a specialist may reasonably be expected to possess specialist competence.

For example:

A cardiac surgeon cannot necessarily defend conduct by saying:

"An ordinary doctor might have done this."

The relevant question may instead be:

"Would a reasonably competent specialist performing this procedure have acted in this manner?"

The same reasoning can apply to:

specialist engineers;

tax advisers;

forensic accountants;

cybersecurity consultants;

financial specialists;

valuation experts.

19. Standard of Care and Contract

The professional's contract can modify the standard.

Suppose an engineering consultant expressly agrees to:

inspect the structure every month;

prepare technical reports;

verify specified safety systems.

Failure to perform those contractual obligations can provide evidence of breach.

Therefore:

Professional standard + contractual undertaking

may produce a more specific duty than the general professional standard alone.

20. Gross Negligence

Professional negligence can range from:

Ordinary negligence

Failure to exercise the required professional care.

Gross negligence

A much more serious departure from the required standard.

The distinction can matter because statutory and contractual rules may treat ordinary negligence and gross negligence differently.

Earlier UAE professional-negligence commentary identified the former Article 383 of the 1985 Civil Transactions Law as an important basis for the reasonable-care analysis, including the special treatment of fraud and gross negligence. Because the new Civil Transactions Law took effect on 1 June 2026, the current statutory provisions must now be checked rather than simply carrying forward the old article number. (Lexology)

21. Case Law

Case 1 — Dubai Court of Cassation Judgment No. 377 of 2025

Area: Medical negligence

The Court relied on the Higher Medical Liability Committee's findings and upheld findings of gross medical negligence based on departures from recognised medical principles, insufficient specialised experience and failure to consider relevant medical information. (Al Tamimi & Company)

Principle

A medical professional is assessed according to the professional standard appropriate to the treatment and speciality involved.

Case 2 — Obie v Osric [2025] DIFC CFI 095

Area: Legal services

The Court considered alleged misrepresentation concerning professional qualifications and whether the legal advice supplied fell below the applicable standard of care. It concluded that the drafting and advice fell below the reasonable standard in the circumstances. (DIFC Courts)

Principle

A legal-services provider must meet the reasonable standard associated with the professional service it represents itself as providing.

Case 3 — George v Gloria Beauty Lounge LLC [2016] DIFC SCT 086

Area: Professional standard of care

The Court articulated the reasonable-care standard for professionals as that of an ordinary skilled person exercising the relevant special skill. It also recognised that where different professional approaches exist, a responsible body of professional opinion can be relevant. (DIFC Courts)

Principle

Professional negligence is assessed against a specialised objective standard, not merely the standard of an ordinary layperson.

Case 4 — Haya Spa LLC v Harper Real Estate / Hasan Real Estate [2016] DIFC SCT 150

Area: Professional/technical service and reasonable care

The Court applied the specialised reasonable-care principles to the defendants' conduct in relation to representations concerning premises and technical information. (DIFC Courts)

Principle

The court examines the actual professional activity and the circumstances in determining whether reasonable professional care was exercised.

Case 5 — International Electro-Mechanical Services Co. LLC v Emirates Speciality Hospital FZ-LLC [2020] DIFC CFI 114

Area: Engineering/consultancy

The Court considered the legal and evidential significance of payment certificates issued by engineers/consultants and referred to Dubai Court of Cassation authority concerning the effect of such professional certifications. (DIFC Courts)

Principle

Acts performed by professional consultants can create significant evidential and contractual consequences, particularly where the professional has inspected and certified technical work.

Case 6 — MAG Development Services Ltd v The Collection Club Restaurant Ltd & Others [2025] DIFC CFI 092

Area: Technical expert evidence and standard of care

The Court rejected proposed expert evidence where it was hypothetical and did not assist with an actual technical issue requiring expert knowledge. It emphasised that expert evidence must genuinely assist the Court on matters requiring specialised knowledge. (DIFC Courts)

Principle

A professional-standard dispute cannot be established through speculative expert evidence. The evidence must be technically relevant to the actual issue.

Case 7 — Sam Precious Metals FZ-LLC v Snyder Prime Limited [2023] DIFC CFI 030

Area: Professional conduct and evidence

The Court considered issues concerning counsel's role in the evidential process and the proper separation between advocacy and evidence.

Principle

Professional competence includes understanding the limits of the lawyer's role and avoiding conflicts between professional responsibilities.

This case is especially useful when professional standard-of-care questions overlap with professional ethics and litigation conduct.

Case 8 — Bank of Baroda v Neopharma LLC & Others [2020] DIFC CFI 043

Area: Professional responsibility and wasted costs

The Court considered the circumstances in which lawyers may face personal consequences for improper, unreasonable or negligent conduct causing unnecessary costs.

Principle

Professional duties can extend beyond the immediate client relationship and encompass responsibilities toward the judicial process and other litigants.

22. Relationship Between Professional Standard and Professional Regulation

Professional standard of care should be distinguished from professional licensing rules.

Licensing rule

"Who may practise?"

Professional conduct rule

"How must the professional behave?"

Standard of care

"How competently must the professional perform the particular service?"

Civil liability

"What happens if breach causes legally recoverable damage?"

These four concepts overlap but are not identical.

23. Specialised Fields: Comparative Table

24. Important Limitations

A professional is not automatically liable merely because:

the client suffered a loss;

the project failed;

treatment was unsuccessful;

litigation was lost;

an investment declined;

a valuation turned out to be inaccurate;

construction was delayed.

The claimant generally needs to connect the professional's conduct with the legally recoverable loss.

The basic analytical sequence is:

Duty → Applicable professional standard → Breach → Causation → Damage → Remedy

25. Professional Standard in the AI Era

The concept is particularly important for emerging specialised professions.

Consider an engineer using AI to produce structural calculations.

If the AI produces an incorrect calculation, the professional generally cannot simply argue:

"The software made the mistake."

The professional's responsibility may include:

selecting appropriate software;

entering accurate data;

checking assumptions;

reviewing outputs;

recognising obvious anomalies;

complying with technical standards;

maintaining appropriate human supervision.

The same principle can apply to:

lawyers using generative AI;

doctors using diagnostic AI;

accountants using automated systems;

financial advisers using algorithmic tools;

architects using generative design systems.

Technology may change the method of professional work, but it does not automatically eliminate the professional's duty of care.

26. Current UAE Approach in Summary

The UAE approach can therefore be understood as a layered standard:

Layer 1 — General civil law

Did the conduct cause legally recognised damage?

Layer 2 — Contract

What exactly did the professional promise to do?

Layer 3 — Professional regulation

What statutory and regulatory standards govern the profession?

Layer 4 — Specialisation

What level of expertise was reasonably expected from this particular professional?

Layer 5 — Expert evidence

What would a competent professional ordinarily have done?

Layer 6 — Causation

Did the departure from the standard actually cause the loss?

Layer 7 — Remedy

What compensation, contractual remedy, costs consequence or disciplinary measure is legally available?

27. Exam-Oriented Answer

For an examination problem, write:

The professional standard of care in UAE civil law is the level of skill, diligence and competence reasonably expected from a competent professional performing the relevant specialised function. The standard is determined by the nature of the profession, the professional's speciality, applicable legislation and regulations, contractual obligations, accepted professional practice and the circumstances of the particular case. A claimant must ordinarily establish not merely a departure from professional standards but also legally relevant damage and causation. Expert evidence is frequently important in determining the technical standard.

Then apply:

Professional relationship → Duty → Specialised standard → Breach → Causation → Damage → Remedy.

28. Conclusion

The professional standard of care is a central mechanism through which UAE civil law controls specialised professional services. The standard is neither an absolute guarantee of success nor a simple ordinary-person test. It is a context-sensitive professional standard measured against the skill and care reasonably expected from a competent practitioner in the relevant field.

Medical professionals may be assessed against recognised medical principles and their speciality; engineers against applicable technical and professional standards; lawyers against competent legal practice; accountants and auditors against appropriate professional standards; and court-appointed experts against heightened requirements of independence, objectivity and technical competence.

The most important cases for revision are:

Dubai Court of Cassation No. 377 of 2025 — medical negligence and specialised medical standards. (Al Tamimi & Company)

Obie v Osric [2025] DIFC CFI 095 — legal-services standard of care. (DIFC Courts)

George v Gloria Beauty Lounge LLC [2016] DIFC SCT 086 — ordinary skilled professional standard. (DIFC Courts)

Haya Spa LLC v Harper Real Estate / Hasan Real Estate [2016] DIFC SCT 150 — reasonable professional care. (DIFC Courts)

International Electro-Mechanical Services Co. LLC v Emirates Speciality Hospital FZ-LLC [2020] DIFC CFI 114 — engineer/consultant certification. (DIFC Courts)

MAG Development Services Ltd v The Collection Club Restaurant Ltd [2025] DIFC CFI 092 — specialised expert evidence. (DIFC Courts)

Sam Precious Metals FZ-LLC v Snyder Prime Limited [2023] DIFC CFI 030 — professional conduct and evidential responsibilities.

Bank of Baroda v Neopharma LLC [2020] DIFC CFI 043 — professional responsibility and wasted costs.

One-line revision rule

In UAE specialised professional liability: the more specialised the undertaking, the more important the relevant professional standard, expert evidence, contractual scope and causation become.