A dispute over legal fees is heating up in Spain, one that could change how compensation is awarded in criminal cases. After a high-profile trial involving the disclosure of tax information, attention has shifted not only to the culpability of the former fiscal official but also to the question of how much the injured party should receive to cover their legal costs. For Spaniards, this is more than just a financial disagreement—it’s a precedent that could shape future legal cost calculations.
The couple of Isabel Díaz Ayuso is demanding nearly €80,000 in compensation for legal fees and other expenses incurred during the proceedings against Álvaro García Ortiz. This amount far exceeds both the fine and the compensation already paid after the verdict. García Ortiz and María Ángeles Sánchez Conde argue that such demands are excessive and call for a review, pointing to a disproportion between the claimed costs and the actual damages.
Arguments from both sides
The González Amador side argues that the amount is fully justified given the complexity of the case, the scope of work, and the number of experts involved. They maintain that if the trial had been straightforward, there would have been no need for two state attorneys to defend García Ortiz, as well as an additional representative from the prosecution. They emphasize that in criminal cases, legal costs should not depend on the awarded compensation, as is the practice in civil cases, but instead be determined by other criteria.
In response, García Ortiz and Sánchez Conde are disputing not only the total amount of costs, but also specific items on the bill—for example, charges for preparing for an interrogation that never took place, or motions that the court ultimately rejected. They argue that not all actions taken by the lawyer were necessary and that some of the work did not yield results. Nevertheless, González Amador’s defense insists that even unsuccessful attempts require time and effort and therefore should be compensated.
Legal nuances
A key point of contention is the difference between civil and criminal proceedings in Spain. In civil cases, costs are often determined by the value of the claim, whereas in criminal cases, they depend on the seriousness of the offense and the complexity of the proceedings. Representatives of González Amador argue that applying civil rules to criminal cases would lead to unfair outcomes, since moral damages and trial complexity are not always reflected in monetary terms.
By contrast, García Ortiz’s side believes that costs should be proportionate to actual damages, rather than inflated through procedural formalities. They also point out that part of the lawyer’s work was related to stages of the process when the defendant did not yet have suspect status, meaning these costs should not be borne by the losing party.
Implications for the judiciary
This dispute has already moved beyond the Supreme Court and may be taken up by the Constitutional Court. As russpain.com notes, such cases have the potential to change the approach to determining fair legal costs in Spain. The question of how to assess lawyers’ work and which criteria to prioritize is becoming increasingly relevant amid a growing number of complex cases.
A recent article covering the rare move by prosecutors to take a case involving the former attorney general to the Constitutional Court highlighted that such processes could impact judicial practice across the country. More details about the prosecution’s response and the potential implications for the legal system can be found in the report about the unusual prosecutor claim before the Constitutional Court.
Background and similar cases
In recent years, Spain has seen a growing number of disputes over the amount of legal costs, especially in cases involving public figures or large sums. In 2025, a similar situation was discussed when the costs in a libel case exceeded the compensation awarded, sparking criticism from the legal community. At that time, the court also examined whether such sums were justified and how they should be properly calculated. These cases show that fair distribution of legal expenses remains a highly sensitive issue within Spain’s judiciary.
