Spain’s Supreme Court has found itself in the spotlight after billing former Attorney General Álvaro García Ortiz nearly €80,000 in legal costs. The decision has sparked a heated reaction among legal professionals and the public, as the case is connected to a leak of information about the partner of Madrid’s leader. According to the defense, the amount is not only excessive but could also set a dangerous precedent for similar cases in the future.
García Ortiz, convicted of disclosing confidential data, appealed to the Supreme Court demanding the exclusion of the Madrid Bar Association (ICAM) from the cost calculation. His defense argues that the organization cannot be objective, as it acted as a party for the prosecution. The lawyers believe that another professional body should conduct the assessment to avoid conflicts of interest and ensure impartiality.
Arguments of the parties
According to the defense, the nearly €80,000 sum covers not only the attorney fees for Ayuso’s partner but also additional expenses they believe are unrelated to the case. The State Attorney’s Office, representing García Ortiz, has filed an official objection, insisting on reducing the amount to €4,240. They argue that the calculation was clearly excessive and does not reflect the actual complexity of the proceedings.
In justifying his demands, Ayuso’s partner’s lawyer cites the uniqueness of the situation, the absence of similar precedents, and the special status of the defendant. However, the defense of the former prosecutor maintains that these factors did not increase the case’s complexity and should not affect the attorney’s fees. In their view, the expenses cannot be eight times higher than the civil compensation set by the court.
Questions of impartiality
The crux of the dispute is who should determine the amount of court costs. García Ortiz’s defense insists that the Madrid Bar Association cannot be a neutral party, as it participated in the process as the prosecutor. They suggest transferring the assessment to another regional body or to the Spanish Bar Council to eliminate any doubts regarding objectivity.
By law, the Supreme Court is required to seek the opinion of the professional community before making a final decision. However, the defense emphasizes that even if such a report is not a full-fledged expert assessment, it must meet standards of objectivity and consider the interests of both parties. Otherwise, the final amount may be challenged as unreasonable.
Consequences for the system
This case could set a precedent for future disputes over legal costs in Spain. If the court sides with the defense, it could pave the way for stricter oversight when calculating fees and expenses in high-profile cases. Otherwise, such amounts may become the norm, potentially sparking discontent among lawyers and defendants.
The issue of fairness and transparency in legal expenses has repeatedly sparked debate in Spanish society. For instance, the country’s recent decisions on immigration and their impact on the judiciary have drawn considerable attention, as seen in the case of emergency measures to legalize migrants, which also raised questions around the allocation of costs and responsibility between parties.
As reported by El Pais, the Supreme Court’s final ruling in the García Ortiz case could impact how legal expenses are calculated in Spain. The focus on this issue underscores the importance of transparency and equality for all parties involved, regardless of their status or role in the case.
In recent years, Spain has seen a rise in disputes over the size of legal fees, often leading to heated arguments between parties. This is particularly evident in cases involving public figures or high-profile investigations. In such situations, courts are increasingly reassessing established approaches to setting fees and compensation. This reflects a broader trend of tightening control over the transparency and fairness of judicial procedures in the country.
