Sample Problem Of Solid Mensuration

Civil Procedure. Taxation. Legal Challenge for excessive fees. Challenge is upheld. Criminal

Supreme Court Order of March 8, 2011.

FIRST .- Regarding the challenge to the taxation of costs by the inclusion of excess items should be noted that as this court has already ruled in other cases (Car of 8 November 2007 and 8 January 2008) is not predetermined, set or decide which should be the legal fees of the party favored by the order for costs because the work he is paid by the party who defends and with whom you link a service tenancy, freely agreed upon by the contracting parties but to determine the load to be borne by the convicted person to pay the costs for legal fees minutante, because although the order for costs is intended to compensate the winner of the direct and immediate costs incurred in litigation between including fees counsel, the minutes included in the appraisal should be a weighted average and reasonable within the parameters of the profession, not only calculated according to size criteria, but well suited to the circumstances in litigation, the complexity of the case, the phase of the process in which we are, the grounds for appeal, extension and development of the written objection, the involvement of other professionals within the procedural position and the minutes they made for the purpose of inclusion in the taxation of costs, without, for fixing the reasonable average to be included in the taxation of costs is binding on the mandatory report from the Bar, nor does it minutante assume that the lawyer can not bill your represented the full amount of the fee arrangements with his client for professional services.

Based on the above criteria, in particular the effort of dedication and study required by the circumstances, the economic value of the pretensions of the litigation, the complexity and importance of the issues raised at this stage of the procedure, Guiding rules of the Bar, the written statement, on the possible grounds of inadmissibility that could be seen, and considering, as explained, it is not setting the fees derived from services of the lawyer-client minutante that freely elected him, but to quantify a claim arising from the application of a procedural principle of objective maturity, Court must uphold the challenge made by fixing the amount of the controversial bill in the sum of 637.20 Euros, including tax.

[see CENDOJ Court Database ]