The Supreme Court reminded of the proportionality of legal aid costs to the complexity of the case

When deciding on the reimbursement of expenses for professional legal assistance, the court must make sure that the claimed expenses are proportionate to the complexity of the proceedings, and that the scope of services provided by the lawyer and the time spent meet the criterion of the reality of such expenses.

This was emphasized by the Criminal Court of Cassation of the Supreme Court in case No. 521/3869/22 (decision of 19.08.2024 published in the Unified State Register of Court Decisions).

While reviewing the verdict in the criminal case, the cassation instance also resolved the issue of reimbursement of expenses incurred by the victims and the civil defendant for legal aid.

The Supreme Court reminded that according to clause 3 of part 1 of Article 91 of the CPC, the amount of procedural costs is one of the circumstances to be proved in criminal proceedings.

The legal basis for reimbursement of expenses for legal aid is an agreement concluded with a lawyer-representative, as well as documents evidencing payment of fees and other expenses related to the provision of legal aid, executed in accordance with the procedure established by law (receipt to a cash receipt order, payment order with a bank stamp or other bank document, cash receipts, business trip certificates).

Thus, in order to determine the amount of procedural expenses for legal aid to be reimbursed, in addition to the legal aid agreement, a person must also provide the original documents confirming these expenses, as well as procedurally confirm the provision of legal services (a procedural document drawn up, a procedural action taken (participation in investigative (search) actions or familiarization with procedural documents, etc.)

The CCU also referred to the conclusion set out in paragraph 21 of the supplementary resolution of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court of February 19, 2020 in case No. 755/9215/15-ц, when determining the amount of compensation, the court must proceed from the criterion of the reality of attorneys' fees (establishing their validity and necessity), as well as the criterion of the reasonableness of their amount, based on the specific circumstances of the case and the financial condition of the parties.

In other words, when deciding on the reimbursement of expenses for professional legal assistance, the court must make sure that the claimed expenses are proportionate to the complexity of the proceedings, and that the scope of services provided by the attorney and the time spent on the provision of such services meet the criterion of the reality of such expenses. The court must also take into account the reasonableness of the amount of expenses for professional legal assistance and whether their recovery will not constitute an excessive burden for the other party.

Although the current criminal procedural legislation does not establish a list of evidence to be provided to the court to confirm the costs of professional legal aid, it obliges to provide evidence to confirm the amount of procedural costs, including such assistance, which is the subject of proof in criminal proceedings (Article 91 of the CPC).

The materials of the proceedings showed that the victims, the civil plaintiff and the lawyer had concluded an agreement on providing the latter with legal assistance. During the trial, this lawyer represented their interests. The lawyer, as a representative of the victims and the civil plaintiff, prepared statements of claim that were filed with the court for compensation for damages, including procedural expenses for legal aid.

The CCU noted that the courts did not properly assess the defense's arguments that the procedural costs recovered from the convict were overstated.

They also failed to assess the validity of the factual data set out in the calculation of the work performed, where a lawyer provided legal assistance to three persons in one criminal proceeding, the case concerned mostly the same factual circumstances, and the calculation reflected 5 hours of primary consultation and 5 hours of secondary consultation for each victim and civil plaintiff.

The high judges considered such violations to be significant, and therefore the court decisions regarding the recovery of legal aid costs cannot be considered lawful and reasonable.

In view of this, the verdict in this part was canceled and a new trial in the court of first instance was ordered in civil proceedings.