The Supreme Court has dismissed the challenge filed by the Public Prosecutor's Office and the State Attorney's Office, which maintained that the fees of 38,508 euros of the lawyer for Alberto González Amador, partner of the Madrid president, Isabel Díaz Ayuso, in the case in which the former State Attorney General Álvaro García Ortiz was convicted for disclosure of reserved data, were "excessive".
According to a decree signed by the court clerk of the Criminal Chamber and reported by Europa Press, the high court sets the fee of lawyer Gabriel Rodríguez-Ramos, who defended González Amador, at 38,508 euros and definitively upholds the assessment of costs at 39,009 euros, an amount that also includes the attorney's fees.
The court clerk notes that, in light of the set of proceedings, the professional work actually carried out, the particular complexity of the procedure and the content of the collegial report issued by the Bar Association of Alcalá de Henares, "the existence of a patent, manifest or obvious disproportionality that would allow the fees included in the assessment to be qualified as excessive is not proven".
The collegial report, to which this news agency had access, concluded that the amount claimed by the lawyer is "appropriate" in view of the complexity of the procedure, the time devoted and the professional work carried out.
The costs assessment procedure was opened after the Supreme Court convicted García Ortiz, in December 2025 and for a crime of disclosure of reserved data of González Amador, to a fine of 7,200 euros, two years of special disqualification from the office of State Attorney General and the payment of the procedural costs, including those of the private prosecution. In addition, he was required to pay the businessman compensation of 10,000 euros for moral damages.
The origin of the fee and the challenges
The lawyer for González Amador initially submitted a statement of fees of 64,778.78 euros, excluding VAT, which rose to 78,382.32 euros with tax included.
The Public Prosecutor's Office and the State Attorney's Office challenged the assessment, considering the fees and rights included to be "excessive" and "undue". In a decree of 26 March of this year, the court clerk partially upheld the challenge upon finding undue items and set the total amount of costs at 39,009.48 euros.
Subsequently, the Public Prosecutor's Office and the State Legal Service appealed that ruling, but the Supreme Court rejected both appeals through an order of July 2, in which it upheld the initial decree.
The College of Lawyers of Alcalá de Henares reviewed the lawyer's fee note and considered that the 38,508.26 euros corresponding to his fees, VAT included, are "appropriate" for their inclusion in the assessment, once the items considered improper have been excluded.