ETV program "Pealtnägija" recently highlighted that in long-running, high-profile court disputes, legal aid bills can sometimes reach €100,000 or even more. At the same time, it is more the rule than the exception that courts reduce the amount to be reimbursed in their rulings, finding the bills to be inflated.

The final amount of litigation costs is determined by the court. There are several reasons why courts may reduce the amount paid out for legal fees, said Ivo Pilving, chair of the Administrative Law Chamber of the Supreme Court.

"It may be due to a lawyer's high hourly rate or because they present a very large number of arguments. If an attorney is making a lot of irrelevant arguments that the court cannot agree with, then the question arises whether the opposing party should have to pay for that," Pilving said.

The Ministry of Justice told ERR that it cannot interfere in the work of the courts. Only the court itself can assess whether litigation costs are justified. Lawyers' hourly rates are largely shaped by market and competitive conditions.

According to Pilving, the state could theoretically impose caps on lawyers' hourly rates, but he said this would not solve the problem.

"That would create a very rigid system and winners in court might not recover any greater share of their costs as a result. Everyone also has the opportunity to challenge the court's assessment in a higher court if they feel the reduction was unjustified," Pilving said.

Annika Peetsalu, member of the Bar Association's board and sworn advocate, said it is wrong to assume that lawyers charge too much for their work or inflate their bills.

"Generally speaking, courts tend to assess every single expense in extreme detail, even though it is not always possible for the court, after the fact, to fully evaluate what work and preparation actually went into a specific cost. If you have won your case in full and the costs were necessary and justified, then there is no fundamental reason why that damage should not be compensated in full," Peetsalu said.

Pilving agreed that lawyers must present every argument that could potentially strengthen their client's position, but the losing party does not have to pay for arguments that ultimately do not succeed in court.

"This is a broader problem affecting both lawyers and courts — procedural documents tend to become excessively long. There are often repetitions as well and the core issue is a certain unpredictability and uncertainty that always accompanies legal disputes. Inevitably, some of the work ends up going to waste," Pilving said.

Peetsalu also sees unpredictability as a problem, though she pointed to inconsistencies in the quality of case management. For example, parties do not always know what exactly the court plans to discuss at a particular hearing, which means lawyers must be prepared for absolutely everything.

"For example, not all judges manage proceedings actively enough or explain clearly enough to the parties who must prove what. But if you are a lawyer and the court has provided no guidance, then in reality you cannot afford to leave anything undone and later discover from the judgment, to your surprise, that the client lost the dispute because of it. That is the court failing to do its job if the court itself only focused on a couple of segments but did not communicate that in any way to the lawyer who therefore had to be prepared for everything," Peetsalu said.

--

Follow ERR News on Facebook and X and never miss an update!