Court hammers untruthful lawyer for ‘phantom’ €62,000 legal fees

A Court of Appeal reprimanded a lawyer for having fabricated a false bill of payments for over €100,000 he was expecting from the heir of his former client, and upheld a first court’s decision to refund €60,000 in ‘phantom’ legal services. 

The late Emanuel Grech had appointed the lawyer Johann Debono as his legal counsel in a dispute over the Gżira restaurant called ‘The Cottage’, a former restaurant expropriated by the State for a road overpass, which Grech had sub-let. 

Grech had retained Debono for other legal matters, but he passed away in 2011 and a lawsuit over the Gżira property dispute never came to pass. By that time, Grech had also removed Debono as the executor of his estate in his final will. 

Still, lawyer Johann Debono had by then already been paid a total of €62,000 for his services, research and advice on the Cottage property dispute. Now he started claiming he was entitled to 6% of the total value of Grech’s property estate for his legal services, as specified in the earlier, expired will that had named him as executor. 

Debono’s demand led to a lawsuit filed by Grech’s heir and partner, Eugenio Bartolo, who also demanded the reimbursement of the €62,000 in legal fees. 

The first court ruled decisively in favour of Bartolo, finding that Debono had been overpaid beyond the official legal fees from the Cottage case. The court said Debono was only entitled to payment for services rendered in that specific case, and any excess funds should be returned. 

The court also found that the lawyer’s claim of a posthumous payment agreement for some €107,000 was not credible. The finding was upheld by the Court of Appeal, who recognised Bartolo’s right to contine as the deceased’s legal personality in requesting the refund. 

While Debono defended the work he carried out for Grech, presenting a 22-page document detailing over 450 hours of service, the Court of Appeal deemed this document to be fabricated due to inconsistencies and lack of supporting evidence. “It is instantly evident that this is a fabricated document,” it said of the bill that detailed services rendered between 2008 and 2010. 

The Court accused Debono of being unabled of explaining how he had crafted a bill for the first time ever, a decade after Grech’s death. 

“He gives no clue as to how 10 years on from his passing, he has listed 36.5 hours – not a round 36 – in legal advice for May 2008 alone. Having already sworn under oath that he had forgone payment for these services because he was to be paid a percentage on the estate, now he does not say how he was keeping track of these services.” 

Indeed, the court pointed out that Debono could not explain why, having been paid €62,000 by Grech for his legal services, he was now expecting 6% on his estate. 

“The Court is perplexed at the appellant’s insistence on this commission, without being able to answer as to what he was actually paid for by Grech. 

“The fact that he ‘spent long hours chatting in the bar to Emanuel Grech’ is not enough to convince this court that he truly discharged professional services, or that he had some form of verbal agreement with the deceased.” 

The Appeals Court said Debono logged 61 hours of service in one month alone, suggesting the lawyer was billing a €3,000 monthly fee for his two-and-a-half year service to Grech, much of it being ‘fabricted’ advice. 

“For what end had this legal advice served? So many intensive hours of legal consultancy, the evidence of which one scarcely finds in the proceedings, except for repeated explanations on Grech’s estate and how to ring-fence it – all carried out verbally without any written agreement, and without even the requested registry searches having been carried out. If someone expects over €100,000 in payment, they would have at least presented the court with proof of the work they carried out.” 

This Court said it had no doubt that Debono had abused of the generosity of Emanuel Grech, accusing him of being economical with the truth “so much so that in parts of his testimony he contradicted himself… the defendant was not entitled to receive over €60,000 for phantom professional services.” 

The Court of Appeal said Debono’s version of events was not only improbable but also lacking in credibility, echoing the original court’s assessment. 

“The plaintiff, as the universal heir of Emanuel Grech, the former client of the defendant, has every right to bring before the courts all the actions that the deceased could have instituted against the defendant during his lifetime,” the Appeals Court said.