Magistrate orders lawyer to refund client, calls criminal fee vacuum a breeding ground for abuse

In a strongly worded judgment delivered on Monday, Magistrate Victor Axiak found that lawyer Roberto Montalto failed to provide the legal representation and attendance required by his engagement with fellow lawyer Sylvana Brannon.

The dispute dates back to May 2017, when Brannon engaged Montalto to represent her as parte civile in criminal proceedings against Conrad Bajada. She told the court she had paid a total of €7,250 covering the main case and two related matters.

Brannon alleged that Montalto stopped communicating with her and failed to attend court sittings without formally withdrawing from the case.

Montalto rejected the claim that he had abandoned his client. He argued that it was Brannon who had effectively terminated the relationship. He testified that after the 2020 COVID-19 lockdowns, she began ignoring him in public, “turning her face away” when they crossed paths in Valletta. He maintained that he could not continue representing a client who refused to acknowledge him.

He also referred to a motorcycle accident in March 2019, which left him in intensive care and unable to practise for three months.

However, after examining court records, the magistrate noted that of 39 scheduled sittings in the main criminal case, Montalto had attended only six. The court said that months of non-attendance and silence towards his client, prior even to his formal release from the brief,  did not reflect the conduct expected of a lawyer acting as a bonus paterfamilias.

In the same judgment, the court issued a broader critique of the absence of regulated tariffs for criminal legal fees in Malta. Magistrate Axiak observed that this regulatory vacuum has, over the years, given rise to “excesses and serious abuses by a minority of unscrupulous lawyers who bite much more than they can chew”.

He described the lawyer–client relationship as an “almost sacred relationship” and a hybrid legal bond combining intellectual services with a mandate for representation. The court stressed that the lack of a formal letter of engagement or official tariff does not absolve a lawyer from proving the nature and extent of the services charged for.

While acknowledging that Montalto had carried out work during the early stages of the case, the court found that the €5,000 deposit for the main proceedings was excessive for what it described as an assignment that remained essentially incomplete.

Montalto was ordered to refund €3,500 of that amount, together with legal interest.

The court also encouraged him to regularise his tax position in relation to VAT receipts issued for the advance payments.