A reader who I contacted by phone told me angrily how she received a reminder from the law firm Par and Gradac stating that she had not paid a certain service on time. The lawyers sent the reminder on behalf of the company that provided the service to the reader, and she does not dispute that debt with late interest.
However, she was outraged, she says, that her bill was increased by the reminder cost of 312.50 kuna. Indeed, when I thought about it more carefully, I wondered on what basis the lawyers calculated that it amounts to 312.50 kuna, and above all, it seemed illogical to me that they charge reminder costs to debtors. After all, lawyers are not judges to decide how much a party should pay and to whom.
Professional denial
The law firm Par and Gradac responded regarding the basis on which reminder costs are calculated and why the price is 250 kuna, or 312.50 kuna. Lawyer Želimir Par explains: ‘The reminder cost to debtors is calculated in accordance with the provisions of the Tariff on Fees and Compensation for the Work of Lawyers, which in Tariff Number (Tbr) 33/1 stipulates that a lawyer has the right to a fee for notifications and reminders to the opposing party with a statement of facts or instructions for each page, in the amount of 25 points.’
Par further states that the value of a point is determined by Tbr. 50 and amounts to 10 kuna. This means that the reader had to pay for that reminder typed on one page to the law firm 250 kuna (25 points x 10 kuna) and additionally (according to Tbr. 42) VAT of 62.50 kuna, which totals 312.50 kuna.
However, neither the law firm Par and Gradac nor other law firms that also, unofficially, charge reminder costs from debtors have the right to such actions. The Croatian Bar Association emphasizes that the law firm Par and Gradac cannot invoke Tbr. 33/1. Namely, they point out that this is not the first time this problem has arisen, so the HOK sent a conclusion to all law offices that ‘a lawyer does not have the right to directly charge the opposing party for the preparation of a reminder.’ Moreover, in response to our inquiry, the HOK refers to its Statute, specifically Chapter XVIII, which contains provisions on tariffs and states: ‘In the introductory part of the Tariff itself, it is stated that the costs of representation must be paid by the service orderer or the party.’
