Raúl Pardo-Geijo Ruiz, a Criminal Lawyer From Murcia, Has Received More Than a Dozen Awards in Recent Years for His Performance & Career in Criminal Law at the National Level

El penalista murciano Raúl Pardo-Geijo, incorporado en el círculo internacional de Best Lawyers

Questions:

— What do you think is necessary to become the best criminal lawyer?
I believe several requirements are needed, but above all, the most important is to stay constantly updated—and when I say that, I mean on a daily basis. Jurisprudential shifts in criminal law are significant, especially in procedural matters. Even the Supreme Court itself has issued contradictory rulings within just a few months (for example, regarding Article 324 of the Criminal Procedure Act), and in relation to the requirement of a second test in drink-driving offenses (Article 379 of the Criminal Code), there have been dissenting opinions within the Court’s own plenary. In short, you must stay up to date with absolutely everything in order to know how to achieve an acquittal and/or a conviction.

— Given your workload, have you considered opening offices in other parts of Spain?
I have not considered it appropriate. My working strategy is not commercial: opening offices in different provinces would require increasing the number of staff, which ultimately would mean that the work could not be carried out or supervised by me, and therefore I could not guarantee proper criminal defense.

— However, you do work as a criminal lawyer across Spain—at least in Madrid, Zaragoza, Alicante, Seville, Melilla… you have handled many high-profile trials.
Yes, but distance is not an obstacle nowadays. One day I can be in Valencia and the next in Cuenca, Albacete, or Toledo. Moreover, current technological advances—without excluding in-person meetings—allow for direct contact with clients whenever necessary.

— Do you show the same level of commitment whether you are defending the child of a judge or, for example, a tax offender?
Yes, always starting from the presumption of innocence. I treat all my clients equally—there are no preferences. Each one has their own problem and places their trust in me so that I do everything possible to achieve their acquittal or, if they are a victim, the conviction of the alleged offender. The only thing I require is that they respect my working approach. That is why they are all equal—because if that is not the case, I am obliged to withdraw from the defense or prosecution.

— You are not someone who participates in talk shows…
Not at all. What would I talk about regarding a matter I barely know 10% of? The first thing I do when I take on a client is study every single page of the case file so I can speak with full knowledge of the procedure. It would be irresponsible to publicly comment on any matter I have not studied in depth. A different situation arises when, for obvious reasons, I have to defend my client—not only in court but also in the media—although I rarely do so and always at the client’s request. Unfortunately, “trial by media” exists, and sometimes it is necessary to counter it.

— It is said that you do not hold back in court…
That is not entirely true. What happens is that the Supreme Court is very demanding on certain points. For example, if a witness is denied during the trial, you are obliged to request a suspension and, if denied, to formally object. The correct procedure then is to explain—at that very moment—what questions you would have asked, so that a higher court can later assess the relevance of that evidence. In one trial outside Murcia, I was prevented from challenging documentary evidence at the proper stage, with the presiding judge telling me to do it later during closing arguments. Of course, if I followed that instruction, any appeal (in the event of a conviction) would become my responsibility—and my client’s—because a lawyer must know exactly what to do at each stage, even if the judge is mistaken. In fact, in recent years, the Supreme Court has maintained that even if a judicial decision incorrectly indicates the appropriate appeal, the responsibility lies with you if you file the wrong one. These are the rules of the game, and they must be followed—while staying updated daily.

— But you have a reputation for being a “fighter”…
It depends on the case. Some trials I conduct very calmly; others with more intensity. My approach can change during the hearing depending on how events unfold. Judges can do exactly the same. There is no rule—not even jurisprudence—that dictates how, for example, examinations should be conducted. All styles are valid, provided that leading, misleading, or irrelevant questions are avoided. In my opinion, a judge will not convict your client simply because you defend them forcefully, nor will they acquit them because you fail to object to procedural irregularities.

— Finally, what do you do when faced with so-called “impossible” cases?
Sometimes they are the easiest to resolve if you find the key element. That is why it is essential to examine every single page of the case file; what may seem trivial can turn out to be decisive for an acquittal. I do not believe there are impossible cases. Moreover, I have read so many judgments that, although some still surprise me, they do not lead me to any different conclusion.