Dr. Lévai Imre Róbert Attorney at Law, is a distinguished legal professional with a career spanning diverse and challenging areas, including criminal defence, family law, and property disputes. His journey into law began with a childhood ambition to help people and uphold justice, inspired by his fascination with courtroom drama and his admiration for the legal profession. Despite initially excelling in mechanical engineering, Dr. Lévai's passion for law ultimately led him to pursue his true calling.
Today, he represents clients in over 500 court hearings annually and handles complex, high-stakes cases that often cross international borders. In this interview, Dr. Lévai shares insights into his career, the challenges of his practice, and his vision for the future of the legal landscape in Hungary.
What inspired you to pursue a career in law and how has your motivation evolved over the years?
I've always wanted to be a lawyer, ever since I was a small child. I constantly ended up watching Petrocelli movies for an unbeknownst reason. I simply wanted to help people in trouble and found it particularly inviting that everyone looked up to lawyers. However, my professional life didn't start out in the legal field at first but as a mechanical engineer as I excelled in maths at school at a national level. Once I graduated from law school, all I cared about was becoming a lawyer. I was mesmerized by the hundreds of court hearings I attended as a trainee lawyer. I admired and respected both parties as they tried to prove their own truth. I also noticed if a lawyer wants to do a good job, he needs to be very sharp and attentive. One has to recognize the given situation and make the most of it. Once I became a lawyer, it became clear that I mostly wanted to deal with family and criminal law. Both areas are incredibly exciting, 'life tastes like them', thus I successfully argued more and more cases. I didn't find other fields of law appealing; they all seemed rather dry. As of today, I can safely say there isn't a legal task I have not come across. I usually represent clients at over 500 court hearings annually. It is not unheard of for me to take part in complex tens of millions of dollars lawsuits across borders.
You have extensive experience in criminal defense. What drew you to this particular field of law, and what keeps you motivated to defend your clients in high-stakes cases?
There isn't a better challenge than to stand by someone who often has the whole world against them because everyone deserves defence, regardless of the nature of the case. What attracted me to this type of law was the observation of the long road to committing a crime, which stems from their childhood. The environment people grew up in and what was considered normal all contribute to them inheriting these 'norms'. So, in reality, they can't comprehend the weight of their punishable action and the negative consequences it has on others. My motivation is professional and to prove that my client did not commit the charges against him. If he did, then my goal is for the court to truly accept the extenuating circumstances and not only seemingly.
The other aspect of criminal law I find interesting, and most people disagree with, is that losing your freedom is an awfully serious punishment. If you had to think about not being allowed to leave your home for one week only, you'd feel extremely uncomfortable. In comparison to this, you are surrounded by complete strangers in a prison and often live in appalling conditions for years. This creates an unbearable situation that one simply cannot expect a socially acceptable solution. The reintegration of people who spent years behind bars is almost impossible. In my view, those years should be spent in an inspiring environment similar to everyday life, like many prisons in Norway. Places like those turn inmates into better people at the end of their prison sentences.
Can you describe a particularly challenging case, whether in criminal law or family law, and how you were able to achieve a successful outcome?
Cohabiting unmarried couples presents a huge challenge in family law. All parties must prove the allocation of mutually accumulated collective funds that may occur during a ten-year relationship. I've had a case where a woman from a developing country lived in Hungary with her partner for 20 years, and they had children too. The lady in question helped her partner build a small IT company from the beginning of their relationship. However, once it turned sour, the man simply cut the woman off, saying she didn't deserve anything after 20 years as they didn't actually live together immediately after they met but only a few years later. He also mentioned that the company was registered under his name only. The opponent's very seasoned lawyer presented their version of the documents regarding the case. The witnesses gave conflicting testaments, and on top of that, my client married another man when she entered the country 25 years ago but never actually lived with him. Neither of these helped our case. We had to prove before the judge that despite this lady being married to someone else, in reality, she actually lived together with the defendant. This served as a base for her monetary claims from the 20 years of jointly amassed wealth. Throughout the lengthy trial, I proved the woman, in fact, lived with the defendant in a cohabitating relationship, and they shared finances. The most intriguing evidence was a bank statement we managed to attain at the last minute. The court refused to accept our initial motion for proof, but it was allowed in the end. The statement, therefore, proved that both parties contributed financially and that my client paid a substantial amount of money towards a property the defendant claimed was his own. However, it wasn't this one piece of evidence that brought us results but the comprehensive deposition and the often seemingly hopeless persistent arguments we fought during the trial. The judge made the right decision even though we were in a tough situation and without the defendant's evidence.
Family law often involves high emotional stakes, especially in divorce and child custody cases. How do you manage client expectations and emotions while maintaining focus on the legal aspects?
Family law is the most sensitive field. Thus, one must pay a lot of attention to the client's interests and find common ground. The task at hand isn't only to perfectly represent a client but to determine the emotional connection the client still has with a partner or spouse. Namely, because people tend to be driven by sudden fury when they visit a lawyer. If a lawyer solely focuses on this initial rage, then at the filing of the statement of claim, the mistake of being overcritical of the defendant can happen. Thus, in these cases, it is important to interview a client more often. It is also essential to draw attention to hastily made comments as they bear legal consequences and won't be in the best interest of the case. One of these instances is when an angry client accuses the other party of committing a crime. Or another one when the defendant angrily calls the lawyer of his partner. It is imperative to only communicate with your own client as a lawyer, completely avoiding the misconception of displaced interests. Child placement often comes with its own issues. For example, when a parent takes the child without the prior consent of the other parent and uses the child as a tool for extortion. This can be solved with a temporary court-ordered measure, but unfortunately, despite this, a parent can go without seeing the child for two or three months. It is crucial to bestow the client with legally defensible advice.
What do you believe are the most important qualities for an attorney to have in order to successfully represent clients across such diverse areas as criminal law, family law, and property law?
It doesn't matter whether it's criminal or family law. The most important point is to be able to interpret a case in the language of law without the irrelevant parts. If a lawyer can do this, that's half the success already. I often observe colleagues getting lost in detail, especially in these two fields. They don't find the legitimate substantive law they wish to pursue, or they can't distinguish between statements of the facts and statutory elements in criminal suits.
What changes have you observed in the legal landscape since you started practicing law, particularly in family law and property law cases?
I recognise the continuous development of the legal system pertaining to family law. The interest of children is at the forefront of both legislation and judicial proceedings. Officially provided evidence is increasingly superseding the very small array of evidence provided by the parties. What still remains and hasn't changed at all in the past few years is the accountability of parents who only want to abduct their own children.
Legislative stability related to matrimonial assets is at a constant. There haven't been any significant changes, even with the introduction of the new Civil Code in 2013. The difference now is on the clients' part. It is very common to have cases involving high net worth individuals. I often represent clients in matrimonial trials worth millions of dollars. Another interesting angle is the emergence of trusts, which can substantially make it more difficult for spouses to unearth each other's hidden assets.
In your experience, what are the biggest challenges when dealing with property disputes, and how do you resolve these issues for your clients?
The biggest problem stems from defendants hiding their assets from their partners. Therefore, the biggest challenge for any client is to enlist an accurate asset catalogue. Every legal channel is heavily invested in this process. The root of the issue is that a lawyer doesn't possess every tool to review assets. However, we can guide this process very well, having solved thousands of cases. Firstly, it is very often that we can establish facts from breadcrumbs of information that the judge can use, who in turn has the right to access evidence and accepts our filing for motion. Secondly, we can attest without evidence by means of a substantiation emergency. A defendant can also often own assets through foreign entities, but this isn't a hurdle for us as we will almost always find evidence of a connection between the two. We frequently witness the accused unravel right before the judge during questioning. I often use a technique to get to the defendant's weakest point through conversations with my client and then watch the other party lose control upon its examination, which is half success already. My client has the right to the truth even if the accused isn't fair.
What role does collaboration and teamwork play at your firm, and how do you ensure that your team delivers the best outcomes for clients?
This is a rather complicated question, as an attorney, I am solely accountable towards my clients. Therefore, I'd say teamwork at the firm is considerable background work. This means I first consult with clients to determine the weight of the case, what chance I have of solving it, and how. Subsequently, I conclude a strategy with its most important element of the desired financial right. Then, my colleagues clarify the details of the state of affairs with the client and compile the motion according to my instructions. Following this, we discuss the case with the team once more, and if no one has anything further to add, we take it to court.
How do you see the future of law evolving in Hungary, and how are you preparing for upcoming trends or changes?
I perceive myself as a humanistic lawyer who thrives on building individual and trusting relationships with clients. I believe in the power of technological advances as they aid a lawyer's work. It is inevitable to me that a lawyer's job, like other legal professionals, will be partially replaceable as technology develops. However, I am a firm believer that no matter what AI the future brings, a lawyer's work and trust can't be replicated because of the bestowed most feared secrets of clients. Legislative change is continuous in Hungary, and I don't only mean that legislation itself is changing constantly but that we are switching over to digitalised citizen-based models. Many people are hesitant about this change, but I believe it solidifies the nation towards a more effective status and will require less apparatus to maintain its advancement.
In addition to your professional experience, what do you think sets you apart from other attorneys, particularly in handling complex criminal defense or high-stakes family law cases?
This might sound odd, but my sense of humour is what sets me aside as everyone assigns a level of seriousness to this profession. The law firm deals with incredibly serious work that constitutes the base of it all. The quality of work we do affects people's everyday lives. But you need humour primarily in order to help clients unwind in stressful circumstances where they don't view their own situation as negatively as they did prior to our meeting. After all, they ask for a lawyer's help because the want to get rid of a problem. An enormous weight falls off my clients' shoulders following a conversation simply from having someone to confide in. Once they tell me all about it, I already have the solution to it. Another difference I see is that as someone who obtained both mechanical engineering and economics degrees, I view problems in a more complex way. So, it doesn't trouble me if I have to deal with large assets, and I don't need outside help with mechanical matters. Thirdly, and perhaps most important out of all, what makes me stand out from others is that I love and respect my clients. I try to understand all of their problems and translate them into the language of the law so that I can work with them to ensure a successful outcome.
