Law Society to meet on fees by solicitors

By Joe Humphreys
13/10/2005

Complaints committee to investigate allegations of double-charging of victims of institutional abuse

The complaints committee of the Law Society is to convene a special meeting this afternoon to consider claims that some solicitors double-charged for work done for victims of institutional abuse.

The Law Society is also establishing a complaints helpline and placing advertisements in the media urging people who were unfairly charged solicitors' fees to come forward.

The move follows revelations that some solicitors had deducted substantial costs from Residential Institutions Redress Board (RIRB) awards. Some clients claimed they had been charged up to ?10,000 in costs, while others said their solicitors had withheld up to 10 per cent of awards.

This was despite the fact that the redress board had promised to cover their legal costs.

Director general of the Law Society Ken Murphy said: "There is revulsion in the solicitors' profession over this and a determination to root it out." However, until this week the society had received just one complaint about the matter. He said this was in part due to a restriction, for which the society successfully campaigned to be lifted, preventing it from investigating complaints arising out of the redress board.

The society's complaints committee, which meets this afternoon, has the power to refer cases to a disciplinary tribunal answerable to the president of the High Court. Last year, 117 cases were referred to this tribunal, which can impose fines and penalties up to and including the striking off of solicitors.

Most of the complaints relate to breaches of sections 9 and 68 of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act 1994, relating to the charging of clients. Director of Consumer Affairs Carmel Foley, a member of the complaints committee, said yesterday if the allegations were true it would be "a scandal".

Calling for an urgent meeting of the committee, she added: "Serious issues have arisen and it is essential that they be dealt with immediately and transparently."

Labour spokeswoman on education Jan O'Sullivan said the allegations were "truly shameful".

"I believe that the board should write to all people who have received awards asking them if they have been asked to make payment directly to their solicitors."

Solicitor Tim O'Sullivan of Dublin firm Gallagher Shatter said a number of firms, including his own, which had dealt with institutional abuse cases had decided collectively not to charge client fees. However, he had been "anecdotally aware" that some other firms had decided otherwise.

He told RT?'s Liveline that the redress board had been "quite up front and quite reasonable to deal with in relation to fees", adding that rather than disputing bills, the board has made it clear that any legitimate expenses, within reason, would be discharged.

According to the RIRB annual report last year, "to date costs have been finalised in 696 applications. ?7,620,755.48 has been paid in respect of applications to the board and ?1,448,847.69 has been paid in respect of related High Court proceedings, making a total of ?9,069,603.17."

It said applicants to the board had been represented by 568 firms of solicitors, with costs paid in respect of 696 applications.

"On average, costs and expenses paid to applicants' solicitors amount to ?10,949 per application, or 14.4 per cent of the award. By contrast, the average costs and expenses incurred by the board amount to ?4,064, or 5.2 per cent of the award."

Noel Barry of the Right of Place agency in Cork said he was aware of 12 cases where victims of abuse had to pay further costs to solicitors.

Christine Buckley said the Aisling agency in Dublin had been aware of at least one incident a week of abuse by solicitors over the past two years but that people had been afraid to complain.

John Kelly of Survivors of Child Abuse said that 70 per cent of their members who had been before the board had complained that the solicitors and barristers did not present a robust enough case.

? The Irish Times