The Court of Appeal has quashed Law Society decisions concerning fees charged by two solicitors for work on a deceased woman’s estate, finding that they were not given a reasonable opportunity to submit their own expert evidence and that the residuary beneficiary was not owed a costs letter under section 68 of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act 1994.
The court allowed the solicitors’ appeal from a High Court judgment that had dismissed their judicial review challenge. It set aside that order and remitted the complaints to a differently constituted Law Society Complaint and Client Relations Committee for further consideration. The court stressed that it was expressing no view on whether the fees were excessive.
The solicitors, who practised as Sandys & Brophy, were also executors of Maureen O’Connell’s will. The Society of St. Vincent de Paul was the residuary beneficiary. The estate realised more than €14 million, including from the sale of two properties. The solicitors submitted five bills for professional services, paid from the estate.
The Society complained to the Law Society that the fees were excessive and that it had not received a written estimate of costs. The Committee obtained a report from legal costs accountant Noel Guiden, who concluded that three bills were excessive by significant amounts. In July 2013, the Committee upheld the overcharging complaint and directed the solicitors to reimburse €340,070 plus VAT. It also referred both the alleged failure to provide a section 68 letter and the extent of the alleged overcharging to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal for further inquiry.
The Court of Appeal held that, once the Committee had failed to resolve the dispute by agreement and moved to decide it, the accountant’s report was expert evidence on which it proposed to rely. The solicitors therefore needed a reasonable opportunity to obtain and present their own relevant expert evidence. Although they had delayed and were allowed to make submissions informed by their accountant, the Committee had not specifically told them they could submit their own report. The court held that this did not amount to a reasonable opportunity. It quashed the findings on excessive charging and the related reimbursement directions. It did not decide whether cross-examination would be required if competing expert reports were presented.
On section 68, the court held that the Society, as residuary beneficiary, was not the client to whom the solicitors had to provide written particulars of charges. That duty applied to the executors who instructed the solicitors and received the legal services. Since the referral rested on the alleged failure to send a letter to the Society, the court quashed that referral. It left open whether an executor may have a separate duty to provide such information to a beneficiary.
The complaints return to the Committee under the law as explained in the judgment. The court said the Committee may continue trying to reach an agreed resolution. Its decision did not determine the merits of the overcharging complaint.