The High Court has dismissed a judicial review brought by two solicitors against a Law Society committee decision concerning fees charged while administering the estate of Maureen O’Connell. The court affirmed the committee’s July 2013 decision, including its direction that €340,070 plus VAT be repaid to the estate’s residuary beneficiary and its referral of alleged overcharging and a missing costs estimate to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal.
The applicants, Gerard Williams Sandys and Bryan C. Brophy, practised as Sandys & Brophy Solicitors in Galway. They had acted for O’Connell during her lifetime and were appointed executors of her will. She died in 1998. Her estate was valued at about €14 million when probate was granted in 2004, and the Society of St. Vincent de Paul was the sole residuary beneficiary.
The Society complained in 2011 that the solicitors had charged excessive fees and failed to provide the costs information required by section 68 of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act 1994. A legal costs accountant retained by the committee reviewed five bills. He recommended reductions to three: for Circuit Court proceedings over O’Connell’s Bar in Eyre Square, probate and estate administration, and conveyance of the Eyre Square property. He regarded the €1,500 fee for conveyancing a Tuam Road property as reasonable and did not recommend changing a bill for High Court proceedings that had already been settled.
The solicitors argued that the committee denied them fair procedures by refusing, shortly before a scheduled meeting, to accept a separate expert report. They also argued that it had improperly delegated its decision to the accountant, failed to give adequate reasons and had no basis to refer the section 68 issue because the beneficiary had not instructed them directly. The Law Society said the solicitors had received the accountant’s report months earlier, could use their own expert to inform written submissions, and had been given opportunities to attend and address committee meetings.
The court held that judicial review was an appropriate route despite an available statutory appeal. On the substance, it found the committee had acted fairly: the solicitors’ request for another report came late in a process already lasting more than two years, and they had submitted detailed arguments informed by their own expert. The committee had considered those submissions and made its own decision, the court said; it was not bound by the accountant’s report. The court also found the committee had given adequate reasons in its decision letter and meeting minutes.
The court accepted that the Act’s definition of “client” includes an estate beneficiary and rejected the argument that no section 68 costs information was required because the beneficiary had not personally given instructions. It said the committee was entitled to refer that issue to the Tribunal. The referral was not a finding of misconduct: the court noted that no adverse finding had been made and that the solicitors would receive a fair hearing before the Tribunal. The court dismissed the challenge and affirmed the committee’s decision.