The High Court set aside two decisions by the Law Society’s Complaints and Client Relations Committee and the Law Society’s related applications to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal. Mr Justice William McKechnie ruled that the committee had not followed the statutory process for resolving complaints about allegedly excessive fees and that a committee member’s earlier public remarks created a reasonable apprehension of prejudgment.
The judicial review concerned Gary O’Driscoll and Grattan D’Esterre Roberts, partners in a Cork solicitors’ firm. Two clients, identified in the judgment as Mr N. O’S. and Mr D.P., had sought redress through the Residential Institutions Redress Board. The firm accepted lower professional-fee figures offered by the Board and then sought the difference directly from each client.
The amounts sought were €3,037.10, including VAT, from Mr N. O’S. and €4,235, including VAT, from Mr D.P. The Law Society’s committee found the fees excessive, directed that they be refunded and decided to refer the matters to the disciplinary tribunal. The solicitors later refunded the sums with interest and apologised, according to the judgment. The tribunal had not held an inquiry or made findings on the allegations.
The solicitors argued that section 9 of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act 1994 required the Law Society to take all appropriate steps to resolve an excessive-fee complaint by agreement before issuing a direction. The judge found that this was a mandatory part of the process. He concluded that the committee had made no attempt to identify or pursue appropriate steps toward agreement. The directions were therefore made without jurisdiction and were unlawful.
The judge also considered press remarks attributed to Carmel Foley, then a member of the committee and Director of Consumer Affairs. In October 2005, she was reported as calling the alleged practice of solicitors taking additional money “nothing less than scandalous” and describing it as a “very serious offence”. The judge found that a reasonable solicitor appearing before the committee could have a real and substantial apprehension that the issue had been predetermined against them. He held that the right to a fair hearing had been compromised.
The court quashed both committee decisions and the Law Society’s applications to the tribunal, which had been made on 4 April 2006. It did not prohibit a future tribunal application if circumstances arose to justify one, and it did not decide the underlying misconduct allegations. The judgment also noted that evidence from a legal cost accountant strongly disputed the overcharging allegations.