The High Court has dismissed a solicitor’s application to quash a €3,000 contribution towards the Law Society of Ireland’s costs, finding that the Society had investigated a complaint and incurred costs after he failed to respond to its correspondence.
Mr Justice O’Keeffe delivered the judgment on 31 July 2009. The application concerned only the amount of the contribution ordered by the Society’s Complaints and Client Relations Committee. The solicitor did not challenge the committee’s finding that he had failed without reasonable cause to respond in a timely manner, or its decision to reprimand him.
The committee made its decision on 4 June 2008 after considering a complaint from another solicitor about unanswered correspondence concerning aspects of a deceased person’s estate. The Law Society had sent the applicant several letters seeking an explanation and later issued a notice requiring him to provide documents. It also brought a High Court motion to enforce that notice. The motion was struck out by consent, with the applicant agreeing to pay €600 in costs.
The applicant argued that no investigation had taken place and that the €3,000 was not based on costs actually and reasonably incurred. He said he had been given no calculation or evidence of costs beyond the €600 paid in connection with the High Court motion. He also argued that imposing the contribution without details was unfair and punitive.
The Law Society said its investigation began when it received the complaint in February 2007, and that the applicant’s failure to reply led to work by its staff and committee. It also argued that he should have used the statutory appeal route and that the judicial review application was brought too late.
The judge was not persuaded that the delay barred the application, taking account of the applicant’s claim that he learned only in November 2008 that the €3,000 did not relate to the High Court motion. However, he found no evidence showing that the committee was unreasonable in concluding that the Society had incurred costs as a consequence of the failure to respond.
The judgment said the committee was not required to produce an itemised bill of costs. The applicant could have presented evidence challenging the reasonableness or rationality of the amount, but had not done so. The judge also said the complaint about the amount was better suited to a statutory appeal, and that he would decline judicial review relief on that basis even if there were a good cause of action.
The application was dismissed. The judge emphasised that the decision did not establish that the committee could impose the statutory maximum contribution in every case; it must act reasonably and rationally.