The High Court set costs at €350 for each of four solicitors who obtained orders backdating practising certificates, ruling that the Law Society could seek costs but could not treat €350 as a fixed statutory demand.
President of the High Court Mr Justice Kelly delivered the judgment on 15 February 2016, after the certificates had been backdated by consent on 1 February. The orders covered certificates for 2013 for Fachtna O’Driscoll, Richael O’Driscoll and Michael A. Barron, and for 2015 for O’Driscoll, O’Driscoll and Kim Walley. The court directed that the certificates be treated as in force from 1 January in the relevant year and that the dates be noted in the register of practising solicitors.
The remaining issue before the court was costs. The applicants admitted they had failed to apply for certificates on time. They objected to a 2014 regulation stating that the Law Society was entitled to seek €350 from each solicitor applying to backdate a certificate. They argued there was no authority to specify that sum and that the Society had wrongly treated its ability to seek costs as a demand for €350 for every solicitor and every certificate.
Mr Justice Kelly said the legislation provided for two distinct types of payment: legal costs under the Solicitors Amendment Act 1960 and a possible payment for administrative costs under section 48(3) of the Solicitors Act 1954. The Law Society had sought legal costs in this case, but had not applied for administrative expenses.
The judge said the applicants’ objection to the Society’s demand was correct. He said the €350 figure reflected a court practice, but was not fixed: the court could set a higher or lower amount depending on the case. Charging €350 for every solicitor and every certificate could be disproportionate where the work was largely shared. The court therefore measured costs at €350 per solicitor, rather than per certificate for each year.
The judgment addressed the costs issue after the backdating orders had already been made by consent. The court’s ruling did not reverse those orders. Mr Justice Kelly said the Law Society should consider removing the specified sum from future regulations and instead state that it would seek costs, leaving the amount to the court.