Law Society rejects solicitors’ claims of bias

THE Law Society has rejected claims it was biased when it deemed that excessive fees were charged by a firm of Cork solicitors to two abuse victims for processing claims before the Residential Institutions Redress Board.

Yesterday counsel for the Law Society Mr Shane Murphy SC told the High Court that his client rejected the claims of bias, and that the society’s complaints committee was entitled to investigate any complaints of misconduct against solicitors.

Mr Murphy was making legal submissions on behalf of the Law Society in judicial review proceedings brought Mr Gary O’Driscoll, of Shearwater Apartments, Kinsale, and Mr Grattan d’Esterre Roberts, of Riverwood, Currabinny, Carrigaline, who are challenging the handling by the Law Society and its complaints committee of matters relating to the fees issue.

The Law Society’s disciplinary committee investigated claims made by a man, on the Prime Time programme in 2005, that he was overcharged by the law firm, Ahern, Roberts, O’Rourke, Williams & Partners, the Old Rectory, Carrigaline, Co Cork.

In the case of that claimant, he was charged a total fee of €8,510 by the firm for processing his claim, the High Court heard. That man secured an award of €70,000 from the board, plus €6,000 for solicitors’ fees. The firm had accepted the €6,000 and retained the additional €2,510 from the award.

A second claimant said he secured an award of €103,333 from the Board, plus €10,800 for solicitors’ fees. The firm’s total fee sought was €14,300 and it retained the balance of its fees from the award.

The applicants say the fees charged by their firm in relation to both claimants were “reasonable andappropriate and in no way excessive”.

At court yesterday Mr Murphy rejected claims by the applicants that comments made by the Director of Consumer Affairs Carmel Foley, who was also a lay member of the Law Society’s three-person complaints committee in October 2005, showed bias against the applicants.

He also told the court that the legal challenge has been brought on a “misconceived basis”. The applicants had a clear “right of appeal” available and a judicial review was not appropriate.