Lawlor in challenge to €560,000 legal bill

The Dublin West TD, Mr Liam Lawlor, has challenged the €560,000-plus legal bill presented to him by the Flood tribunal in relation to High Court and Supreme Court proceedings brought by the tribunal against him.

The Taxing Master, Mr Charles Moran, is adjudicating on five bills for costs totalling about €562,000. A legal cost accountant employed on behalf of Mr Lawlor argued that certain items - mainly solicitors' fees - were excessive and that the total bill should be about €250,000.

The Master reserved his decision to April 9th on a costs claim for €243,000 in the name of the tribunal's solicitor, Ms Maire Anne Howard. He allowed most of the other items of costs sought by the tribunal.

Objecting to the solicitors' instruction fees sought, Mr Stephen Daly, the accountant acting for Mr Lawlor, said the fees represented about 50 per cent of the total fees of €533,000 claimed by the solicitor over a period of three years and eight months.

Mr Paul Behan, the legal tax accountant acting for the tribunal, said such fees did not go to the solicitor in her personal capacity, and in fact the monies, when recovered from Mr Lawlor, would be remitted to the State. He added that he did not want an impression to be given that these fees were "a top-up" of the solicitors' work. The organisation in receipt of these fees was represented by a many-peopled body.

The five bills of costs relate to High and Supreme Court proceedings which led to Mr Lawlor being directed to appear before the tribunal and to produce documents, and also to his serving two periods in prison of one week each. The costs related to a third term of imprisonment for one month have yet to be dealt with.

Yesterday, urging the Master to grant the full costs sought, Mr Behan said Mr Lawlor had initially adopted the position of ignoring the orders of the tribunal. He had claimed that they were unreasonable and that he was of immense assistance to the tribunal in carrying out its work.

There had been an attempt by Mr Lawlor to effectively impose his own conditions.

The documentation in the various applications was substantial, and the fees presented by senior counsel had been modest in comparison to those of some of their colleagues.

Mr Behan also referred the Master to the various court judgments which found that Mr Lawlor had not co-operated with the tribunal, including the finding by a Supreme Court judge, Mr Justice Fennelly, that Mr Lawlor had engaged in "calculated defiance" of the tribunal in relation to producing certain documents.

Mr Daly said the solicitor's fee of £27,000 for the first bill of costs was "way out of line" in terms of reasonableness and that a fee of €15,000 or about £12,000 would be sufficient. He said an instruction fee of £82,500 sought in relation to the first contempt proceedings against Mr Lawlor was also unreasonable, and an appropriate fee would have been about €25,000-30,000. He argued the fees sought were far in excess of those sought in other contempt motions.

Mr Behan said the tribunal lawyers had had to deal with some 69 affidavits of discovery from Mr Lawlor.