Two solicitors in Co Cork have brought a High Court challenge to a Law Society committee's finding that excessive fees were charged by their firm to two abuse victims for processing claims before the Residential Institutions Redress Board.
One of the claimants said on a Prime Timeprogramme last May that he was overcharged by the firm - Ahern Roberts O'Rourke Williams & Partners, the Old Rectory, Carrigaline, Co Cork.
He was charged a total fee of €8,510 by the firm for processing his claim and 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.
The second claimant secured an award of €103,333 from the board, plus €10,800 for solicitors' fees.
The firm's total fee sought was €14,3000 and it retained the balance of its fees - €4,235 - from the award.
In judicial review proceedings, solicitors Gary O'Driscoll, of Shearwater Apartments, Kinsale, and Grattan d'Esterre Roberts, of Riverwood, Currabinny, Carrigaline, are challenging the handling by the Law Society and its complaints committee of the fees issue.
Mr d'Esterre Roberts said in an affidavit the committee concluded the fees in the cases of both claimants were excessive without reviewing the work done by the firm for the clients.
However, a legal costs accountant had concluded the fees in the case of the first claimant were reasonable and, in the second case, the accountant had stated the appropriate fees was €15,250 and accordingly the fees charged were too low.
The court heard the solicitiors had refunded the money but did not accept they had overcharged and contended the fees were appropriate and reasonable for the amount of work carried out on the cases.
Mr Justice Liam McKechnie was told yesterday that a letter sent by the Prime Timeprogramme to Mr Roberts on May 12th, 2006 "changed the landscape", leading to the solicitors initiating judicial review proceedings.
Prime Timehad referred to the claimant who was charged €8,510 by the firm for processing his claim.
Brian O'Moore SC, for the solicitors, said it was quite obvious the adverse findings of the complaints committee was going to be featured on the programme and Prime Timealso requested an interview.
The solicitors claim the society's approach in their case was affected by media controversy surrounding solicitors' fees for claims before the board.
The society was "so worried" about the bad publicity it might suffer if it were not seen to take a "hard line" with any solicitors who had charged fees in excess of those recovered from the board that it was not interested in hearing the merits of any particular case, it is alleged.
Both men allege the society and its complaints and client relations committee failed to adhere to the provisions of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act 1994 in dealing with the fees issue.
They claim the society and committee failed to allow the firm resolve the matters directly with their clients by agreement before proceeding to make determinations on the matter.
They also say that considerable adverse media comment about solicitors' fees for claims before the redress board can "in no way" form a proper basis for the society departing from its usual practice in relation to overcharging.
They claim that normal practice involves directing a reduction of fees, which direction normally ends the matter, and that it is only in very exceptional circumstances that disciplinary procedings are initiated.