The Law Society says it will conduct a speedy inquiry into allegations that some solicitors have double charged victims of institutional child abuse.
It is seeking the assistance of the Residential Institutions Redress Board (RIRB) in identifying solicitors who improperly charged clients a portion of their award on top of the fees granted by the RIRB.
The imposition of "top-up" charges on clients who claim compensation is not new. Although the Law Society only sanctions the imposition of fees which can be deemed to be justified, it was long the practice of solicitors to seek a percentage of a compensation award, even though costs are normally granted to a successful plaintiff in a personal injuries case. This practice has been defended on the grounds that "costs" do not necessarily cover all expenses involved in preparing a case, and that a judge may award costs in relation to certain matters but not others. An example of extra costs is that of medical reports where the doctor will have to be paid but the full cost may not be reimbursed by the court.
In relation to the redress board, costs are awarded by its chairman, Judge O'Leary, on the basis of a percentage of the compensation award. Admittedly, this may not reflect the complexity of the case, as proceedings resulting in a high award may be quite simple while a more complex case may lead to a lesser award. Certain costs may not be met in full. However most of the solicitors involved have a number of clients and, in the longer term, such awards are likely to even each other out.
The fact remains that there appears to be a practice among certain solicitors of imposing additional, unjustified charges. This is particularly reprehensible when it concerns vulnerable clients who are poorly positioned to complain. Many of the victims of institutional abuse are likely to have limited education and to be emotionally damaged and some will also lack familial and social supports. The legal professions often claim that they sometimes subsidise deserving clients out of the fees paid by those who can afford to pay more. If that is the case, surely such altruism should apply in cases where fees awarded by the RIRB fall short of the costs incurred.
The Minister for Justice has indicated that he is preparing to legislate for the establishment of a legal ombudsman in a move that has been resisted by the Law Society for years. These latest events will provide fresh impetus for such legislation. The Law Society can point to the steps it is taking to address victims' grievances, but these will not be sufficient to silence the clamour for independent oversight of the profession.