The Gazette 1955-58

All the foregoing observations deal with the effects of this new system in so far as ordinary clients are concerned, but when the position of Public Bodies is considered the result would appear to be likely to be chaotic. All Public Bodies Solici tors Costs must be taxed by the High Court Taxing Master. If the present Order becomes operative, the Taxing Master will have no standard or guide to assist him in measuring Solicitors Remuneration —he will have no priced details of the work and he cannot assess the fairness or otherwise of any of the charges made. If the Taxing Master decides that he cannot accept the Solicitors own uncon trolled estimate of the value of the services charged for, the Bill cannot be taxed. Local Government Dept. Auditors cannot pass costs unless taxed. This could conceivably result in Public Bodies not being able to get any legal business transacted if Solicitors refuse to work unless their fees were paid on their own estimations of the value of their services. In a normal year about 100,000 items of Public Bodies Solicitors charges are taxed by the Taxing Master so that it can be appreciated that this aspect of the difficulties raised by the new system presents, or is likely to present, a grave problem for the Local Government Department. The Departments of Justice & Finance would also be affected by the operation of the new system as by recent increases of stamp duty the Taxing Office has been made self supporting and by the cutting out of taxations which would inevitably result by the new system the costs of running the Taxing Office would fall on the general State Revenue. These practical implications and effects of the new system would not be apparent from casual reading of the new Order. Only Dail Eireann can now stop the implementa tion of this new Order by the bringing in of an objection within the Statutory period of one month from the date of the laying of the Order on the Table of the Dail and thus preserve for the people, County Councils, and other similar Bodies anb Organ isations liable to Solicitors for Costs, the complete protection they have under the present system. It has been suggested by the Law Society when recommending this new system to their Members that a similar system has been operating satisfac torily in England for some years. Leaving this aside the question of whether, having regard to the totally different economies of the two Countries, a slavish copying of English methods is justifiable or desirable, it is a fact that no evidence in support .of this suggestion is forthcoming and rather is it believed that the contrary is the fact.

work charged for was done, was necessary, was for the benefit, and done in pursuance of the instruc tions, of the Client. The Client has of course the right of representation at the Taxation and can make such objections to the Bill of Costs as are proper. The system of Taxation and measurement of Solicitors Costs has throughout the years protected Clients (the Public) against the possibility of being overcharged, and upholds the recent public asser tion that " in no other profession is the Public more protected against extortionists than in the legal profession." The new Order provides that each Solicitor shall be the sole judge of what is a reasonable reward for his services and he shall be entitled to fix a bulk sum for his services and amongst other con siderations laid down in this Order which may be taken into account by the Solicitor in fixing such bulk fee are such as "the special skill and knolwledge a Solicitor may have for the work undertaken "— " the value of the work to the client "—" the rarity urgency or complexity of the work." This means that for the performance of identical work, different Solicitors may fix on different fees and no Client can be certain of what he is going to be charged for any particular job and could conceivably find when the bill was presented that it was so high that had he known the amount before he gave instructions he might decide that the results would not justify his having the work done. This is a fundamental change from the present system whereby he can ascertain to a fairly close degree what any job will cost before he decides to have it done. The only suggested safeguard to a client in the new system is the provision that before a Solicitor sues a Client for fees he should inform the Client that there is available to him a right of submission of the Bill of Costs to the Law Society for a Certi ficate that the Bill is fair and reasonable. In other words the Solicitors would be the judges of their own cause and this might give rise to the feeling by a dissatisfied client that a disinterested tribunal or Taxing Master, as under the present System, , would be more impartial. It is a fundamental rule that " not alone should justice be done but it should appear to be done." A rather sinister feature of this provision in the new Order it will be noted is that it is only when a Solicitor proposed to sue his client for fees that he need inform him of this right (for whatever value such right may be) and the Order goes on to say that if a Client pays the fees demanded he shall have no right to such a Certificate from the Law Society.