L.L. v Legal Services Regulatory Authority
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Mr Justice Barr |
| Judgment Date | 14 June 2023 |
| Neutral Citation | [2023] IEHC 315 |
| Court | High Court |
| Docket Number | [Record No. 2022/190MCA] |
[2023] IEHC 315
[Record No. 2022/190MCA]
THE HIGH COURT
JUDGMENT of Mr Justice Barr delivered electronically on the 14 th day of June, 2023.
. The appellant is a lay litigant. This is her appeal pursuant to s.63 of the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015 (hereinafter ‘the 2015 Act’), against a determination of the Review Committee of the respondent (hereinafter ‘the Review Committee’), which was notified to her on 5 th July, 2022, which upheld a decision of the Authority that a solicitor, who had acted for the appellant in contentious family law proceedings, had provided services of an adequate standard and had not charged excessive fees.
. Having regard to the fact that the dispute arises out of the provision of services in family law proceedings, the court has tried in this judgment not to refer to any substantive details of the family law litigation, save as where absolutely necessary.
. While the solicitor's fee note that is the subject of complaint, only related to one set of proceedings, the family law proceedings were but one of a number of separate legal proceedings in which the solicitor acted for the appellant. The family law proceedings at the heart of this complaint, were proceedings brought by the appellant, in which she sought a judicial separation from her husband with consequential maintenance orders in respect of her and her two sons.
. The appellant is deeply unhappy with the result that she obtained in her separation proceedings. It is her unhappiness with the reliefs that she obtained in those proceedings, that has coloured her strongly held opinion that the solicitor did not provide adequate services when acting for her in that litigation and that she charged excessive fees in the fee note that she presented at the conclusion of the litigation. In this appeal, she maintains that the Review Committee acted in error in reaching the conclusions that it did, which were to the effect that the solicitor had provided adequate services and had not charged excessive fees.
. It will be helpful at this stage to set out a chronology of the dates on which relevant steps were taken in the proceedings leading up to this appeal. These can be summarised as follows:
| 6 th October 2017 | Section 68 letter issued by solicitor. |
| 8 th October 2019 | Undertaking as to payment of fees signed by the appellant. |
| 28 th, 29 th, 30 th and 31 st May 2019 | Hearing of appellant's separation proceedings in the High Court. The hearing is adjourned. |
| 4 th June 2019 | Letter from solicitors acting for the appellant's brothers-in-law, referring to proceedings brought by the appellant's sons against them, which were seeking to set aside a purported agreement in relation to ownership of lands. |
| 8 th, 9 th, 18 th and 22 nd October 2019 | Resumed hearing of the appellant's separation proceedings against her husband. |
| 6 th May 2020 | Judgment of Faherty J. in the family law proceedings. |
| 18 th August 2020 | Solicitor presents three fee notes in respect of (a) the family law proceedings (b) judicial review proceedings and (c) criminal proceedings in the District Court. Solicitor sends the appellant a form for referral of the issue of costs to adjudication. |
| 29 th November 2020 | Appellant makes complaint to the respondent about quality of services provided by her solicitor and the level of fees charged by her. |
| 4 th February 2021 | Admissibility assessment by the Authority – complaint deemed to come within s.51(1)(a) and (b) of the 2015 Act. |
| 2 nd March 2022 | Determination of the Authority, rejecting the appellant's complaints against her solicitor. |
| 21 st March 2022 | Appellant seeks review of decision by the Review Committee. |
| 9 th June 2022 | Review committee met to consider the matter. |
| 5 th July 2022 | Parties informed by letter of outcome of review, which upheld the determination of the Authority. |
| 25 th July 2022 | Appellant lodges appeal with the High Court against the determination of the Review Committee. |
. The most relevant documents to the matters in issue in this appeal are the following: The letter sent by the solicitor to the appellant on 6 th October, 2017 pursuant to s.68 of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act, 1994. The salient part of that letter provided as follows:
“The law requires solicitors, as soon as is practicable after taking instructions, to set out the basis on which the solicitor intends charging. Having taken detailed instruction from you and reviewed the documentation provided, we estimate that our brief fee in this matter will be in the region of €30,000, plus VAT. In addition to the brief fee, if the matter is to proceed to court there will be a daily court attendance fee of €3,500, plus VAT, for each day that the case runs.
As the proceedings have been contentious to date, we believe a number of interim applications may be required, however it is not possible at this stage to provide an estimate of fees for such applications and same will be in addition to any brief fee charged. Please also note that all court attendances will be charged for separately, which will be in the region of €350/€650.
We enclose for your information, an explanatory pamphlet concerning legal charges, published by the Law Society of Ireland, the governing body for solicitors in Ireland. This gives you the relevant information, including the basis of our charges.
Miscellaneous charges in respect of postages, phones, faxes and photocopying will be incurred.
In addition to the professional fee and miscellaneous charges payable to us, there will be items of outlay payable to third parties, such as junior and senior counsel and any experts engaged by this office on your behalf, which must be discharged by you. It is not possible at this sage to provide an estimate of fees for such experts, however you will be provided with a full breakdown of their fee in advance of the matter proceeding to court.”
. On 8 th April, 2019, the appellant signed the following undertaking in relation to the fees that would be incurred at the hearing of the family law proceedings, which were due to commence in the following month:
“I, [name redacted], undertake to discharge all fees due and owing to Comiskey Solicitors and all third parties engaged by them in the above entitled matter, as per the section 68 letter by Sarah Comiskey of Comiskey Solicitors at the outset of this matter.
I acknowledge that Comiskey Solicitors have briefed both junior counsel and senior counsel, as well as a forensic accountant and that I am liable for the fees owed to them for works carried out.
I acknowledge that fees are already outstanding to Comiskey Solicitors, senior counsel, junior counsel and my forensic accountant, Sarah Kearns, for works already carried out.
It has been explained to me that the senior counsel will charge €9,000 plus VAT (brief fee) to deal with my case. It has been explained to me that they will charge €2,500, plus VAT, for every day that it runs before the High Court.
It has been explained to me that the junior counsel will costs €6,000, plus VAT (brief fee) to deal with my case. It has been explained that they will charge €2,000, plus VAT for every day that it runs before the High Court.
It has been explained to me that the forensic accountant will charge in the region of €6,500, plus VAT, however an exact figure cannot be calculated at present.
I understand all of the above and I am happy to proceed.”
. The undertaking was signed by the appellant. It was dated 8 th April, 2019. It was witnessed by her solicitor.
. The appellant alleged that a letter dated 4 th June, 2019 from the solicitors acting on behalf of her brothers-in-law in proceedings brought by her sons against them, was relevant to the matters that arise in this appeal. In that letter, the solicitors acting for her brothers-in-law noted that they had been handed two copies of High Court summonses issued on behalf of the appellant's sons against their clients. They stated that they believed that the summonses had been issued in error for a number of reasons, which they set out as follows:
“Firstly, the mediation agreement has never been entered into and your client, through her solicitor at the time, wrote and stated that if the agreement was implemented that she would seek an injunction.
Secondly, we wish to point out that the agreement specifically states that it had to be implemented within 30 days and this was never done. The proceedings are therefore ill founded and in the circumstances unnecessary.
Thirdly, your client was [sic] be perfectly well aware that the agreement was never implemented because [appellant's husband] is still the owner of 40% of the lands at [address given] and still the owner of the farm at [name of farm] containing 45 acres.
Would you please confirm that you will not be proceeding further with this matter.”
. The final relevant document is the fee note that was issued by the appellant's solicitor on 18 th August, 2020. It is not intended to set out the entire of the fee note herein. The solicitor charged an instruction fee of €36,000, together with fees ranging from €1,000 to €2,500 in respect of four motions, together with attendance fees of €450 in respect of seventeen separate attendances at the High Court on various dates specified in the fee note; together with attendance fees of €3,200 in respect of each of the days that the action was at hearing before the High Court in 2019. The total of the fees, excluding VAT, charged by the solicitor amounted to €76,500.
. The remainder of the bill concerned the following outlays: €29,000 in respect of senior counsel, €21,050.00 in respect of one junior counsel; €31,450 in respect of the second junior counsel; €2,900 for the...
To continue reading
Request your trial