231 / 324
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.
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.