Joe Costello (Dublin Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 5: To ask the Minister for Defence the number of Army deafness claims that have been processed; the number of claims outstanding; the payment to claimants to date; the cost of fees paid to legal firms representing claimants; the cost of fees paid to his Department's lawyers; the number of complaints made by Army deafness clients against their legal advisers for double charging; the action taken by him to pursue these complaints and the outcome of same; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24177/06]

Willie O'Dea (Limerick East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

A total of 16,760 claims have been received in my Department from current and former members of the Defence Forces in respect of loss of hearing allegedly caused during their military service. Of the claims, 15,605 have been disposed of, leaving a total of 1,155 outstanding. Some €280.9 million has been paid in respect of hearing loss claims, including €95 million in plaintiffs' legal costs. The plaintiffs' legal costs include the fees of the solicitors' firms as well as other costs such as those arising from counsel fees, medical reports etc.

In general, the Office of the Chief State Solicitor pays the costs of the State's legal team. This includes counsel fees, medical fees and fees for expert witnesses, State solicitors, stenographers etc. These costs are charged to the Vote of the Office of the Chief State Solicitor.

The Office of the Chief State Solicitor has advised us that in the period 1998 to date, when the vast majority of Army hearing loss cases were finalised, it has paid a total of €17.8 million in such fees. This included €11.4 million for counsel fees. During this period, the Department of Defence directly paid €2 million in other costs associated with the processing of hearing loss claims. These amounts do not include the costs of staff and overheads incurred in processing these claims in the Office of the Chief State Solicitor, the Defence Forces and the Department of Defence, which costs are currently estimated at €23 million.

The management of new and outstanding hearing loss claims was delegated to the State Claims Agency with effect from 1 September 2005. Since that date, my Department has paid a total of €600,000 in plaintiff and agency legal and related costs to the State Claims Agency in respect of hearing loss claims.

Since October last, 145 inquiries have been received by my Department from plaintiffs regarding the fees paid to solicitors in respect of Army deafness cases. Generally these queries refer to the amount of the award or settlement and the costs paid.

Additional information not given on the floor of the House.

As a matter of course, my Department advises the individual of the amount of the settlement or award, and the date on which payment issued. In addition, the amount paid by the State in respect of plaintiff costs, and the date of such payment, are also advised.

Plaintiffs are advised, on foot of their inquiries, that they are entitled to obtain details of the costs in their cases from their solicitors under the provisions of section 68(6) of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act 1994. These provisions oblige a legal representative to provide a summary of the legal services provided and the amount of expenses incurred in the provision of these legal services, as well as details of all charges that have been recovered. We also advise that the Law Society of Ireland is the statutory body entrusted with responsibility to investigate complaints against solicitors by any client and that it has procedures in place in this regard.

I wrote to the Law Society of Ireland at the time of the initial queries regarding solicitors' charges in Army hearing loss litigation. In my letter, I asked what plans the society had to deal with any complaints regarding charging by solicitors in these cases. The society clarified that it was the statutory body responsible for dealing with such complaints and that it had procedures in place in this regard. The society has power to order a solicitor to repay any excessive amount charged and is anxious to investigate any complaints made against solicitors.

I wrote again to the Law Society of Ireland recently and expressed my disappointment that a number of complainants have apparently been advised that their complaints cannot be pursued on the grounds that the bill concerned is over five years old, despite the fact that the complainants have only recently become aware of the potential overcharging. I requested the views of the society on the matter and any proposals it has to address this apparent anomaly.

Joe Costello (Dublin Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Minister for the information, some of which is available consequent to the Estimates we dealt with some weeks ago. The extra information supplied today indicates that, of over €280 million paid to claimants, €95 million has been expended on legal fees. If one combines the fees, including ongoing overheads, paid by the Office of the Chief State Solicitor and the Defence Forces, one will note that they amount to at least another €20 million. Considerably more than €120 million has been spent on legal fees. That is over 40% of the amount of the entire claim and a whopping chunk of money for the legal profession.

The Minister indicated that 145 complaints have been made about the fees charged by their legal representatives. What is the nature of those complaints? What has the Minister done to pursue them and what has been the outcome of those complaints?

Willie O'Dea (Limerick East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I agree with Deputy Costello that it is a fairly hefty percentage but these were party and party fees. In other words, if the costs were granted against the defendant, he would have been obliged by the Taxing Master to pay them if he was unhappy with the amount. These fees were barely sufficient to enable the plaintiff pursue his legal claim.

The 145 complaints are from people whose fees were paid by the Department of Defence but who had money deducted from their settlement cheque by their solicitors. They want to know why that happened given that the State paid the fees. The Law Society of Ireland says there is such a thing as solicitor and client fees over and above the costs one recovers by winning a case. These are for extra expenses, for example, extra experts' reports, time that the Taxing Master would not allow, etc. I wrote to the Law Society about that and it came back to me with the procedure where people can complain to the society. I have told the people concerned that if they write to me, I will give them all the necessary information to make a case to the Law Society.

I must admit to the House that the Law Society is now quoting a section of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act 1994 which states it is not obliged to deal with any claims regarding costs charged if the case was settled more than five years ago. The majority of these cases, as the Deputies are aware, were settled more than five years ago but this matter only came to light recently after the revelations concerning the legal fees in the residential institutions redress matter. I pointed that out to the Law Society.

I also pointed out to the society that it is obliged to furnish a bill of costs. In many of the cases where complaints arise a bill of costs is conspicuous by its absence. I also pointed out to the Law Society that solicitors are entitled to set out the basis of charge, under section 68 of the 1994 Act, when they first take on the case. I pointed out also that many of those initial estimates are also conspicuous by their absence. I am waiting for the Law Society to come back to me. My attitude is to help the claimant in every way by giving him or her all the necessary information we have, passing the matter on to the Law Society and following up the matter with the society if he or she wants to come back to us.

Joe Costello (Dublin Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Minister for that very helpful reply. Effectively, what has happened in those cases is that 145 people are claiming there was double payment, in other words, the fees were paid by the Department of Defence and then an extra payment was sought from the individual claimant. When the Department of Defence paid those legal fees, can the Minister clarify if it made any allowance for any expenses such as medical expenses or anything of that nature?

The fact that the Law Society appears to be anxious to hide behind the Solicitors Act 1994 and prevent any examination of the validity of those claims is despicable. The society has said publicly that it is very concerned about any of its members who might be taking double payment from victims of abuse. That is happening in the Army deafness cases and the Law Society has now resorted to legislation to try to impede that investigation. Will the Minister comment on that?

I am heartened that the Minister's office is prepared to provide assistance to claimants in processing their claims. I will be anxious to see how he will pursue that in the future.

Willie O'Dea (Limerick East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

To answer the Deputy's first question, our Department provided for medical expenses, including audiologists' reports etc. but——

Joe Costello (Dublin Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It did provide expenses.

Willie O'Dea (Limerick East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Yes but, generally speaking, in a case like that it would only provide for one medical witness or one audiologist's report. In some cases more than one had to be procured to establish the case. That is the difference between party and party costs and solicitor and client costs.

Regarding the 1994 Act, I have checked the Act and, unfortunately, whether by oversight or whatever, it does contain that section. I have the reference to it. If the Act were to be altered, that would be a matter for my colleague, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, but I believe we have grounds for talking to the Law Society on the basis that the bill of costs was not been produced in many cases and on what is called the section 68 letter outlining the fact that there may be charges other than what is recovered from the defendants, namely, ourselves. I understand that was not issued in many cases.