Frances Fitzgerald (Dublin Mid West, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

If I accepted the new subsection proposed by Senator Barrett in amendment No. 114 it would create confusion about the letter of engagement, which is intended to clearly delineate for a customer which services are being provided by a legal practitioner in a multidisciplinary practice by making it simultaneously a bill of costs. This would clash with the extensive legal costs transparency obligations now being placed on legal practitioners elsewhere under the Bill.

Legal obligations are now being placed on practitioners in respect of cost. That is very consumer-friendly. Under Part 10 all legal practitioners will be required, under section 123, to issue a notice to clients, written in clear and understandable language, which will set out the legal costs that will be incurred or are likely to be incurred when they take on the work. That addresses the precise point the Senator made. Section 123(4) sets out in great detail what the notice must contain. The purpose of that section is to oblige all legal practitioners to disclose likely costs up front or, where this is not possible due to complexity, to give detailed and meaningful estimates. The Senator is correct that this matter has frequently been the subject of complaint in the past. Clients will also be given the option of a cooling-off period before they finally agree with the notice of costs.

There are substantial provisions in the Bill relating to costs. There is the move from the Taxing Master to the new adjudicator, and there are detailed provisions relating to costs, how they are done at present and how that must change.There are those sections I have just read into the record as well. There are many initiatives to give greater transparency and clients being more aware of the likely costs before they embark on any legal course. That is a very important part of the Bill. It takes us from the Taxing Master situation completely to a new office of adjudication costs.