Pat Carey (Dublin North West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 41: To ask the Minister for Defence the number of queries he has received from former and serving members of the Defence Forces who had pursued hearing loss claims and were now claiming to have been overcharged by their solicitors; the assistance his Department has afforded to them; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [38062/06]

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

Since October 2005, 183 enquiries 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.

As a matter of course, my Department advises the individual in such cases 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.

In responding to enquiries from Plaintiffs, they are also advised that they are entitled to obtain details of the costs in their case from their solicitor under the provisions of Section 68, subsection 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 them that the Law Society of Ireland is the statutory body entrusted with responsibility to investigate complaints against solicitors by any client and that the Law Society 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 the Law Society what plans they had to deal with any complaints regarding charging by solicitors in these cases. The Law 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 in June 2006 expressing my disappointment with the situation whereby a number of complainants have apparently been advised that the Law Society cannot pursue the matter 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. The Law Society indicated in its response, that it unreservedly condemns any misconduct by a solicitor in overcharging a client. The Society pointed out that the lapse of time since many of the cases were settled posed major difficulties for its investigative powers. The relevant Law Society Solicitors' Accounts Regulations require solicitors to maintain accounts, including original files, for a period of six years following conclusion of a case. In a great many of the cases the subject of these complaints, the Society has been informed that, as cases were concluded more than six years ago, the solicitors' files, including the documentation necessary to answer the complaint, have been destroyed. In such circumstances, the argument has been made that it would be contrary to natural justice and fair procedures to proceed with investigations where the solicitor complained of did not have access to the documentation necessary to answer a complaint. The Society also made the point that the fact that a complaint is made does not in itself mean that overcharging occurred. Each case must be examined individually and in accordance with the relevant statutory provisions.

The Society assured me that there was certainly no lack of will on its part to investigate such complaints in accordance with its statutory powers and the principles of natural justice and fair procedures. The Society also indicated that any client who expresses dissatisfaction with the manner in which their complaint has been handled by the Society, is advised of their entitlement to refer the matter to the Independent Adjudicator of the Law Society for independent review. In addition, it is open to any client to make their complaint directly to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, which is the forum to which the Society would refer any matter it considers discloses professional misconduct.