BishopAccountability.org
	Law Society Decision Is Disturbing One in Four [Ireland] May 26, 2006 http://www.oneinfour.org/news/news2006/disturbing/ THE decision of the Law Society not to pursue a complaint of double billing against one of its members, in the case of a victim of child abuse who was made an award through the Residential Institutions Redress Board (RIRB), is very disturbing. It has chosen to reject the claim made by the survivor of institutional abuse, who had been represented by the solicitor, that he billed her and the RIRB. Inexplicably, it has decided not to refer the matter to its own Disciplinary Tribunal for investigation, despite the fact it has seen fit to do so in previous cases. The redress board was established four years ago to compensate those who were abused as children while in industrial schools, reformatories and various State institutions. The legal fees incurred by them, if they choose this option, are paid for by the board, so that there are absolutely no financial implications for those who avail of it. It was intended to compensate those who had the courage to come forward and expose those institutions who had committed horrific acts against them, through a forum which was less intimidating to the victims, and would not incur financial worries or hardship. The redress board was never intended to be a cash cow for unscrupulous solicitors who saw it as one, and there are measures that can be taken by the Law Society for those who do. In this case, the lawyer is alleged to have charged the unfortunate woman a fee — ˆ11,670 — as well as recovering costs from the redress board. He was not entitled to charge his client anything for the services he provided under these circumstances, and, having done so, he should at the very least be subjected to the rigours of the Law Society discipline. It is irrelevant, and disingenuous, that at its Complaints and Client Relations Committee stage, the solicitor in question abandoned any proposal to charge the woman a fee. It is outrageous that the Law Society should resolve the question so expeditiously, one that satisfied it and the member but one that was utterly unsatisfactory to the victim. This course will not add one whit to confidence in its own remedies. The Law Society foresaw that there would be problems in this regard created by some of its own members. For that very reason it set up a helpline specifically for people who believed they were double charged by solicitors in relation to the redress board. The fact that there may be just a few solicitors, or firms of solicitors, who have no qualms about trying to circumvent the system of fees in this regard, does not matter. Those who attempt to do so, and are uncovered, should, without any equivocation, have to face the consequences of their actions. Making restitution to escape those consequences, by returning a fee to which there was no entitlement in the first place, is not good enough and falls beneath the standards which could, and should, be expected from a responsible body such as the Law Society.
Any original material on these pages is copyright © BishopAccountability.org 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution.