LEGAL fees paid to counsel representing Mr Larry Goodman and his meat company during the beef tribunal totalling more than £3 million were "disproportionate and unjustifiable", the Taxing Master of the High Court was told yesterday.
There was an unacceptable disparity" between the fees paid to senior and junior counsel representing Mr Goodman and barristers hired by the State and the tribunal itself, according to Mr Peter Fitzpatrick, legal cost accountant for the State.
Mr Fitzpatrick challenged the fees paid for "preparatory" work conducted on days the tribunal had not been sitting and the £75,000 paid to Mr Dermot Gleeson SC, now the Attorney General, for work on final submissions which were delivered on days he was separately receiving £2,500 in "refresher fees".
Regarding the brief fees paid to counsel for Mr Goodman and his, organisation - which totalled more than £500,000 - Mr Fitzpatrick told the hearing: "By any stretch of the imagination, the Minister must have been aghast when he saw the unjustifiable fees paid by Larry Goodman, compared with what was paid to his own counsel and counsel for the tribunal."
Mr Paul Behan, legal cost accountant for the Goodman side, said the request by the Minister for Finance to reduce the amount granted to Mr Goodman and his companies for legal and other costs "amounted to no more than clipping and cheese paring". The Minister's objections should be struck out, he said.
He told the Taxing Master, Mr James Flynn, that much of the work carried out by counsel for Mr Goodman and his companies during the 226 day inquiry was unprecedented", and the fees paid out were reasonable.
The Taxing Master is hearing a formal appeal challenging the amount granted to Mr Goodman and his companies for legal and other costs incurred at the beef tribunal.
Mr Goodman and his organisation paid out £6.7 million during the inquiry in legal fees.
The organisation originally sought more than £9 million in costs, but this was reduced to £7 million last July by the Taxing, Master.
The hearing heard that £175,000 was paid in brief fees to Mr Gleeson, senior counsel for Goodman International, a further £106,000 to the first junior counsel and £81,000 to the second junior counsel.
In contrast, the two senior counsel for the State had each received £8,400 in brief fees, with one junior counsel being paid £5,600. The same brief fees were paid to counsel for the tribunal.
Mr Goodman's senior counsel received £59,000 in brief fees, while his junior counsel received £106,000.
Senior counsel for Goodman International also received, "refresher fees" totalling £326,000, while counsel for the State had each received £114,000 for the similar work. Mr Goodman's senior counsel had been paid £367,000 in refresher fees.
The tribunal's senior counsel received £1,800, while junior counsel had been paid £1,200.
"I would submit that if you take the number of refresher fees with the number of days involved, that is significant," said Mr Fitzpatrick.
This also constituted a breach of established legal practice under which junior counsel received two thirds of the fee allocated to senior counsel, said Mr Fitzpatrick.
Fees for preparatory work on behalf of Mr Goodman totalled £147,420 for the senior counsel, £192,525 for the first junior counsel and £101,025 for the second junior counsel. No preparatory work had been conducted by senior counsel for Mr Goodman, but his junior counsel was paid £221,690 in preparatory fees.
However, Mr Behan, for the Goodman side, said the Minister had not provided evidence that any of the fees were "special fees", or that there was a principle under which solicitors were paid two thirds of a senior counsel's fee.
On the £75,000 paid in relation to final submissions, he denied the figure was excessive.
"It is in keeping with the quality, the task and the burden of the preparation of such a document. These documents are unique. I have never in all my years of practice seen anything as detailed before," he said.