A unique order by the master of the High Court, directing a solicitor to pay to her client the legal costs of bringing a "pointless" court application, has provoked concern among many solicitors and the Law Society, the High Court was told yesterday.
Edmund Honohan had described his "wasted costs" order made earlier this month as a "wake- up call" to solicitors about high legal costs. Such costs orders were in the long-term interests of the legal profession, he said, although lawyers probably would not "see it that way".
In an affidavit presented yesterday to the president of the High Court, Michael Irvine, the president of the Law Society, the representative body for solicitors, said the Law Society believed "fundamental issues" were raised relating to the jurisdiction of Mr Honohan to make such an order and his decision had caused great uncertainty.
Solicitors were also greatly concerned by his unprecedented decision to interfere in the solicitor/client relationship by appointing another solicitor, Manus McClafferty, to act for the client in the appeal brought by the client's existing solicitor against the costs order made against her. It was in the interests of solicitors and the public that the issues be decided.
Mr Justice Joseph Finnegan granted the society's application to be joined in the appeal as an amicus curiae (which essentially means as an assistant to the court on the legal issues raised). The society also undertook to pay costs incurred as a result of the society being joined.
The judge will also consider next week whether to have Mr McClafferty instruct counsel to make specific submissions in defence of Mr Honohan's order and to argue that the order was in the public interest of minimising legal costs for litigants. Mr McClafferty attended yesterday's hearing. He said he was not on record for the client in question and voiced concerns that it appeared no party in the appeal may actually be making submissions in defence of the order.
The judge said he would deal with that matter next Wednesday when he would consider whether Mr McClafferty, through counsel, should have the role of making such submissions.
On February 2nd, Mr Honohan ruled he had jurisdiction to make "wasted" costs orders against solicitors at each stage of legal proceedings. On February 3rd, a complaint was made that he had delivered the judgment of the previous day without notice to lawyers involved in the case.
