THE chairman of the Bar Council, Mr James Nugent, yesterday said he was surprised that one of the country's largest firms of solicitors, A.& L. Goodbody, could not provide details of the hourly rate it charged Mr Larry Goodman for legal services during the beef tribunal.
"It surprises me that professionals would have no regard for the number of hours that might be involved in what they were doing," he said.
In July last year, the High Court Taxing Master, the person who adjudicates legal fees, agreed that the State would pay £3.2 million in fees due to A.& L. Goodbody. Some £2.9 million was based on a notional hourly rate applied by the Taxing Master based on the number of hours A.& L. Goodbody said were expended working for Mr Goodman.
However, lawyers for the Government appealed the decision and demanded a breakdown of how A.& L. Goodbody arrived at £3.2 million. The firm claimed "absolute privilege", saying the Government had no right to know details of the bill.
When the Taxing Master requested the details nonetheless, it emerged that A & L Goodbody did not have an hourly rate and could not specify what it charged Mr Goodman's company for legal services.
Asked to respond yesterday to Mr Nugent's comments, a spokeswoman for A & L Goodbody initially declined, saying it would be "inappropriate".
Later, however, Ms Caroline Preston, a senior partner with the firm, responded and repeated the firm's assertion to the Taxing Master that the public had no right to know the details of the bill, even though the public was being asked to foot it.
"It is no business of the taxpayer. It is my business and Mr Goodman's business, not your business," she said. "The public will pay the fee assessed by the Taxing Master, which is the right, We are entitled to that fee. Anything paid on account will be paid back to our client."
Ms Preston emphasised that the fees were "on account" and not based on an hourly rate. A fee was fixed between the company and Mr Goodman at the beginning of the tribunal, but the final bill was ultimately in the hands of the Taxing Master.
An hourly rate did not apply to large litigation costs such as these, although a sum of £2,977,975 had been allowed by the Taxing Master on an hourly rate basis.
Mr Ken Murphy, the director-general of the Law Society, the solicitors' representative body, said he could make no comment on the matter.
Commenting on the costs of both senior and junior counsel which contributed heavily to Mr Goodman's overall bill for legal and other costs of more than £7.6 million, Mr Nugent said: "If a giant of industry wants to hire me exclusively for two years then I am going to charge a very hefty fee. But it is when that is passed on to the taxpayer, that is the real problem.
"There is, perhaps, a case to be made that no parity to a tribunal should be able to recover greater costs than those paid to the tribunal teams. Obviously, if a large commercial unit wishes to get the best barrister in the country to represent it and that costs more, they should pay the difference.
On the massive costs to the taxpayer resulting from the beef tribunal, Mr Nugent spoke of the serious effect on people's perception of the legal profession" and the "enormous loss of confidence" it caused.
"I think there is a gap in the legislation at the moment. You can appoint someone to look into a particular problem, although that person has no powers to obtain documents or compel witnesses, or you can have a full blown inquiry," said Mr Nugent.