No appetite for a rise in legal fees when they have put courts out of reach for most of us
THIS week we got a rare and interesting, if not downright illuminating, insight into the breakdown of the megabucks required to take a case to the High Court.
A Donegal-based company called Connective Energy Holdings is suing the Energia Group – the big electricity crowd some of us pay exorbitant amounts of money to so we can turn our lights on.
The northwest company claims it is owed €3million from a share purchase agreement it signed back in 2018.
From the looks of it, the firm will be back in court next June.
But in the meantime, this ‘breach of contract’ action has provided us with two reports from legal-costs experts, estimating who will get paid what to work on this undoubtedly deeply complex, agonisingly convoluted, not to mention intensely time-consuming, case. Bloody hell. They calculate the defence, for Energia, will cost in the region of almost €500,000, up to an eyewatering €937,186, depending on how long the trial runs – from eight up to 16 days.
The company had better hope its legal team speaks fast.
The solicitor’s fee alone is estimated at between €167,500 and €385,000, which excludes VAT at 23%, while the senior counsel, the barrister, will probably get a pay-cheque ranging from €121,000 to €174,000, which also excludes VAT.
It’s not often, if ever, that such a price list is exposed to public scrutiny, but this was divulged in open court this week, so here we are having a nosey at what people get paid to make sure the law is followed in times of contention.
The judge noted that it’s estimated whoever loses this particular case could face an overall bill of between €1million and €2million. Ouch – that’s just heaping a whole lot of insult on an already gaping injury.
But of course, these are companies, fighting it out over million-euro contracts, which may or may not have been breached. Not much to interest us noncompany owning types.
HOWEVER, it was also interesting to read that the judge in this case has already criticised High Court costs, a place where State legislation forces the losing side to pay their opponent’s legal fees, which he said are apparently based on hourly rates far higher than the money that even the Taoiseach is paid.
Judge Michael Twomey said this was ‘a matter of potential significance for everyone in the State’ because, at any time, any individual could be sued, or may have to sue, in the High Court.
He also said these rates seem to be ‘very different’ to the fees paid by the State to its own lawyers who are acting in criminal cases in the Central Criminal Court.
Which was possibly, if not probably, a nod to the barristers’ strike last October. So it’s not really about the rest of us plebs.
Criminal law barristers held a one-day withdrawal of services across the country, in protest over the fees they’re paid by the Director of Public Prosecutions and under the Legal Aid scheme.
Back in 2008, during the recession, cuts were introduced and since then the solicitors have demanded fee restoration.
As part of their push for more money, they outlined how barristers in District Court criminal cases are paid €25.20 for a remand hearing, €50.40 for a plea in mitigation at a sentencing hearing, and €67.50 for a full trial hearing. It’s a long way from the High Court price list.
In the Budget, they got a 10% increase, which should kick in around now, and was welcomed by the Bar Council as an ‘important and necessary first step.’
However, they continue to warn of an ongoing shortage of barristers who are working in free legal aid.
But if they find themselves striking in search of further hikes again, it’s unlikely to elicit the same sympathy other State employees get.
For instance, there’ll be few who begrudge the 10.25% pay rise over the next 30 months that was finally guaranteed yesterday for teachers, healthcare staff and guards.
The civil servants, however, might be another matter.
Lawyers of all types and creeds are perceived to earn wads of cash for the most mundane of chores.
After deciding to split up about 35 years ago, my parents couldn’t even contemplate getting a legal separation, and even when divorce was introduced in 1996, it was still too costly.
This led to the rather absurd situation that when my dad died, all the legalities had to be done through Mum, his wife from almost four decades ago.
Luckily it was a non-acrimonious procedure.
But I know people who’ve watched their life savings being wiped out in order to pay legal fees that facilitated a bitter break-up or a courtroom battle over what they believe is best for their children.
YOU’RE pouring all that precious cash into the pockets of a solicitor or barrister, when it could help pay for your kids’ education or go towards rent or a mortgage for the parent who’s had to move out of the family home.
And it’s obnoxious to tell couples in the throes of a long-term relationship breakdown to trust in the mediation process. They are often at this point for good reasons, one being that they can no longer stand sitting in the same room together.
Often, you need the strict structure of a courtroom to lay down exactly what’s what. But among the very people who need assistance from the legal system, many have no chance of accessing it, so they rub along, in a perpetual state of flux.
In fairness, there’s a two-tier, if not three-tier, earning system for the legal profession. Only an elite few get the kind of moolah the High Court can deliver, most are on a respectable if unremarkable wage, while others struggle to make a living at all.
Something is seriously out of kilter, which the law profession needs to address.
Because given the costs the rest of us encounter when engaging in any kind of legal process, asking for understanding or support over wages is an unconvincing petition.