A solicitor who was last month the subject of a unique direction by the Master of the High Court to pay to her client the costs of bringing a "pointless" application on the client's behalf, had done nothing wrong and was acting on the direction of senior counsel in bringing the application, the High Court has heard.
The President of the High Court, Mr Justice Joseph Finnegan, yesterday made directions in relation to the hearing of an appeal brought by the solicitor against the order made by Master Edmund Honohan.
The judge made directions for the exchange of legal documents and returned the matter for mention on April 24th. He said he believed the interests of all sides could properly be addressed by the parties already involved in the case, along with the Law Society in the role of amicus curiae (assisting the court).
On that basis, he found there was no need for representations to be made in favour of the master's order by solicitor Manus McClafferty or counsel for Mr McClafferty in the forthcoming appeal. Mr McClafferty had been appointed by the master to act for the plaintiff in relation to defending the costs order against the solicitor.
Earlier, the judge was told by counsel for the solicitor against whom the order was made that the client would never be liable for the costs of the disputed application, whatever the outcome of the appeal against that order. Gabriel Gavigan also said the solicitor had informed her client of that. Mr Gavigan said the solicitor's position was that she had done nothing wrong and she made the application on behalf of the client on the directions of senior counsel.
Also yesterday, counsel for Mr McClafferty said it was not just solicitors but also clients of solicitors who were affected by the master's order. This was a matter of great interest to clients and the legal profession and there was, he believed, a role for an independent party to represent the interests of clients.
Mr Justice Finnegan said the plaintiff's solicitor could present the appeal against the order and would be followed by submissions on behalf of the Law Society. The master's order would be defended by the defendant in the original case who had indicated yesterday they would take on that role.
