clients case malicious-sanction ?

SILVAMAN

Is there any way that a solicitor who has been notified that their client's case is either frivolous or the facts as presented by their client are untrue, can be sanctioned for proceeding with the case?

MarkAnthony

SILVAMAN wrote: »

Is there any way that a solicitor who has been notified that their client's case is either frivolous or the facts as presented by their client are untrue, can be sanctioned for proceeding with the case?

Where the solicitor knows the client is lying. Good luck showing that one!

Simple common sense would seem to indicate that placing the bar any higher would be contrary to public policy. Surely it's for a court to decide. There's always an application for costs?

SILVAMAN

Fair enough-thanks for the reply.

MarkAnthony

SILVAMAN wrote: »

Fair enough-thanks for the reply.

It was more a discussion stimulator to be honest

Pat Mustard

Unless there is some issue of professional misconduct, I would say that the only thing might be an order for wasted costs, which is kind of rare.

Order 99, Rule 7, Rules of the Superior Courts

7. If in any case it shall appear to the Court that costs have been improperly or without any reasonable cause incurred, or that by reason of any undue delay in proceeding under any judgement or order, or of any misconduct or default of the solicitor, any costs properly incurred have nevertheless proved fruitless to the person incurring the same, the Court may call on the solicitor of the person by whom such costs have been so incurred to show cause why such costs should not be disallowed as between the solicitor and his client and also (if the circumstances of the case shall require) why the solicitor should not repay to his client any costs which the client may have been ordered to pay any other person, and thereupon may make such order as the justice of the case may require. The Court may refer the matter to the Taxing Master for inquiry and report; and may also nominate a solicitor to attend and take part in such inquiry. Notice of the order shall be given to the client in such manner as the Court may direct. Any costs of the solicitor nominated as aforesaid shall be paid by such parties, or out of such funds as the Court may direct; or, if not otherwise paid, may be paid out of such moneys (if any) as may be provided by the Oireachtas.

Idris and Idris v Legal Aid Board and Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform [2009] IEHC 596

The High Court made orders awarding costs to the Legal Aid Board and to the Minister against the Applicants. The Court held that Order 99, Rule 7 is designed to allow a client against whom a costs order has been made as a result of his solicitor’s misconduct or gross negligence to recover those costs from his solicitor. An order for wasted costs can be made directly against the solicitor. Practitioners have a duty not only to their clients but also Court to ensure that proceedings are not abused by vexatious, wasteful or speculative litigation. However, the Court noted that its jurisdiction to make wasted costs orders under Order 99, Rule 7 was one to be exercised sparingly in recognition of the important role that experienced and competent practitioners play in the administration of justice in the asylum process. The Court concluded that while misjudgements had been made by the Applicants’ solicitors in continuing proceedings against the Legal Aid Board, these did not amount to serious misconduct or gross negligence on their part. For that reason, the Court refused to make a wasted costs order under Order 99, Rule 7 against the solicitors.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/judge-refuses-wasted-costs-order-for-failed-refugee-challenge-26864380.html


http://www.kennedys-law.com/casereview/wastedcostsorder/