A £2 million bill for the legal representation of former Tanaiste Mr Dick Spring TD and former MEP Mr Barry Desmond at the beef tribunal was opposed by the State at a hearing before the Taxing Master of the High Court yesterday. Master James Flynn said he would give his decision on the application later.
He was told the total sum of £1.979 million related mainly to costs of solicitors' and barristers' instructions, legal briefs and refresher fees. A sum of £785,000 is being claimed in fees for the solicitors who acted for the former Minister for Foreign Affairs. Spring Murray & Co is headed by Mr Spring's brother, Mr Donal Spring, who gave evidence yesterday that the senior counsel for his brother and for Mr Desmond submitted a brief fee of £152,500 and a refresher fee of £2,100 for each day he attended the tribunal hearing. The senior counsel in question was Mr Brian McCracken, who is now a judge of the High Court.
Mr Gerard Durcan, who was the junior counsel for Mr Spring and Mr Desmond at the tribunal, submitted a brief fee of £101,500 and a refresher fee of £1,400.
The tribunal, chaired by Mr Justice Liam Hamilton, lasted 226 days. Mr Spring and Mr Desmond were represented for 190 days, although Mr Spring's evidence took just one day. The cost to the taxpayer of lawyers' fees is expected to be in excess of £30 million. The legal costs in respect of various other parties who participated in the tribunal have been dealt with already. Former Taoiseach Mr Albert Reynolds is the only tribunal witness to pay his own costs.
In court yesterday, legal costs accountant Mr Declan O'Neill, for Spring Murray & Co, said they were represented for 190 days.
Mr Donal Spring said his brother made it clear the firm should not take on the case unless it was going to attend at the tribunal in his interests, as he could not attend. He reported each day to the Tanaiste at Leinster House, advised counsel and synopsised the tribunal happenings. He did not keep daily notes. He had to read all the documentation and was very much "on call" by his clients.
The tribunal took over his life, day and night for its duration. Counsel had not been paid other than a small amount at the outset. His brother was not in a position to pay more.
Mr Peter Fitzpatrick, the legal costs accountant for the State, asked if a brief fee was for reading a document and if that came on the first day of a hearing. Mr Spring said it would have been perfect if they could have got all the documents before the tribunal began, but that was not the position.
Mr O'Neill said of the £785,000 sought as solicitors' fees, £325,000 was in respect of preparatory work, work skills and specialised knowledge. A further £100,000 related to providing submissions, the issue of privilege, time spent outside office hours and exclusive engagement.
Mr Fitzpatrick said he dealt with 14 bills of costs in relation to the tribunal. Mr Spring and Mr Desmond's solicitors should be in the same category as those solicitors who represented Mr John Bruton, Mr Sean Barrett and others at the tribunal. They sought an instruction fee of £105,000 and were allowed £95,000 together with £1,000 a day for 33 days at the tribunal. They also got £62,000 for preparatory work.
Solicitors for Mr Tomas Mac Giolla and Mr Pat Rabbitte had been allowed £1,500 a day attendance at the tribunal by the Taxing Master on days they attended with counsel and £2,500 on days they were on their own. Mr McCracken attended the tribunal for 85 days, Mr Durcan for 154 days and another junior counsel, Mr Finbar O'Malley, who submitted no brief fee, sought £1,400 a day for 67 days.
The brief fee for Goodman International was £175,000 for senior counsel; £106,600 for the first junior and £81,000 for the second junior counsels. The daily fee of £3,000 sought by the senior counsel was reduced by the Taxing Master to £2,500; and both juniors' fees of £2,000 a day were reduced to £1,500.
Mr Fitzpatrick said there was no comparison between the amount of responsibility which rested on Goodman International and on Mr Spring and Mr Desmond. The ramifications for Goodman International had the allegations proved positive were serious. The State objected to the fees sought on behalf of lawyers acting for Goodman International. He said no allegations of wrongdoing were ever made against either Mr Spring or Mr Desmond.