The Government has sought legal advice from the Attorney General over concerns that previous work by the incoming chairman of the State's child abuse inquiry could leave it open to further legal challenges.
The Government announced last month that senior counsel, Mr Seán Ryan, was to replace Ms Justice Mary Laffoy as chairman of the child abuse commission, following her decision to resign over Government proposals for an ongoing review of the inquiry's work.
Last Friday the High Court rejected a legal challenge to the commission by the Christian Brothers against naming living and deceased persons whom it considers responsible for abuse.
However, victims groups have warned the Government that the appointment of Mr Ryan to head the commission could leave it open to challenges by people being investigated by the inquiry.
Mr Ryan was chairman of the Compensation Advisory Committee (CAC) which laid down guidelines for levels of abuse compensation to be paid to former residents of children's homes. These levels were adopted by the Residential Institutions Redress Board.
Ms Christine Buckley of the Aislinn Centre wrote to the Government earlier this month, outlining fears this work could lead to legal challenges.
Yesterday a Government spokeswoman told The Irish Times: "The matter is with the Attorney General and the Government is awaiting a response."
Ms Buckley has said she is also concerned that the appointment was "rushed and hurried through" by the Government.
"I felt it would have been better had an independent person been given this task . . . I have some questions about it, not about the man, but about the conflict of interest."
As part of the CAC's work , Mr Ryan took submissions and met with representatives of survivors, before making a set of recommendations on award levels.
In its January 2002 report to the Minister for Education, the committee "emphasise that in presenting our recommendations we are making no appraisal of the legitimacy of any particular allegations.
"The evidence presented to the committee has been accepted in good faith and with due respect to the persons who gave it."
However, the committee "has been obliged at all times to remember that it has not heard all the relevant evidence", according to the report.