The relationship between Government Departments and the Chief State Solicitors Office (CSSO) in cases being taken by the State were strongly criticised in the internal CSSO report.
The study - carried out last year for the CSSO to help improve its work management system - claimed that cases were handled as if the CSSO and the Government Department "are not on the same side", with the client Department constantly defending its position.
"Client Departments handle cases very slowly, causing motions to be served, thereby increasing CSSO costs," the report stated. "Efficient handling of cases and an early decision on settlement would save money."
The report was especially critical of the Department of Defence in its dealing with Army deafness cases.
"Of all client Departments and offices, this Department was singled out as requiring special attention," said the report.
It stated that the Army deafness section in the CSSO had been consistently refused a request to deal directly with the Army pay section in Galway.
"The Department of Defence has set down a `blanket' policy for handling all claims for compensation and will not make any exception to this. The legal staff find this frustrating."
It stated that when the Department changed its policy regarding compensation claims, it neglected to inform the CSSO of this.
"Because there are so many Army deafness cases it is necessary for the CSSO to know both the long- and short-term policies of the Department and they need to know immediately of changes in either policy regarding the treatment of cases."
The report - carried out by the Department of Finance Centre for Management and Organisation Development and completed in February of last year - was also highly critical of what it described as a "breakdown in communications" between the gardai and the CSSO.
"The documentation which the CSSO requires from the gardai for the books of evidence is rarely received in a presentable format. Some Garda stations are very good at sending in documentation correctly, but others are not. This creates a lot of extra work for the staff at the CSSO, especially typing and photocopying."
The report revealed that in some cases it was left to a member of the CSSO clerical staff to look after Garda queries on cases. This happened when a garda rang the CSSO to ask a question about a case, which had not yet come up for trial.
"As none of the legal staff have been assigned to these cases it is usually left to one of the clerical staff to look after the queries. The clerical staff have no instructions on how to handle these queries."
It called for a meeting to be arranged between the gardai and the CSSO to agree procedures regarding any documentation they sent in. Guidelines on the correct content, format, time scale and number of copies required should be agreed.
According to the report, a small number of State solicitors provided a "very poor service".
The report revealed that some files had been shredded too soon, in some cases only two months after the case was closed, although the Law Society recommended retention for two years.
It stated a private company handled storage of archived files. Staff were extremely unhappy with the service being provided by this company because files were regularly lost. The report said that in some cases sensitive files were handed over to the archive and staff considered this to be undesirable.
The report recommended a review of the existing file and archiving system in the CSSO to include procedural changes backed up by computer systems.
It said that correct file handling procedures should be drawn up, including protocols for opening, closing, archiving and destruction of files.