High Court rejects €520 legal aid flat fee as grossly unfair

The Regulations were made by Jim O'Callaghan, with the consent of the Minister for Public Expenditure, Infrastructure, Public Service Reform and Digitalisation, and came into operation on 1 July 2026. Notice of the making of the instrument was published in Iris Oifigiúil on 3 July 2026.

Regulation 3 provides that the fee payable to a solicitor assigned under a legal aid certificate to a person charged before the District Court, for all charges listed at the commencement of the proceedings, or to a Circuit Court appellant, is €520, payable on the issuing of the final order.

Regulation 9 changed the certification rule so that where the cases covered by a certificate are listed together at the commencement of proceedings, only one legal aid certificate is granted for those cases. It amends Regulation 7 of the Criminal Justice (Legal Aid) Regulations 1965.

There is a limited exception connected with warrants and additional charges. Where a person fails to appear and a second certificate is granted for execution of the warrant, the fee for that second certificate is €80, unless the solicitor is then also assigned for further charges listed when the person is brought back before the court.

The instrument also sets fees of €117.42 for a solicitor and for counsel for each contested bail application to the Circuit Court or Special Criminal Court, and €124.72 for each essential prison visit. It amends the 2024 Regulations to end a date reference on 30 June 2026 and revokes specified parts of those Regulations.

Ms Justice Mary Rose Gearty said the new regulations “create a demonstrably illogical process” and fail to establish a rational system.

She found that, because there is no discretion to account for multiple, highly complex cases or for situations where the alleged conduct is the same across multiple certificates, the regulation is “ultra vires”, meaning beyond the legal power conferred by the parent Act.

The judgment said making certification turn on the date cases are listed removes flexibility and creates the potential for abuse. The court said that criterion had no apparent logical basis and had not been justified by the Minister.

The judge said the provisions are “grossly unfair”. She said the requirement that qualifying cases be listed at the commencement of proceedings produces certification based on timing of listing alone, which fails to create a rational system and fails to meet the stated aim of avoiding multiple certificates for one accused person.

She also pointed to an anomaly in payment outcomes. One provision allows a solicitor to be paid twice in respect of charges against a single accused person arising from the same events, while an accused charged with numerous different offences on the same court date generates only one certificate and one payment.

On the constitutional argument, the court found Mr Quinn was not entitled to earn a livelihood by guaranteed access to a particular type of work, so his constitutional right in that regard was not directly in issue. It accepted, however, that he relied on examples that were not speculative and had established that the regulations could be anticipated to have an adverse impact on him.

The people directly covered by the scheme are persons charged before the District Court who are assigned a solicitor under a legal aid certificate, and appellants in the Circuit Court, along with accused people appearing on warrants or facing multiple listed charges.

Under the old system, solicitors received €240 for a first appearance with a legal aid client and €60 for each subsequent appearance. The €520 flat fee was presented as designed to cover the equivalent of five appearances, the average number under the previous scheme, and as including an 8% increase in fees for all criminal lawyers.

Criminal defence solicitors rejected the flat-fee model and withdrew services. That withdrawal affects District Court lists and legally aided defendants seeking representation while the payment dispute continues.

The Law Society of Ireland said the criminal justice system needs an effective and sustainable scheme that protects access to justice and commands confidence. It said: “It is in the interests of everyone who relies on the criminal justice system that we secure an effective and sustainable criminal legal aid scheme that protects access to justice and commands the confidence of those who use it.”

Justice minister Jim O'Callaghan has said he is now “considering” the judgment of the High Court.

In a statement, he said: “The court has requested further submissions from the parties in advance of any final orders being made,” and added that aspects of the new scheme had already been adjusted or were the focus of ongoing discussions with the Law Society of Ireland. That is his account of developments since the regulations commenced, rather than a finding by the court.

The Law Society of Ireland said it welcomed the High Court judgment. It said the judgment was an important affirmation that changes to a scheme on which victims and defendants rely must be made lawfully and with proper process.

The Society added that the judgment underlines the importance of continuing engagement between the Law Society and the Department of Justice. It said it was committed to working constructively with the Minister and his officials.

Expected next step: This may change.

The confirmed next step is further submissions to the High Court before final orders are made. Until those orders are made, the precise legal effect of the ruling, including whether and when the instrument is quashed and what transitional arrangements apply, remains for the court to determine.

The Minister has pointed to adjustments already made and to ongoing discussion with the Law Society as the engagement continues alongside the court process.

The policy aims stated in the case were to provide a rational payment system and to avoid the granting of multiple certificates to one accused person. The court found the 2026 Regulations failed to meet that stated aim and failed to create a rational system under the legislation.