The Gazette 1972

MINISTER S REPLY The Minister for Justice, Mr. O'Malley, has refuted some allegations against him and his Department by the General Council of the Bar in Ireland earlier this week. Mr. O'Malley said it was regrettable that a body like the Bar Council should issue its statement without checking its facts. The Min : ster in his statement dealt with each allega- tion and gave an explanation and comment. The first he refers to is that he said it was "a bit of a racket" where more than one counsel appeared for a client in the High Court. "What I said was that the public tend to look on it that way and they do so because of the practice of employing three Counsels obtains even in relatively unimportant cases where legal costs sometimes exceed the amount in d'spute," Mr. O'Malley says. He adds that this comment could be verified by reference to the Official Debates of Dail Eireann for December 1st. "In denying the statement attributed to me by the Bar Council, I do not wish to be taken as denying the fact that I believe that the present practice is difficult to defend." Of the Bar Council's allegation that he intended to give direct ons to the Taxing Masters not to allow fees to more than one Counsel except in serious cases and that this indicated either ignorance on the Minister's part or an intention to violate the Constitution; Mr. O'Malley said he never made that statement. No Controls The context of what he (the Minister) said was expressed by an Opposition deputy, himself a solicitor, that the High Court practice of having two Senior Counsel and one Junior on each side might creep into the Circuit Court. "I agreed with him that that would be highly undesirable but said I had no direct control. I went on to say that I supposed that I could have indirect control by saying that the costs of more than one Counsel should be allowed only in very unusual cases. "Contrary to what the Bar Council said this had nothing at all to do with giving directions to Taxing Masters, of whom there were none in the Circuit Court, or for that matter anybody else. The Circuit Court Rules did not in any circumstances allow costs of two Senior Counsel. If there were to be any question of allowing taxed costs for two Senior Counsel in the Circuit Court, these statutory rules of Court would have to be changed," Mr. O'Malley went on. "As my formal consent is necessary by law for any such change I have the power and, as I conceive it, the clear duty in the public interest, to say 'no' if any proposal to change the rules in the manner feared by the Opposition in the Dail were made—not, of course, that I have any reason whatsoever to think that any such proposal would be made." It is interesting, Mr. O'Malley continued, to note that the Bar Council did not challenge the statement

by a Fine Gael Deputy, or the much stronger statement made by a colleague of his, who went so far as to canvass the idea that the solution to the problem of high legal costs might have to be found in a system of State employed advocates. Mr. O'Malley described as "grossly misleading" re- ferences to the fact that accommodation previously occupied by the Taxing Master in the Four Courts, was recently taken over to make available an additional courtroom urgently required for the Circuit Court. "Public allegations had been made that what was done arbitrarily and without prior consultation with the officials concerned. The statement of the Bar Council is in terms which are calculated to give support and credence to these allegations. Since I shall be dealing further with this matter in reply to a Parliamentary question I do not propose to say more at this point than that the allegations of arbitrary action taken without notice are without foundation." On the Bar Council's reference to the fact that solicitors are to be given right of audience in the High Court and the Supreme Court, Mr. O'Malley said the Bar Council seemed to suggest that it was because members of the Bar had, up to now, the exclusive right to appear in these Courts that they felt it their duty to act for poor litigants in certain cases without any assurances that they would be paid. Mr. O'Malley pointed out that the Bar Council did not specifically criticise the new provision. It confined itself to a scarcely veiled threat that, if their right of exclusive audience went, Counsel could no longer feel there was a need for them or a duty for them to assist a poor litigant. Mr. O'Malley added that the official representations made him by the Bar Council on the Courts Bill, were in marked contrast to the approach indicated in their statement. "No concern was expressed for poor litigants. The case made practically in so many words, was that the public coulc have no assurance that mem- bers of the solicitors' profession were fit to be allowed to appear in the High Court or Supreme Court. "If the Council feels that that interpretation of what they said does them any injustxe, I am perfectly willing to release their letter for publication." He concluded that he had every confidence in the Bar in this country. He believed that Deputy T. F. O'Higgins, F.G., was closer to their thinking than were the people responsible for the letter from the Bar Council. "Likewise, I believe that the tone and content of the attack now made on me by the Council does not reflect the views of the members of the Bar for whose professional and personal competence, integrity, and sense of fair play I, from my personal experience, have nothing but the highest respect and gratitude." He hoped that the Council would leave aside what appeared to be a policy of resistance to any change.

(Irish Independent , 10th December 1971)

28