The Gazette 1993

GAZETTE

I M N A GEM N JUNE 1993

The Future of the Sole Practitioner DSBA Meeting Critical of Law Society

Angry criticism was vented at the Law Society at a recent DSBA meeting, when speakers from the floor claimed that the Society should adopt a stronger trade union role and that it was not providing enough support to, or looking after the interest of, sole practitioners who were the majority of the profession. The meeting was also higly critical of the Society's PR policies and speakers claimed that not enough was being done to counteract a poor public image of the profession and to defend the profession from unjustified criticism by the media and politicians. Associations around the country, met to consider the future of the sole practitioner. The meeting heard the views of a panel of speakers on the issue. Introducing the panel, DSBA President, Tony Sheil, said there was a perception amongst sole practitioners and small firms that their days were numbered, and that a sole practitioner in difficulty had nowhere to turn since the role of the Law Society was increasingly becoming a policing one. Michael O'Mahony, Senior Vice President of the Society, stated that of course there was most certainly a future for the sole practitioner who comprised 57% of the profession. There had been considerable and justifiable concern about the impression conveyed by a recent article in the Sunday Business Post that something awful could happen to a client who went to a sole practitioner. Ninety-nine percent of the solicitors profession was honest, and to argue that, because a large proportion of the 1% who were not were sole practitioners, merited their being singled out in some way, was a false syllogism. While there had been a great deal of emotion The meeting, attended by approximately 250 solicitors, including guests from Bar

A cross section of the attendance at the DSBA Meeting

and ire generated by the newspaper article, the underlying issue had to do with Secion 29 (2) of the Solicitors Bill. This was an enabling power which would have permitted the Society to prescribe different rates of contribution to the Compensation Fund. The position of the Law Society on this provision had been unequivocal; in January, 1992, the Council of the Society had decided to oppose it and the Society had asked the Government to remove it. Michael O'Mahony said, in his view, it was not worth risking the unity of the profession over any provision in the Bill. Council Member and immediate Past President of the DSBA, David Walley, suggested that the time had come to debate issues such as the introduction of compulsory training courses for sole practitioners in the commercial principles of running a practice and that practising certificates might be withheld from a practitioner if the training were not completed. In addition, bookkeepers in legal practices might be required to pursue a diploma course and only Training for Sole Practitioners

persons so qualified could act as bookkeeper to a sole-practitioner.

"Solicitors who are in difficulty are usually not operating on a commercially viable basis", said David Walley, "and if so, should they be allowed to be custodians of the public's money, and should they

be able to benefit from the indemnity provided by their colleagues?" he asked.

The Chairman of the Society's Compensation Fund Review Committee, Laurence Shields, said his committee was making substantial progress on examining the future policy of the Fund in all its aspects and they were hopeful that it would be possible to obtain a cap on any claim that could be made on the Fund. Council Member, Barry St. f . Galvin, expressed concern that the Law Society had lost touch with the profession. "We are an honourable profession," he declared "we are independent, we stand for our clients without fear or favour. These are 127 Society Out of Touch