The Gazette 1993

GAZETTE

J A N / F EB 1993

1 T Defending The Right to Pursue Valid Claims for Personal Injuries W 1 N V E P 0

of solicitors which incites or encourages people to engage in such activity. It is in nobody's interest that personal injury actions should be brought where they are not justified. This simply adds to the burden the community as a whole has to bear in the form of increased insurance costs. That said, however, it is completely unacceptable that the finger should be pointed at solicitors in a manner which implies in a sweeping way that they are parties to the bringing of fraudulent claims. While the Law Society has never contended that no solicitor has ever acted improperly in this respect, it is wrong that the profession as a whole should be indicted and the impression created that there is wholesale collusion by solicitors, unless there is evidence to substantiate this. Concern has also been expressed about the type of advertising engaged in by some solicitors which, it is alleged, encourages a compensation mentality and triggers the bringing of claims that might not otherwise be brought. Some examples of this type of advertising have been brought to the attention of the Law Society. This is a difficult issue for the profession to come to grips with because of the different views that exist. During the 80s, as many people will recall, it became apparent that the Law Society's restrictions on advertising would be removed by Government if the Society itself did not liberalise its own rules. When the issue of permitting solicitors to advertise was debated in general meeting in 1988, the profession was divided on the issue. The position now is that advertising is allowed within the limits of the Society's advertising regulations. These regulations are, however, difficult to enforce mainly because the question of what is or is I not 'in bad taste' or 'brings the

profession into disrepute' is highly subjective. Advertising which amounts to touting and that of the 'ambulance-chasing' variety is perhaps, easier to identify. Such advertising is, of course, clearly unacceptable. However, advertising by a solicitor which does no more than draw the attention of the public to the fact that they might have a claim in particular circumstances and where the solicitor offers to take cases on a 'no foal no fee' basis is not uncommon. Is this to be stopped by the Society? And if so, upon what basis? The public have a right to bring claims where injuries have been caused by the alleged negligence of others and they have a right to be fairly and adequately compensated if negligence is proved. If advertising enhances people's awareness of their rights in this respect, can it be said, on any reasonable interpretation, to be encouraging the bringing of claims? In any event, even if it does so encourage, there is nothing inherently wrong with that if the claims are proved to be valid and justifiable on their merits. As the Fair Trade Commission's Report (1990) recognised, advertising can have an important role to play in disseminating information to the public about their rights and enhancing public awareness about the availability of legal services and it is, presumably, for this reason - as well as for others - that the Solicitors Bill proposes to prevent the Law Society in the future from outlawing advertising ever again. In summary, the Law Society's position on the current controversy is that (1) it does not and will not condone the bringing of spurious claims and will deal severely with any solicitor who can be shown to have knowingly lent himself to such activity, and (2) it will continue to

Concern has been expressed in recent times by a number of public bodies - Dublin Corporation and Coras Iompair Eireann in particular - about the high level of claims for personal injuries being brought against them and about the role being played by solicitors in the bringing of such claims. Dublin Corporation, in particular, has been most vociferous in this regard and statements attributed to the Corporation's Public Relations Officer have béen critical of solicitors for allegedly inciting the bringing of spurious claims. The Corporation has also been critical of particular forms of advertising engaged in by some solicitors. The Law Society has been forced to respond publicly to the Corporation's unfortunate style of megaphone diplomacy in order to defend the good name of the profession. The Society has made it clear that it is willing to investigate thoroughly any complaints made about identifiable solicitors in this regard, where evidence is available. We are happy to say that a meeting took place recently between Corporation and Law Society representatives to discuss this matter. First of all, the Law Society, and the solicitors' profession as a whole, believe that those against whom claims are brought are perfectly entitled to express concern - and to do so publicly if they so wish — about the level of claims for personal injuries. Moreover, they are also perfectly entitled to do everything in their power to defend such claims, especially where they believe that the claims are not justifiable. The bringing of unnecessary and, especially, spurious claims or the exaggeration of injuries in genuine cases, is legally and morally indefensible and amounts to nothing short of fraud. The Law Society will not condone any action on the part

(Continued on page 8)