The Gazette 1993

MARCH 1993

GAZETTE

1 W 1 No Solicitors Need Apply! 1 N V E P 0

very heart of the debate about the relative roles of solicitors and barristers in the legal system. Solicitors have, since 1971, full rights of audience in all the courts of this country and, so far as the practice of law is concerned, are on an entirely equal footing with their colleagues at the Bar. The fact that many of them choose not to exercise their rights of audience in other than the District Court has nothing to do with competence; it has, in fact, more to do with the daily pressures of running busy practices, their perception that both the Bar and the Bench do not really encourage it and a consequent unwillingness on their part to risk damaging the interests of their clients by running cases themselves. Those solicitors who do advocate in the higher courts - and there are some - do so with competence. Even they, however, would be ineligible to compete for posts in the office of the Attorney General, given the present policy of that office. It is time that the Government ended this form of discrimination against solicitors. The current programme for government contains commitments in relation to equality and this has been followed up by the appointment of a Minister with specific responsibility for equality. As it happens, that particular Minister is also a solicitor and it is to be hoped, therefore, that he will take an interest in this matter and include it in the many issues that will, presumably, be targeted for action during his period of office. •

We think that the solicitors' profession has the right to know why the legal adviser to the Government still apparently takes the view that experience as an advocate in the superior courts is essential in the formation of persons whose task it is appropriate legislative format. We can clearly see that experience in the courts is not an unreasonable requirement for positions of this kind as it would be necessary to have an understanding of how legislation is judicially applied and how changes in the law would be likely to operate in practice. However, it is, in our view, untenable to suggest that solicitors, experienced in litigation, would not be likely to have such experience. This is the second occasion in recent times that access to legal positions in Government service has been denied to solicitors. In 1991, a competition for posts as legal advisers in the office of the Attorney General was also confined to barristers and, at that time, the Society also made representations in the matter. So far as we are aware, the Attorney General's office is now the only area in the State legal service where solicitors - who account for about 4/5th of the total number of lawyers in the State - are deemed ineligible to serve. In recent times, the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions has been opened up to solicitors and there are now a number of solicitors serving there as legal assistants. It will be recalled that the prosecution of offenders used to be handled by the Attorney General before the office of DPP was established. So far as we can ascertain, the recruitment of solicitors to the DPP's office has been entirely successful. The eligibility of solicitors for posts in the legal service of the State is an important matter that goes to the to translate instructions from Government departments into

It is now almost three years since the report of the Fair Trade Commission into restrictive practices in the legal profession was published and, while the results of implementation of the Commission's deliberations may not be obvious to everyone, many of the issues identified for action in the report have been addressed by the legal profession itself and also, of course, by the Government through the Competition Act and, more recently, the Solicitors (Amendment) Bill. There are, however, one or two items of unfinished business. Solicitors are still ineligible for appointment as judges in the Circuit Court or in the higher courts such appointment being open only to barristers. We have commented on this matter before in these pages. Suffice it to say now that, in response to action by the Law Society, we hope that the forthcoming Court and Court Officers Bill-will contain the necessary amending provision which will put that matter right. But the higher echelons of the judiciary are not the only remaining bastions where the writ of the Bar, and only the Bar, still runs. Recently, the Attorney General's office advertised publicly for positions as parliamentary draftsmen in that office. Applications were confined to barristers with at least four years practice at the Bar. The President of the Law Society immediately wrote to the Attorney General about this, expressing surprise and seeking an explanation as to why solicitors were excluded. It transpired, from the Attorney General's response, that the traditional view in that office is that experience as an advocate in court is deemed to be an essential requirement for a parliamentary draftsman. In fairness to the Attorney General, he did not expressly claim that advocacy experience was essential for these posts but that was the clear import of what he said.

NORTHERN IRELAND AGENT * Legal waik undertaken on an agency baaia * All communication! to clienta through instructing Solicitors * Consultant! in Dublin if required Contact: Seamus Connolly, Moran and Ryan, Solicitor*

Anan Haute, 35 Anan Quay, Tel:(Ql) 72S622 Fax: (01) 725404 Dublin 7.

Bank Building,

Hill Street,

Newry, Co. Down. TeL (080693) 65311 Fax: (080693) 62096

45