138 / 262
discussion between the University authorities and the
Society.
It has always seemed to me that our syllabus in the
Society's Law School omits one important subject—
namely Business Methods and Office Organisation. A
Solicitor's office can no longer be run on Dickensian
principles of filing, accounting and recording and dis-
patch of business. We must be as up-to-date as other
professions. Time-costing and other modern methods
must be adopted in large and small offices. The neces-
sary knowledge and discipline must be imparted at
student level so that practitioners of the future,
whether starting their own offices or entering established
firms, will have a complete grasp of the business organi-
sation which alone can enable the practitioner to
operate profitably and provide a good service for clients.
Future Organisation of the Profession
How will the profession be organised in the future?
This brings up the twin topics of amalgamation of
offices and the often-canvassed question of fusion of
the two branches. We are already witnessing the grow-
ing tendency of amalgamations of offices in the cities
particularly Dublin, Cork and Limerick. It has the
advantage of division of labour, and specialisation
which enables the partners to obtain expertise in parti-
cular branches of practice and thereby increase
efficiency and speed of work. The busy conveyancer is
no longer obliged to interrupt his work to respond to
the urgent call of a client to defend him on a running-
down charge in a local District Court. In the beginning
specialisation can be divided broadly into contentions
and non-contentious business, but as it proceeds and
the size of the office justifies it, we may expect further
specialisation in Conveyancing, Probate, Company
Law, Tax Law, Planning Law and contentious work
with an ever-increasing facility and expertise in these
departments. At first, these developments will be con-
fined to the cities and some of the larger towns. There
will still be a demand for the single general practitioner
to serve the rural population. But even here there is
room for a degree of rationalisation. Assuming an equal
level of competence and compatibility, a partnership
of two would in my opinion operate more successfully
than a single practioner. Problems of sickness and
annual leave can be more easily dealt with, avoiding
interruption of work. A town with nine individual
practitioners would, in my opinon, receive a better
service from 3 or 4 offices organised in groups of three.
The Problem of Fusion
What of fusion of the two branches? I think the argu-
ments about this problem commenced about a century
ago. We know that the last Minister for Justice fre-
quently spoke in favour of fusion and his statements
may have reflected the thinking of his Departmeht. A
step towards it was taken by Section 17 of the Courts
Act 1971 which gave a right of audience to solicitors
in all Courts. There are arguments pro and con. The
protagonists say that it is more efficient to have one
lawyer operating a case from beginning to end with
the aid of assistants if required. There might be an
economy of time and work in the abandonment of the
present briefing system because the solicitor, advocate,
attorney, call him what you will, would carry the
facts in his head, or record them on files for use in
Court. There might be a saving in advocates' fees and
a better distribution of work amongst advocates. At
present 80 per cent of litigation is probably handled
by 10 to 20 per cent of the Bar. Cases might be settled
more easily. It is also said that the system works on
the Continent, in the U.S.A. and in parts of Australia.
As against this, it is said that no man can be a Jack-of-
all-Trades, and that even under a fused system there
would still be need for the office practitioner gathering
and assembling the facts, and the lawyer or advocate
doing legal research and presenting the facts and
legal arguments in Court. How would the interests of
the poorer client be affected? The best legal talent
would undoubtedly gravitate to the firms serving
wealthy corporations and indeed the State, while the
poor man might have to make do as best he could.
It is pointed out that under the present system the poor
litigant with a reasonable case may get the services of
the best Counsel. The country solicitor might run into
difficulties under a fused system. He could operate
successfully only if every office, or at least every town,
had a fully stocked law library. The Bar Library at
present serves this need for counsel throughout the
country on the various Circuits. Few solicitors in
general practice can afford to spend time on legal
research without letting their office work get into
arrear. They tend more and more to become men of
business and administrators. To my mind, one of the
strongest arguments against fusion is the need for a fully
independent Bar with freedom from State control.
Under the present system, the Attorney-General who is
responsible for all State prosecutions is answerable to
opinion of the Bar Council and his colleagues in the
Law Library of which he is a member. Any deviation
from the strict rules of fairness in the conduct of
prosecutions would expose him to the powerful in-
fluences of his colleagues at the Bar. The ultimate
result of a fused system would in my opinion be the
appointment of paid full-time public prosecutors
answerable not to the profession but to their employer,
the State. There would be no powerful check on the
conduct of prosecutions by part-time barristers from the
Bar Library paid by ordinary fees on briefs. This, I
think, could ultimately lead to an undesirable increase
in the power of the State to direct advocates as to how
prosecutions should be conducted, a diminution of the
independence of advocates and of the rights of the
accused.
We stand today at a watershed for the profession,
Lawyers are traditionally conservative, and slow or
indifferent to change. The solicitor of 1870, engaged in
the business of'chancery suits, family settlements in tail,
land law litigation, and the complexity of pleadings
in litigation, did not foresee the advent of the internal
combustion engine. Conveyancing was then an in-
volved and lengthy operation which was simplified
by the system of Registration of Title. Who knows the
future of personal injury litigation? Will it continue to
occupy the Courts or will it become part of administra-
tive machinery as in the case of the former Workmen's
Compensation Code? Will Conveyancing continue to
make its present major contribution to Solicitors' earn-
ings, or will it be overtaken by a system of computerised
titles? One of the greatest mistakes of the human mind
is to assume that because certain things have seemed
permanent in the past they will continue so in the
future. Just as the internal combustion engine with its
attendant litigation replaced the horse-drawn carriage,
and registered titles replaced complex conveyancing
under the old system, so conditions may and indeed
must change with time. The profession must be pre-
pared for such changes.
137