163 / 294
civil legal aid, and because we recognise the justice of
that demand, we must continue to press the State to
provide it.
Costs of loans on new houses
All too frequently, our Profession attracts adverse
criticism because of the costs involved in buying a new
house and securing a loan thereon—particularly when
young people are setting-up home for the first time. The
most recent article in one of our Sunday newspapers
suggested that those costs—so far as the newly-weds
are concerned—constitute for them the last-straw. To us
it is both just and reasonable that anybody buying a new
house and securing a loan for its purchase-price, should
not have to pay any other solicitor's costs but his own.
What people, however, do not realize is that as the law
stands at present, the builder as owner of the ground on
which the house is built is entitled to have his solicitor's
costs for furnishing title paid by the man who buys the
house. In addition, the lending body that grants the loan
is entitled to have its costs paid out by the same man.
The Law Society has • recommended that both these
impositions should be removed, that the Lessor or
Builder should pay his own solicitor for the cost of
furnishing title and that the lending body should pay its
own solicitor for the work involved in the mortgage.
Neither those who grant leases nor those who lend
money may be pleased with these recommendations of
ours, but until legislation is introduced giving effect to
these recommendations, the Society's hands are tied, and
the public and the press should appreciate this. We are
pleased to note that the Minister for Justice has inti-
mated his intention of introducing legislation making it
obligatory on Building Societies to bear their own
solicitors' costs. Our recommendations go still wider and
if we can persuade the Minister to adopt our suggestions,
the cause of all this adverse criticism should disappear.
Prices (Amendment) Bill
Despite all the pressure which we brought to bear
upon the Government in relation to the Prices (Amend-
ment) Act, it now seems certain that the Bill will go
through unaltered in so far as Executive control over
solicitors' remuneration is concerned. The fact that all
other professions will be similarly controlled is of little
consolation to us if we are right in our contention that
Executive control over our costs constitutes a significant
curtailment of the independence of our profession
resulting in a vital safeguard of the independence of
the ordinary citizen being curtailed with it. It is
assumed that the Minister for Industfy and Commerce
will exercise the right conferred on him under Sec. 6 (i)
of the Act to delegate his powers to the Minister for
Justice. In an interview which we had recently with the
Minister, he expressed the view that the present system
of legal remuneration favours the solicitor dealing with
substantial transactions in conveyancing and adminis-
tration matters or in High Court actions, leaving those
practising in the lowers Courts relatively underpaid. In
a profession such as ours there will always be the need
for cross-subsidisation until the State agrees to subsidise
what was always the unremunerative side of our work,
but that day, I fear, is still very far away. If however,
the fees of doctors, dentists, engineers, architects and
surveyors, auditors and accountants will be subjected
to similar investigation and control under this Act, it
will be interesting to see how the remuneration fixed for
us compares with that fixed for these other professions,
particularly when it is now generally conceded that the
average annual income of a solicitors falls far below
most, if not all, of these other professions.
The Central Costs Committee
The Advisory Body or Committee that will make its
recommendations under this Act on our remuneration
to the Minister will not, we are assured, be the existing
National Prices Advisory Committee, but a Central
Costs Committee to be specially appointed by him. In
previous discussions, we got the impression that the
Minister had in mind a Committee consisting of Mem-
bers of the Judiciary, the legal profession, one or two
chartered accountants and one or two responsible mem-
bers of the public, but at our most recent interview, he
appeared to think it reasonable that it should also
embrace a member of his own Department. For the
Minister to have the last word on the findings of this
Committee and at the same time to have a member of
his own Department sitting in on its deliberations seems
grossly unfair, and we had no hesitation in telling him
so as diplomatically as we could.
One further aspect of this Bill is still causing us
concern. As drafted, there is no provision for making
any application for an increase in our costs, once the
Minister fixes them, because no Statutory Body or Com-
mittee can now function without his consent. We pointed
out to the Minister that it would be most unjust if, on
being turned down by him for an increase in costs in
future years, we were to have no opportunity of having
the position examined even by his own Central Costs
Committee, but the Minister said that, as the Bill was
not his, the matter was one that might be taken up by
us wih the Minister for Industry and Commerce. As a
result, we now find ourselves seeking a further interview
and can only hope that we shall eventually succeed in
rectifying this very important matter.
Increase of 20% in costs
I am glad to have one small piece of good news for
you, viz., that the Minister has indicated his willingness
to grant us an increase of 20% on our Schedule 2 costs,
instead of the 42% we asked for, with a similar increase
in High Court, Circuit and District Courts costs, subject
to certain adjustments in the latter two, having regard
to the increased jurisdiction. These adjustments will be
carried out after agreement on figures has been reached
between the Department's and the Society's representa-
tives. And that, I hope, will be within the next few
weeks.
I am sorry to have wasted so much of your time on
such a pedestrian matter as solicitors* remuneration, but
until our anxieties in this connection are resolved,
thoughts on the higher things with which the Society
should be concerning itsef will, I fear, have to be left
over to another day.
Messrs. T. O. McLoughiin and John Buckley spoke on
matters arising on the President's statement. The pro-
ceedings then terminated.
164