The Gazette 1972

MINISTER S REPLY

The Minister for Justice, Mr. O'Malley, has refuted

some allegations against him and his Department by

the General Council of the Bar in Ireland earlier this

week. Mr. O'Malley said it was regrettable that a body

like the Bar Council should issue its statement without

checking its facts.

The Min

ster in his statement dealt with each allega-

tion and gave an explanation and comment. The first

he refers to is that he said it was "a bit of a racket"

where more than one counsel appeared for a client in

the High Court. "What I said was that the public tend

to look on it that way and they do so because of the

practice of employing three Counsels obtains even in

relatively unimportant cases where legal costs sometimes

exceed the amount in d'spute," Mr. O'Malley says.

He adds that this comment could be verified by

reference to the Official Debates of Dail Eireann for

December 1st. "In denying the statement attributed

to me by the Bar Council, I do not wish to be taken

as denying the fact that I believe that the present

practice is difficult to defend."

Of the Bar Council's allegation that he intended to

give direct ons to the Taxing Masters not to allow fees

to more than one Counsel except in serious cases and

that this indicated either ignorance on the Minister's

part or an intention to violate the Constitution; Mr.

O'Malley said he never made that statement.

No Controls

The context of what he (the Minister) said was

expressed by an Opposition deputy, himself a solicitor,

that the High Court practice of having two Senior

Counsel and one Junior on each side might creep into

the Circuit Court. "I agreed with him that that would

be highly undesirable but said I had no direct control.

I went on to say that I supposed that I could have

indirect control by saying that the costs of more than

one Counsel should be allowed only in very unusual

cases.

"Contrary to what the Bar Council said this had

nothing at all to do with giving directions to Taxing

Masters, of whom there were none in the Circuit Court,

or for that matter anybody else. The Circuit Court

Rules did not in any circumstances allow costs of two

Senior Counsel. If there were to be any question of

allowing taxed costs for two Senior Counsel in the

Circuit Court, these statutory rules of Court would have

to be changed," Mr. O'Malley went on.

"As my formal consent is necessary by law for any

such change I have the power and, as I conceive it,

the clear duty in the public interest, to say 'no' if any

proposal to change the rules in the manner feared by

the Opposition in the Dail were made—not, of course,

that I have any reason whatsoever to think that any

such proposal would be made."

It is interesting, Mr. O'Malley continued, to note

that the Bar Council did not challenge the statement

by a Fine Gael Deputy, or the much stronger statement

made by a colleague of his, who went so far as to

canvass the idea that the solution to the problem of

high legal costs might have to be found in a system

of State employed advocates.

Mr. O'Malley described as "grossly misleading" re-

ferences to the fact that accommodation previously

occupied by the Taxing Master in the Four Courts,

was recently taken over to make available an additional

courtroom urgently required for the Circuit Court.

"Public allegations had been made that what was done

arbitrarily and without prior consultation with the

officials concerned. The statement of the Bar Council

is in terms which are calculated to give support and

credence to these allegations. Since I shall be dealing

further with this matter in reply to a Parliamentary

question I do not propose to say more at this point

than that the allegations of arbitrary action taken

without notice are without foundation."

On the Bar Council's reference to the fact that

solicitors are to be given right of audience in the High

Court and the Supreme Court, Mr. O'Malley said the

Bar Council seemed to suggest that it was because

members of the Bar had, up to now, the exclusive

right to appear in these Courts that they felt it their

duty to act for poor litigants in certain cases without

any assurances that they would be paid.

Mr. O'Malley pointed out that the Bar Council did

not specifically criticise the new provision. It confined

itself to a scarcely veiled threat that, if their right of

exclusive audience went, Counsel could no longer feel

there was a need for them or a duty for them to assist

a poor litigant.

Mr. O'Malley added that the official representations

made him by the Bar Council on the Courts Bill,

were in marked contrast to the approach indicated in

their statement. "No concern was expressed for poor

litigants. The case made practically in so many words,

was that the public coulc have no assurance that mem-

bers of the solicitors' profession were fit to be allowed

to appear in the High Court or Supreme Court. "If

the Council feels that that interpretation of what they

said does them any injustxe, I am perfectly willing

to release their letter for publication."

He concluded that he had every confidence in the

Bar in this country. He believed that Deputy T. F.

O'Higgins, F.G., was closer to their thinking than were

the people responsible for the letter from the Bar

Council. "Likewise, I believe that the tone and content

of the attack now made on me by the Council does

not reflect the views of the members of the Bar for whose

professional and personal competence, integrity, and

sense of fair play I, from my personal experience, have

nothing but the highest respect and gratitude." He

hoped that the Council would leave aside what

appeared to be a policy of resistance to any change.

(Irish Independent

, 10th December 1971)