The Gazette 1992

GAZETTE

N S M

JUNE 1992

Remove Controls on

Solicitors' Remuneration

In his address to the half-yearly

meeting of the Society on 11 May,

Law Society President, Adrian

Bourke, said there was no

justification for the maintenance of

controls on the level of fees that

solicitors may charge clients.

Legal Costs

"The area of legal costs is one that

has been occupying my attention very

much since I became President. As

some of you may know, I re-

established a Costs Committee of the

Society this year (in recent times

costs had been dealt with as part of

the functions of the Litigation

Committee) and that Committee have

been given the remit of examining

urgently the whole area of legal costs

with a view to ensuring that the

remuneration levels of this profession

keep pace with the very high cost of

practising law nowadays and that

solicitors are properly and adequately

remunerated for their work.

"In the context of the Solicitors

(Amendment) Bill, 1991, we have

called on the Government to remove

all legal controls on solicitors'

remuneration. In an age of increasing

competitiveness, which has recently

witnessed the passing of a

Competition Act designed to ensure

the elimination of all restrictive

practices and barriers and the

introduction of open and free

competition in trade and industry as

well as in the professions, we see no

justification for the maintenance of

controls on the level of fees that

solicitors may charge their clients for

their work. The Minister for Industry

and Commerce, Mr. O'Malley, in the

context of his Competition Act, has

expressed a view that it may not be

lawful for the Law Society or Bar

Associations to recommend levels of

fees to their members. He sees such

practices as being anti-competitive

and, therefore, in restraint of free

competition. In addition, the

Solicitors Bill provides that it will not

be lawful for the Society to prevent

solicitors from charging less than any

recommended level of fees for

particular areas of legal work. How,

therefore, might I ask, can it be

maintained by the Government that

there should be legal controls on the

maximum

levels of fees that solicitors

can charge for their work? I ask also,

in this context, whether, if the

Government succeeds in enacting the

provisions of the Solicitors Bill which

will allow banks and trust

corporations to do probate and

conveyancing work it is proposed to

introduce similar controls on the level

of fees that they may charge for this

work? I am afraid that the

Government cannot have it both

ways. We intend to continue to press

for an open and free market in

relation to solicitors' remuneration.

The Fair TVade Commission and Mr.

O'Malley are the purveyors of the

dogma of competition. We will

accept no deviation from that

principle in a matter so vital to this

profession.

Shoddy Work and Overcharging

"Before I leave the Solicitors Bill, let

me make it very clear - and here I

am speaking personally - that I

welcome very much the new powers

that the Bill will give the Law Society

to deal with shoddy work and

overcharging in the profession. I

make no apology for that. This

Society is a Society that has always

been concerned with maintaining the

highest standards of professional

practice and ethical behaviour. We

will not countenance poor standards

of work or overcharging on the part

of anybody and we will take all steps

open to us to eradicate such

behaviour from the profession.

" I believe that the provisions of

sections 8 and 9 of the Solicitors Bill

will greatly help and will strengthen

the position of the Law Society in

this regard. It is time that this

profession demonstrated clearly to the

public that it accepts fully that, in an

age of increasing consumerism, it

must be accountable - and be seen

to be accountable - for what it does.

That, to my mind, is a fundamental

principle of good professional practice.

I know that there are many firms of

solicitors who are genuinely concerned

about good solicitor/client

relationships and genuinely believe in

the concept of 'client care'. But we

must work harder as a Society to

ensure that this message is got across

to everyone in the profession and that

the public also see that, when the

Law Society says that it is concerned

about the way in which complaints

are dealt with, it

means

what it says.

I intend to devote a considerable

amount of my energies, during my

presidency, to the promotion of this

concept in the profession. I am

determined to have it demonstrated

clearly that the Law Society is

concerned about those who have

complaints against solicitors and that,

when complaints are made, they will

be thoroughly and fairly investigated

and, where wrongdoing is evident,

this will be put right and, in

appropriate cases, compensation

offered. In this regard, of course, the

maintenance of a compensation fund

is very important to the profession

but, it must be a fund that operates

fairly and that is reasonable both to

the public and to the profession.

"The appointment of a legal

ombudsman, when the Bill is

enacted, will, in my view, be a

considerable step forward and will

help to give much greater

acceptability to the work of the Law

Society in relation to the handling of

complaints. I welcome that. I believe,

of course, that it is absurd that we

should be expected to bear the cost

of this office and the Society will

continue to campaign strongly with

the Government on this."

•

171