334 / 448
GAZETTE
N E WS
NOVEMBER 1996
Report on Council Meeting held on
18 October 1996
The following is a brief summary of the
meeting of the Council of the Law
Society on 18 October 1996.
1. Death of John Maher
The President paid a warm tribute to
John Maher, Past President of the
Society, who had died recently, and the
Council observed a minute's silence in
his memory.
2. Motion on Proxy Voting
Standing orders were suspended to
allow Mr Michael Irvine, seconded by
Mr Michael Peart, to introduce the
following motion:
"That this Council approves a
proposal that the bye-laws be
amended to allow for proxy voting at
Annual and Special General
Meetings of the society and that the
appropriate motion be proposed at
the Annual General Meeting to
amend the bye-laws of the society
accordingly ".
Mr Irvine argued that a proxy system
would widen the franchise of the
members. He responded to a number
of questions from the Council and
the Council agreed that an appropriate
motion should be placed on the
agenda and debated at the Annual
General Meeting.
3. Motion: Lawyer/client privilege
"That this Council reviews the policy
of the Society with regard to
lawyer/client privilege generally and
the powers of the Society in
particular".
Proposer:
James MacGuill
Seconder:
Hugh O'Neill
The Council approved a request that the
motion be adjourned to the November
Council meeting.
4. Motion: Advertising
"That this Council approves the draft
regulations on advertising which
have been circulated, subject to the
suggested amendments contained in
counsel's opinion ".
Proposer:
Owen M. Binchy
Seconded:
Philip Joyce
Mr Binchy said that the principles upon
which the regulations on advertising
should be amended had been agreed
earlier by the Council and were
reflected in the draft which had now
been circulated. It was extremely
difficult to balance the issues of
advertising and touting. What the draft
regulations sought to do was to reflect
the changes necessitated to the 1988
regulations by Section 69 of the
Solicitors (Amendment) Act 1994.
The
counsel's opinion which had been
obtained and circulated was for the
purpose of ensuring that the proposed
regulations were
intra vires
and did not
breach the
Competition Act.
In the light
of the counsel's opinion certain
amendments would need to be made to
the draft which had been circulated.
There followed a debate in which over a
dozen members of the Council
contributed and which centred mainly
on points of clarification of the draft
regulations. The desirability of
guidelines to accompany them and
whether or not the matter should be
adjourned to the November Council
meeting to allow further consultation.
On a vote the Council decided by 25
votes to 9 to deal with the matter at the
October meeting and on a further vote
the draft regulations were
overwhelmingly approved subject to the
amendments which had been indicated.
5. Money laundering legislation
Mr John Fish, Chairman of the
Committee examining the
Government's proposed designation of
solicitors pursuant to Section 32 of the
Criminal Justice Act 1994,
reported on
developments since the last Council
meeting. A meeting had taken place
with representatives of relevant
Government departments and two
principal issues had emerged: (a) the
types of activity or transaction involving
solicitors which might be used for
money laundering purposes and which
should be listed in the regulations which
would apply the legislation to solicitors;
and (b) the precise form in which legal
professional privilege would be
protected in the regulations.
Following a lengthy debate the Council
decided on a vote that the better
approach would be to request the
departmental officials to fumish the
Society with a draft of the new
regulations for comment rather than for
the Society to provide to the
Department a list of types of
activity/transaction which might appear
in the regulations. The initiative should
come from the Department.
6. Media coverage of Garda visit to
solicitor's office
The President referred to his letter of
complaint dated 9 October 1996 to the
Garda Commissioner and to the meeting
which he and the Director General had
with the Garda Commissioner that
morning. The President and Director
General had protested very strongly to
the Commissioner at both the media
leak which, it could be the only
reasonable assumption in the absence of
any evidence to the contrary, had
originated within the Garda Síochána
and to certain comments attributed by
the
Irish Times
to the Garda Press
Office. The Commissioner said that he
did not automatically accept that the
leak had originated within the Garda
Síochána but he was not prepared to
order an investigation of the matter.
Although pressed to do so the
Commissioner made it clear that in the
circumstances he was not prepared to
express regret in any statement on the
318