The Gazette 1994

GAZETTE

N E W S

C o n c e r n r e I n v o l v e m e nt o f

P r i v a t e P r a c t i t i o n e rs i n

L e g a l A i d S c h e me

APRIL 1994

At its meeting on 4 March the Council

of the Law Society discussed the

involvement of private practitioners in

the Scheme of Civil Legal Aid and

Advice. Some Council members

expressed reservations that in a speech

to the Annual Dinner of the Council,

the Minister for Equality and Law

Reform,

Mervyn Taylor

TD, had

conveyed the impression that the

Society had co-operated with the

Minister's pilot project involving

private practitioners in the Scheme,

whereas, in fact, the Society had been

unable to reach agreement with the

Minister on an adequate level of fees

for solicitors participating in the

project. Council members said that

they believed there were indications

that the pilot scheme had not been as

successful as the Minister had hoped

and that a review of the scheme was

currently underway. While the

increased resources allocated by the

Minister to the Scheme of Civil Legal

I Aid and Advice were welcome, it was

disappointing that the Minister had not

consulted the Law Society about the

expansion of the Scheme.

Council members suggested that there

should be further discussions with the

Department of Equality and Law

Reform concerning the involvement of

private practitioners in the provision of

legal aid. The research done by the

Society's Costs Committee, which

indicated that a practitioner needed to

earn a minimum of £65.00 per hour to

cover overheads, should form the basis

of discussions on what would be an

appropriate level of fees payable to

private practitioners under the

Scheme. The President of the Society,

Michael V O'Mahony,

said that the

I Minister should look at what it cost the

Legal Aid Board to process a case and

that this might be used as a basis for

further discussions on the matter. He

said he was hopeful that the Minister

would come forward with an improved

and more realistic offer.

The Council also expressed concern

about the current level of delay in

family law cases in circuits throughout

I the country. The President of the

Society asked the Family Law and

Civil Legal Aid Committee to consider

I the matter.

Solicitors Bill

The President informed the Council

that the debate on the Second Stage of

the Solicitors Bill would commence in

the Dail towards the end of March and

the Bill would then be referred to a

select committee of the Dail. The

President emphasised that it was

important that members of the

profession would forward their views

on the Bill as promptly as possible.

The Solicitors Bill Committee was

already considering detailed drafting

amendments. There were, he said,

two main areas of principled

opposition by the Society to the Bill.

The first related to the provision that

would prevent the Society from

prohibiting advertising on fees,

and the second concerned the

provision that would oblige the Law

Society to bear the costs of the office

of the Legal Adjudicator. The

President said he believed that this

obligation had been placed on the

Society because of a view in political

circles that the Bill had to be

exchequer-neutral. However, if the

' Society were to bear the cost of the

office of the Legal Adjudicator, the

independence of the adjudicator might

be open to challenge.

Members of the Council queried recent

media reports that the provision in the

Bill that would place a cap on claims

on the Compensation Fund of

£250,000 was being reconsidered by

the Government. The President and the

Director General informed the Council

that following discussions with the

j Department of Justice, and at political !

level, they believed it unlikely that the

provision would be removed though

there might be a question about the

level of the cap.

Council Members noted with

disappointment that the 1994 Bill

retained a provision in the earlier 1991

Bill, which had permitted the Society

to specify different rates of

contribution to the Compensation

Fund in relation to different classes of

solicitor, despite the fact that in 1992 a

policy decision had been taken by the

Council of the Society to oppose the

provision. The President confirmed

that the Society had made it clear to

officials of the Department of Justice

and the Government that the

profession was against the provision.

Proposal to Cap Personal Injuries

Awards

The Council was informed that the

previous day a meeting had taken

place of Presidents and Secretaries of

Bar Associations to consider the issue.

It has been emphasised to the

representatives from the Bar

Associations that it was essential to

| lobby intensively their local TDs and

public representatives on the issue. It

was felt that it was particularly

important to emphasise the injustice

that would be created if a limit was

placed on the level of compensation

awards in personal injuries cases.

Some Council Members expressed

unease about what they perceived to

be a lack of a sense or urgency in the

profession about the proposal although

it was acknowledged that it was

difficult to mount a campaign against

the proposal in the absence of specific

details as to how the Minister hoped to

give effect to it.

It was also noted that the President and

the Director General would be meeting

the Irish Congress of Trade Unions,

the insurance companies and Insurance

; Industry Federation for discussions. It

! was agreed that it was important to

maintain lobbying efforts at a

political level and to use every

| opportunity to highlight the inequity

of the proposal.

•