147 / 482
GAZETTE
APRIL 1989
Professional
Purposes
I think it is safe to say that the
Professional Purposes Committee is
the practitioners' committee. In
other words it is the committee to
which the practitioner can bring his
problems, whether they be
generated within his own practice
or caused by a breakdown of the
proper levels of co-operation which
should exist between all solicitors
offices. The committee which is
responsible for the preparation and
publication of the Guide to Pro-
fessional Conduct of Solicitors in
Ireland, has the unenviable task of
creating guidelines for the pro-
fession in the area of good conduct
or the application of good common
sense to everyday problems. Very
often of course, there are preced-
ents for the problems which come
before the committee but increas-
ingly the committee is getting into
consideration of those areas of
practice which are brought about by
the continuing development of a
dynamic profession, which finds
itself operating in an ever more
competitive environment.
Members of the profession will be
familiar with the involvement of the
committee in conduct and practice
matters, in the friendly resolution of
problems between colleagues, and
jn advice to individual practitioners
on a variety of day-to-day problems.
However, the committee does try
to keep an eye on the future and in
this regard has recently been
looking at the matter of Multidis-
ciplinary Partnerships. The idea of
the Multidisciplinary Partnership has
been aired in England and Scotland
for some time now and indeed is
being actively encouraged by the
present Lord Chancellor, who has
covered the subject in his very
controversial review of the Legal
Profession in England and Scotland.
The committee is conscious of the
Restrictive Practices Commission
enquiry into the professions in this
Country, and is equally conscious of
the impending Solicitors' Bill.
It was with this in view that I, as
Chairman of the Professional
Purposes Committee, attended a
meeting at the English Law Society
on the 9th December, 1988. A large
number of bodies were represented
at this meeting and it may interest
the profession to know just exactly
who has their finger in this
particular pie.
The Institute of Chartered
Accountants in England & Wales;
The Chartered Institute of Patent
Agents;
Royal Institute of British Architects;
The Chartered Institute of
Management Accountants;
The National Association of Estate
Agents;
Association of Consulting
Engineers;
Insurance Brokers Registration
Council;
Institute of Actuaries;
The Incorporated Society of Valuers
and Auctioneers;
The Chartered Association of
Certified Accountants;
The Institute of Trade Mark Agents;
The Royal Institution of Chartered
Surveyors;
The Chartered Association of Loss
Adjusters;
The Corporation of Estate Agents;
The Society of Pension Consultants.
These various organisations were
joined by representatives from our
Society, The Law Society of
Scotland, The Council of the Bar
and of course, representatives of the
Law Society of England & Wales.
Not everybody was in favour of
this new development, notably the
Law Society of Scotland and the
National Association of Estate
Agents. But there were a number of
people in favour, some of them
making strange bed-fellows such as
Accountants, Actuaries, Estate
Agents, Chartered Surveyors,
Valuers and Auctioneers, Con-
struction Engineers, Architects and
Trade Mark Agents. Much was
made of the distinction that should
be drawn between Multidisciplinary
Practices involving major institu-
tions and small partnerships
covering more than one discipline.
Differences
in
professional
standards were highlighted and it
was felt that the higher standard,
wherever that prevalied, should be
adopted by everyone else in a
Multidisciplinary Practice. Clearly,
such a vast subject could not be
dealt with in one meeting and it was
decided that a working group would
be established at staff level in the
Law Society in London and their
deliberations were to be considered
in conjunction with the green paper
which has recently been issued by
the Lord Chancellor.
There are clear problems for the
profession in contemplating Multi-
disciplinary Partnerships. What
about the Compensation Fund for
instance? What if some members of
the Multidisciplinary Partnership
(MDP) were from professions which
are not covered by a Compensation
Fund? Clear distinctions would have
to be made here obviously. There
are problems of jurisdictions where
every decision in relation to
discipline must be taken by a High
Court Judge. There are difficulties
in relation to arrangements for
Professional Indemnity Insurance.
Clearly there would have to be
arrangements made for situations
where certain work was reserved to
particular elements in the MDP,
solicitors as officers of the court, or
Chartered Accountants as Auditors.
What about Privilege for instance,
and Confidentiality?
Different professions have differ-
ent relationships with their clients
and in the pursuit of these different
relationships may have different
views on how particular client
problems should be handled. Who
is to have the final say? Will the
majority rule? And if that majority
is from one particular profession will
not tension develop within the MDP
itself? Ultimately, it is the client that
is served by the Multidisciplinary
Partnership and the client must
receive the best possible advice and
feel confident that he is dealing with
professionals. It would be very easy
to lose sight of the client in the
possible wrangles that might ensue!
The Professional Purposes
Committee are considering the
Green Paper and liaising with the
Law Society of England & Wales in
relation to this interesting and
difficult development. It is hoped
that at some stage this year it may
be possible to circularise the
profession with a better distillation
of views about the subject so that
they may make their own minds up
about whether this revolution is
likely to catch on. For the moment
there are more questions than there
are answers.
•
James Donegan,
Chairman,
Professional Purposes Committee
133