155 / 196
CORRESPONDENCE
Legal Education
John F. Buckley
Dear Sir,
I have read with considerable interest hut increasing
puzzlement Mr. Golding's article on legal education
for the European Community in the last issue of the
Cazcttc.
There is much that I would like to comment
on in the earlier parts of his article but save for a
comment that I do think he might have enquired
whether there were courses in foreign and comparative
law included in the law school syllabus of University
Colleges Cork and Galway (because there certainly is
one at Cork), I will confine my comments to the part of
his article dealing with the U.C.D. diploma in European
Law. Let me first declare my interest. I am one of those
who attended, with Mr. Golding, at the inaugural year
of the course in 1968-69 hut unlike him I am one of
those who "chickened out" when it came to the exam-
ination.
I find it very difficult to see how he can say that there
is nothing the matter with the course. He goes on to
enumerate the various difficulties which face busy prac-
titioners or diligent civil servants but apparently is as
oblivious as any academic would be that the necessity of
planning a course of this sort is to make it suitable for
those who propose to attend. If it is impossible or very
difficult for practitioners of some experience to make
use of this course then the course is a failure.
I expressed the view, while I was taking the course,
to the then Dean of the Law Faculty in U.C.D. that the
course was unsatisfactory in several ways and I see no
reason to change my opinion particularly as the figures
quoted by Mr. Golding for the results of the courses
seem to support the contention that there is something
wrong with this course. Apart from the question of
whether any of the courses themselves are unsatisfactory
the work load is excessive for busy practitioners to fit
into one year. I have argued before that the most
obvious solution to the problem would be to make the
course a two-year course with a commitment of two
nights per week. Not merely would this make it easier
for practitioners to commit themselves to attend more
readily but it would also enable the course to be more
satisfactorily divided into introductory and advanced
material instead of the present unsatisfactory amalgam
of both. Further, it ought to be possible to persuade the
French and German departments of the college to pro-
vide a special course, on a supply basis, to assist those of
the students whose working knowledge of these lan-
guages is weak.
As far as the course itself is concerned it is essential
that the course in confhcts of law should be extended
from the present introductory course to a much more
detailed course with considerable emphasis on torts.
I believe that the course may be basically misconceived
being an attempt to cater for a possible demand for
courses on E.E.C. law by practitioners by providing this
fairly general course which as events have proved have,
following the experiences of the first students, not
commended itself to practitioners.
I am aware that preliminary negotiations with a view
to arranging a different type of course more directly
related to E.E.G. law and to be of shorter duration
have been opened with the universities and it is to be
hoped that such progress will be made as to enable a
course to operate during the 1972-73 academic year.
Yours Faithfully,
John F. Buckley.
8 Glare Street, Dublin 2.
11th October 1971
Rules of the Superior Courts, No. 3, 1971
Statutory Instrument No. 284 of 1971
(1) Part II of Appendix W shall be deleted and the
following substituted therefor :
Part II [0.99, r. 36 (1)] Shorthand Writers
(1) Taking a note of evidence :
for each day engaged
£8.35
if engaged after 4 p.m. for each successive
period of two hours or part thereof, an
additional
£3'.34
(2) Transcript of evidence for appeal :
for copy (certified by the shorthand writer) to
be lodged in Court and a carbon copy to
the applicant's solicitor (inclusive fee for
both copies) per folio
£0.11
for certified copy for respondent's solicitor,
per folio
£0.06
for additional copies, per folio
£0.02
(3) Transcript required by the Court or any party
to be furnished on the morning after the note has
been taken :
for certified copv and two carbon copies, per
folio
£0.37
for additional copies, per folio
£0.03
(2) These rules shall apply to business done after
these rules have come into operation.
(3) These rules shall be construed together with the
Rules of the Superior Courts, and may be cited as the
Rules of the Superior Courts (No. 3) of 1971.
Explanatory Note
These rules, which come into operation on the 11th
October 1971, provide for an increase in the costs in
respect of shorthand writers and transcripts of evidence,
as prescribed in Part II of Appendix W to the Rules of
the Superior Courts (S.I. No. 72 of 1962).
157