313 / 342
GAZETTE
SEPTEMBER 1987
Viewpoint
303
Inheritance Tax on
Discretionary Trusts
305
President's Column
309
Practice Notes
311
Contract for Sale
314
Minutes of AGM
316
Dail Debates
320
Pressure on the
Screwdrivers
321
Professional Information 325
Executive Editor:
Mary Buckley
Editoriel Board:
Charles R. M. Meredith, Chairman
John F. Buckley
Gary Byrne
Daire Murphy
Michael V. O'Mahony
Maxwell Sweeney
Advertising:
Liam 0 hOisin. Telephone: 305236
307860
Printing:
Turner's Printing Co. Ltd., Longford.
The views expressed in this publication,
save where otherwise indicated, are the
views of the contributory and not
necessarily the views of the Council of
the Society.
The appearance of an advertisement in
this publication does not necessarily
indicate approval by the Society for the
product or service advertised.
Published at Blackhall Place, Dublin 7
Tel.: 710711.
Telex: 31219.
Fax: 710704.
GAZETT
INCORPORATE D
LAWSOCIETY
OF IRELAND
Vol. 81 No. 10
December 1987
Viewpoint
The recent announcement by the
Minister for the Environment that
Building Societies will be permitted
to compete in the provision of
conveyancing and estate agency
services received more attention in
the media than most other aspects
of the Minister's proposals though
the details of this particular
development were remarkably
scarce. The actual text of the
Minister's statement suggests that
this is a further depressing example
of our legislative process succumbing
to the temptation to follow
developments in Britain without
adequate consideration as to
whether the position in the two
jurisdictions is sufficiently similar.
The Minister has indicated his
awareness of the potential for
conflict of interest but considers
that sufficient safeguards can be
devised. No doubt the Department
are eagerly awaiting the publication
of the guidelines in Britain. The
length of time which the Lord
Chancellor's Department has taken
to produce these guidelines, they
are now expected "early in 1988",
suggests that the problem of conflict
of interest may be more difficult to
resolve than the Minister anticipates.
Just how anxious the major
Building Societies may be to
engage in conveyancing on a wide
scale at the current level of fees,
which of course are statutorily
controlled, may be open to
question. The only Society whose
chief executive has argued loudly
for this innovation was not noted
for the keeness of its charges when
its own in-house lawyer examined
titles in mortgage transactions.
Domestic conveyancing is no
golden goose. Falling or levelling-
off house purchase prices, to
which conveyancing fees are
linked, while operating costs
continue to increase, have eroded
the profit margin to such an extent
that many of the larger firms of
solicitors have no enthusiasm to
take on much ordinary residential
conveyancing.
Many conveyancers might be
tempted to wish the Building
Societies well in involvement in the
complex business which domestic
conveyancing has become in this
country. A combination of factors,
including the failure to update our
Land and Conveyancing laws, an
under-financed Land Registry
which cannot provide the level of
service it would wish mixed with
the self inflicted wounds of some
of our legislation, render residential
conveyancing
unattractive.
Building Societies would be
welcome to the task of conveying
the Family Home of the couple on
their second "marriage" with the
unlawful extension which has no
byelaw approval and where the
parties are squabbling as to
whether the light fittings were
included in the sale.
There must be a serious doubt
whether, if a proper level of service
is to be given to people engaging
in the biggest investment of their
lives, it can be done more cheaply
by large organisations like Building
Societies with their significant
overheads and day to day running
costs. The best answer the
solicitors' profession can give to
these proposals is to continue to
provide a satisfactory level of
service to individual clients to
whom personal attention is given
at fees which are, in comparison
to most other countries quite
modest.
Q
303