The Gazette 1993

GAZETTE

GEM N

JUNE 1993

The Future of the Sole Practitioner

DSBA Meeting Critical of Law Society

A cross section of the attendance at the DSBA Meeting

Angry criticism was vented at the

Law Society at a recent DSBA

meeting, when speakers from the

floor claimed that the Society should

adopt a stronger trade union role

and that it was not providing enough

support to, or looking after the

interest of, sole practitioners who

were the majority of the profession.

The meeting was also higly critical

of the Society's PR policies and

speakers claimed that not enough

was being done to counteract a poor

public image of the profession and

to defend the profession from

unjustified criticism by the media

and politicians.

The meeting, attended by

approximately 250 solicitors,

including guests from Bar

Associations around the country,

met to consider the future of the

sole practitioner. The meeting heard

the views of a panel of speakers on

the issue. Introducing the panel,

DSBA President,

Tony Sheil,

said

there was a perception amongst sole

practitioners and small firms that

their days were numbered, and that a

sole practitioner in difficulty had

nowhere to turn since the role of the

Law Society was increasingly

becoming a policing one.

Michael O'Mahony,

Senior Vice

President of the Society, stated that

of course there was most certainly a

future for the sole practitioner who

comprised 57% of the profession.

There had been considerable and

justifiable concern about the

impression conveyed by a recent

article in the Sunday Business Post

that something awful could happen

to a client who went to a sole

practitioner. Ninety-nine percent of

the solicitors profession was honest,

and to argue that, because a large

proportion of the 1% who were not

were sole practitioners, merited their

being singled out in some way, was a

false syllogism. While there had been

a great deal of emotion

and ire generated by the newspaper

article, the underlying issue had to

do with Secion 29 (2) of the

Solicitors Bill. This was an enabling

power which would have permitted

the Society to prescribe different

rates of contribution to the

Compensation Fund. The position of

the Law Society on this provision

had been unequivocal; in January,

1992, the Council of the Society had

decided to oppose it and the Society

had asked the Government to remove

it.

Michael O'Mahony

said, in his

view, it was not worth risking the

unity of the profession over any

provision in the Bill.

Training for Sole Practitioners

Council Member and immediate Past

President of the DSBA,

David

Walley,

suggested that the time had

come to debate issues such as the

introduction of compulsory training

courses for sole practitioners in the

commercial principles of running a

practice and that practising

certificates might be withheld from a

practitioner if the training were not

completed. In addition, bookkeepers

in legal practices might be required

to pursue a diploma course and only

persons so qualified could act as

bookkeeper to a sole-practitioner.

"Solicitors who are in difficulty are

usually not operating on a

commercially viable basis", said

David Walley, "and if so, should

they be allowed to be custodians of

the public's money, and should they

be able to benefit from the

indemnity provided by their

colleagues?" he asked.

The Chairman of the Society's

Compensation Fund Review

Committee,

Laurence Shields,

said

his committee was making

substantial progress on examining the

future policy of the Fund in all its

aspects and they were hopeful that it

would be possible to obtain a cap on

any claim that could be made on the

Fund.

Society Out of Touch

Council Member,

Barry St. f .

Galvin,

expressed concern that the

Law Society had lost touch with the

profession. "We are an honourable

profession," he declared "we are

independent, we stand for our clients

without fear or favour. These are

127