The Gazette 1993

GAZETTE

GEM N

JUNE 1993

Is The Profession

Really

Under Siege?

Law Society Director General,

Noel

Ryan,

gives his views on current

problems facing the profession.

Everyone is, presumably, aware by

now of the Sunday Business Post

article on current problems facing

the profession which contained the

banner headline

'A profession

under

siege.'

That article has generated

debate within the profession,

including criticism of the Society

itself, which seems to me to merit

some response.

I believe that we are not a profession

under siege, as the article appeared

to suggest, but we might be in

danger - if we do not stand back

from some of the issues - of

becoming a profession with a siege

mentality. Some of the contributors

at the meeting of the Dublin

Solicitors Bar Association on 28th

April - all well-intentioned people

who, quite clearly, have the concerns

of the profession at heart - reacted

defensively and took issue with the

Society's handling of current

difficulties. Our public relations

policy, in particular, came in for

strong criticism. There is, I believe, a

reasonable answer to the points.

The profession has, undoubtedly,

cause for concern at present about

some of the problems besetting it.

The President of the Society, in his

recent letter to the profession, has

touched on a number of these. The

recession is hitting the profession

hard and there are too many

solicitors chasing a static or

dwindling volume of legal work. The

profession is concerned also about

some recent serious cases of default

which have created problems in

relation to the Compensation Fund.

And, above all, there is a perception

that the general drift of Government

policy at the present time appears to

be working against the interests of

the profession. It is understandable

that, against this background, there

should be questions about the

direction of Society leadership.

I believe that those who observe

closely the work of the Society will

be aware of the enormous efforts

that have been made in recent times

on behalf of the profession. It is a

mistake, in my view, to believe that

the enemies of the profession are all

around us and that, unless the

Society is seen to be 'slaying

dragons' left right and centre, it is

not doing its job. The recent debate

about the role of the single

Noel Ryan

practitioner has illustrated that there

is, undoubtedly, a problem about the

Society getting its message across to

the general membership. It seems

that some members have become

apprehensive that the Society is

formulating policies that are directed

against the interests of such an

important segment of the profession

as single practitioners. Nothing of

the kind is, of course, in

contemplation. The only item of

policy that has arisen, and then

solely in the context of the Solicitors

Bill - where an opportunity arises

once in a generation to get

provisions in the law that might be

needed in the future - was a view

that it might be wise for the Society

to have a power to vary the

contribution to the Fund for

different categories of solicitor. For

example, the point is sometimes

made that those who do not handle

clients funds, should not be asked to

pay as much as those who do. The

use of any such power would, of

course, be at the discretion of the

Council. However, another view

prevailed and the Government has

been asked to remove the provision

from the Solicitors Bill.

That issue, as well as other events of

more recent times, has sparked off a

debate within the profession about

the role of the single practitioner

and whether it is in the long-term

interest of the profession that such a

high proportion of solicitors should

be single practitioners. There is

nothing inherently wrong with that

so long as it is seen for what it is,

discussion,

where no fixed positions

have been taken and nobody is

under threat. It is right and proper

that the Society should debate issues

openly, as policy questions arise.

And, it is surely also legitimate for

members who have genuine and well-

based concern about the fact that

most of the cases of default have

concerned single practitioners to say

so without giving offence or being

taken as casting aspersions on the

integrity of the great majority of

those who, as single practitioners,

have in the past and will continue to

serve the profession well.

There has been some adverse

comment on the direction and

effectiveness of the Society's public

relations policy. The Law Society has

always defended the interests of all

the profession and will continue to

do so. It cannot, however, move

mountains nor can it disperse the

critics of the profession simply by

telling them to 'go away'. Nor, of

course, will members of the

Oireachtas or Government Ministers I

131