GAZETTE
_
_
_
^
,
_
^
^
.
~
NOVEMBER 1993
P R E S I D E N T '
S
M E S S A G E
Anticipating The
New Solicitors Bill
I have been entrusted with the
Presidency of the Law Society for the
next twelve months, which I regard as
a great honour. I can only express the
intention and resolve that during my
term I will work to represent the
whole profession to the best of my
ability.
The year ahead will certainly be a
year during which solicitors will again
come under the legislative spotlight,
with the re-introduction of the
Solicitors (Amendment) Bill. The
Minster for Justice has recently
indicated her intention to circulate the
Bill before Christmas. If that happens
we can anticipate the commencement
of the Second Stage debate in Dáil
Éireann early in 1994.
We can also anticipate from what
occurred during the Second Stage
debate on the 1991 Bill, that some
backbench Deputies will avail of the
opportunity on this occasion to seek
headlines at our expense. It is a fact of
life that the ordinary and
commonplace rarely makes headlines,
so the headline-seeking
parliamentarian must highlight the
extraordinary and exceptional. The
ordinary and commonplace is that the
overwhelming majority of solicitors
provide a good and efficient service to
their clients, which the clients
appreciate. The extraordinary and
exceptional is that a very small
number of solicitors do not provide a
good and efficient service and cause
upset and hardship to their clients in
various unacceptable ways and
thereby provide the headline-making
'fodder', which, in turn, unfairly taints
the profession as a whole.
In the face of the implicit
generalisations brought about by
specific incidents of misconduct of
negligence, the Society will continue
as best it can to balance any public
misconception by repeating as often
as necessary the 'good news' that
Michael V. O'Mahony
most clients are happy with their own
solicitor, and that where problems
outside the norm do arise, the Society,
assisted by the additional powers to be
provided for in the amendment Bill,
will intervene.
As you will be aware, most of the
provisions of the 1991 Bill were
recognised as welcome improvements
to the Solicitors Acts 1954/60.
However, some provisions of that
1991 Bill were emphatically opposed
by the Society, particularly the
provisions which would enable banks
to provide conveyancing and probate
services. At that time (following the
debate at the November, 1991 AGM)
the Society presented to the then
Minister for Justice strong public
interest arguments why the existing
statutory restrictions (contained in the
1954 Act) that such services be
provided only by solicitors should
remain. Arguments which were
subsequently presented and supported
by some Deputies during the course of
the Second Stage debate.
It is to be hoped that the Society's
strongly argued opposition at the time
will have caused the present Minister
for Justice to give some
reconsideration to the desirability in
the public interest of those particular
provisions. Irrespective of how any
government might from time to time
view the legal profession, I believe it
should recognise that any perceived
public interest in increased competition
is far outweighed by the clear public
interest in not putting in jeopardy the
future of the smaller practice unit,
urban as well as rural, in this country.
By any objective standard there is
enough internal competition within the
profession to serve the public interest,
without passing legislative provisions
facilitating the Jonah-like subsuming
of conveyancing and probate services
into the 'innards' of the banks, there to
risk an anti-public interest 'indigestion'
when combined with the 'juices'
already present.
Whatever perceived objectives all or
any of the Irish banks have in seeking
such provisions, I question whether
they are served by putting in jeopardy
the future of single practitioners or
smaller firms. May I suggest that
when next talking to your friendly
bank manager, in order to focus his
mind on your concerns about those
provisions, you might consider
presenting him with the following
'boot-on-the-other-foot' question, so
oft used by advocates - 'How would
your bank respond if the Law Society,
with equal lack of detailed
consideration of the potential
consequences, sought Government
sanction to setting up its own bank for
solicitors?'
Michael V O 'Mahony
President
•
NORTHERN IRELAND
AGENT
* Legal work undertaken on an agency basis
* All communications to clients through
instructing Solicitors
* Consultants in Dublin if required
Contact:
Seamus Connolly,
Moran and Ryan,
Solicitors
Arran House.
Bank Building.
35 Arran Quay.
Hill Street.
Dublin 7.
Newry. Co. Down.
Tel:(0l) 8725622
Tel: (080693) 65311
Fax: (01) 8725404
Fax: (080693) 6 2 0%
331