The Gazette 1993

GAZETTE

NOVEMBER 1993

P R E S I D E N T '

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