Previous Page  131 / 322 Next Page
Information
Show Menu
Previous Page 131 / 322 Next Page
Page Background

INCORPORATED LAW SOCIETY OF IRELAND

GAZETTE

Vol. 78 No. 5

I n t h i s i s s u e

. . .

C o m m e n t

. . .

Comment

123

Litigation in the U.S. — An Overview 125 Practice Notes 131 For Your Diary 131 Minutes of Half-yearly Meeting 133 A Forum for New Firms 135

The Unconstitutionality of the County Rate

on land

137

Book Review 141 Correspondence 144

Professional Information

146

Executive Editor:

Mary Buckley

Editorial Board:

William Earley, Chairman

John F. Buckley

Gary Byrne

Charles R. M. Meredith

Michael V. O'Mahony

Maxwell Sweeney

Advertising:

Liam O hOisin, Telephone 305236

Printing:

Turner's Printing Co. Ltd., Longford

The views expressed in this publication, save where

other-wise indicated, are the views of the contributors

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.

T

HE announcement by the President of the Society at

the recent Annual General Meeting of the Mayo Bar

Association that he was in the process of establishing a

panel of solicitors who would undertake negligence

actions against colleagues practising outside their own

immediate areas is timely.

As the President said in the same speech, there is no

doubt that solicitors as a profession are under siege by the

media and the consumer interest in Irish society. One

criticism often levelled against solicitors (and other

professions) is that it is difficult to get one professional to

become involved in an action for alleged negligence

against a colleague.

The "dog doesn't eat dog" attitude while perfectly

understandable, may, at times be professionally unsafe; it

includes, however, acts of generosity such as not charging

a colleague full fees in respect of his own personal transac-

tions as well as refusing to take instructions against him in

a negligence action. More often than not, a reluctance to

act in such matters is motivated by local considerations

and by an attitude of "there but for the Grace of Go d . . . ".

The above attitude is, however, of no consolation to the

layman who feels that he has suffered unfairly at the

hands of his solicitor and who wishes to seek legal redress.

Nor is it even relevant in most cases, because, as the

President pointed out, over 80 per cent of solicitors have

got Professional Indemnity Insurance.

The panel to be formed by the President will, hopefully,

be a first step in ensuring that persons with a genuine legal

grievance against a solicitor are neither denied a remedy

nor compelled to attempt to represent themselves in

seeking one. The notion that a solicitor should not be

asked to act against a colleague in the same immediate

geographical area will also do away with one of the

principal objections to solicitors taking on such cases.

At a time when the administration of all professions is

under public scrutiny it is essential that solicitors, more

than any other profession, can face that scrutiny with

confidence.

123