33 / 270
GAZETTE
APRIL 1980
Presentation of Parchments
President's Address
Two major topics - the discipline of the profession and
the Civil Legal Aid Scheme - were the subject of the
President's address to recipients of parchments in
January.
Commenting on the work of the Disciplinary
Committee he said that the first great step forward in
legislation, concerning the Solicitors' profession was the
Solicitors' Act, 1954. Apart from bringing the profession
in a statutory way into the 20th century, it achieved two
great things: voluntary contribution to compensate for the
errors of those few who took money that did not belong to
them. It extablished the Compensation Fund of the Law
Society, which is now close to one million pounds. It also
gave Solicitors the right to police their own profession
with a disciplinary hearing, and, in a fairly swift way, deal
with a member of the profession who through his conduct
did not deserve to continue to practise in the profession.
The Act was fair. It provided that an appeal would lie to
the Chief Justice by either the applicant who had brought
the complaint against the solicitor, or the solicitor who
had been struck off the Rolls.
"The public feel that we are not policing our profession
sufficiently. Let us examine the case of any man who,
through his humanity, errs, and ask ourselves do we
administer the ultimate sanction without first giving him a
second chance? The answer must be 'No'. It is wrong for
people to be too hasty. It would be terrible not to give a
second chance, and maybe a third chance, before taking a
man's livelihood from him and reducing his wife and
family to a life where shame replaces the zest for living.
"However, a rogue solicitor causing anguish to his
clients, and to the community generally, must be
disciplined, and this Society devotes many man hours,
and a lot of expertise, to ensure that this happens. We
were given the power to do this by the Solicitors' Act,
1954, with a right of appeal, by the injured party, to the
Chief Justice. The system worked very well. However, the
constitutionality of the Solicitors' Act, 1954, was
challenged in the Supreme Court and it was decided, by a
majority, that we had no right to strike off a solicitor. It
was decided that this was a judicial function, because
enrolment of solicitors was the function, in those days, of
the Supreme Court. It is now vested in the President of
the High Court.
"Let the public understand that we would welcome
restoration of what was given to us in the Solicitors' Act,
1954. We do not wish to burden the Courts with the
discipline of our members, so perhaps the legislature
would help us and eliminate two bodies dealing with the
same matter. Let me emphasise to those who criticise us
for not dealing swiftly with those few members whom I
have termed 'rogue solicitors', that the function is a
judicial function and not a Society function."
While welcoming the Civil Legal Aid scheme and the
publication, last December, of "Scheme for Civil Legal
Aid and Advice" by the Minister for Justice, the President
said that the Society quarreled about one section headed
"Choice of Lawyer".
"When you read the small print you find that there is
no choice of lawyer. If you do not accept the lawyer in
one Legal Advice Centre then you must resort to another
lawyer whose services have been engaged by the Board
for the purpose of providing legal services under the
scheme. At best, 'choice of lawyer' means that in difficult
circumstances you can move from one centre to another.
You certainly cannot go to the lawyer you know - maybe
you sat beside him at school. Maybe you like him - and
probably you trust him. You cannot go to him because he
is not a Government official employed by a Legal Advice
Centre. On the Western seaboard, that could mean that if
there was a clash of personality between an aided litigant
and the advice centre he could be sent North or South - a
hundred miles — to another centre.
"There is a means test, and aided persons will have to
pay towards the cost of the scheme. Therefore, they
should have the same right of choice that exists in the case
of a patient and his medical practitioner. The right to
choose was given recently in the case of dental and
opthalmic services.
"Fancy a wife, in a family law situation, taking the bus
to a law centre. Do not tell me that her neighbours and
friends will not know where she is going, and where she
has been. Her husband may not know, but he will be told
soon enough. Supposing the next law centre is a hundred
miles away - which is quite probable on the Western sea-
board. Does then the husband, who is the other party in
the dispute, have to travel, or are we to assume a Utopian
situation where one law centre can deal with two parties
in dispute?
"This Society urges the Department to broaden the
scope of the free civil legal aid scheme, and to give the
public the system which they deserve. Such a system must
have enshrined in it the right to choose one's lawyer."
The President said that the Society emphasises the
necessity for civil legal aid to be extended to the
representation of the public who have to appear before
certain tribunals, particularly the Employment Appeals
Tribunal. "We have pressed for this very strongly but no
concrete recognition has been given to our argument. An
Contributors to this issue:
William Binchy, LL.M., Barrister-at-Law, Research
Counsellor, Law Reform Commission;
John F. Buckley, Solicitor;
Ian F. French, F.R.I.C.S.
2 7