436 / 462
GAZETTE
DECEMBER 1991
full discussion had taked place with
the Presidents and Secretaries of
Bar Associations earlier that day.
Maurice Curran,
Chairman of the
Solicitors Bill Committee, then
outlined what the Soc i e t y 's
response had been to both the
negative and positive provisions in
the Bill.
Barry St. J. Galvin
took issue with
the way the Law Society had dealt
with the Bill. He said the Solicitors
Bill Committee had been a secret
committee. It had not been able to
report back to the Council. The
Council had not been able to make
its views known while the
discussions were taking place. He
said he was disappointed with the
attitude of the Law Society to the
changes in the Bill. The Society
appeared to be we l comi ng
interference in its own system of
regulation. The profession had not
failed to regulate itself. The
Disciplinary Committee of the
Society had no power of sanction
and could only report to the
President of the High Court. Why
should the Society bé penalised for
failing to exercise powers that it did
not have, he said.
Andrew Curneen
said he was
concerned about the definition of
"client" in the the Bill as it was very
widely drafted and included anyone
who was a successor-in-title to a
client. He said that this could
include a purchaser or a mortagee's
lending institution. He thought that
the Society should have stood up
and fought against the Bill. The
other branch of the profession had
been successful in showing its
teeth and had escaped regulation.
David Wai/ey,
President of the
Dublin Solicitors Bar Association,
complimented the Society on the
superb summary of the Bill that had
been produced and on reacting
speedily to the Bill. He said that the
provision in the Bill in Section 62(1)
providing that fees must be advised
in writing to clients could be
ridiculous in certain cases say, for
example, when a will was being
drafted. David Walley said he was
4 18
opposed to the provision prohibiting
percentage fees. This was not harm-
ful to clients and clients could readily
understand the percentage basis. He
said it was necessary to examine the
whole manner in which lawyers
charge fees and the whole issue of
costs. Section 63 permitting ad-
vertising of fees could lead to
supermarket-style 'price wars'.
Meanwhile, the Competition Act had
abolished the Bar Associations' re-
commended fees. This was a
schizophrenic approach on the part
of the Government. He said he
thought compulsory professional
indemnity insurance was a good
idea but queried whether the Mutual
Defence Fund would become a last
resort for solicitors with poor claims
records who could not get insured
elsewhere.
James MacGuill
said that the Bill
was anti-solicitor and anti-client and
the Law Society should not have
welcomed any part of it. In the
absence of a statutory civil legal aid
scheme, solicitors engaged in cross
subsidisation of cases, and often
took actions for impecunious clients
but under the Bill it would be
impossible to do so. The profession
would now be the most policed
profession in Europe. He noted there
was no provision in the Bill to
penalise a complainant who made
a false complaint. The solicitors
profession provided an excellent
service to the public and the Law
Society should not appear defeatist.
Michael Nugent
dealt with the pro-
visions of the Bill relating to newly-
qualified solicitors. He said over the
years there had been a continuous
erosion of what a Practising Certi-
ficate entitled a practitioner to do.
The proposed restriction on newly
qualified solicitors practising on
their own for three years after
qualification was introducing two
tiers into the profession. It would, in
effect, informally extend the
apprenticeship period by a further
three years. It this was to happen,
the Society should introduce
stringent and fair provisions for
minimum wages to be paid to
solicitors in the first three years of
practice He felt this provision would
be an erosion of the freedom of
newly qualified solicitors to dispose
of their labour; they would be
constrained to be employees.
Garrett Sheehan
said that currently
there was no provision guarantee-
ing that someone who had passed
the preliminary examinations for
entry to the Law School would get
an apprenticeship. He felt that no
one should be precluded from
practising as a solicitor because he
could not get an apprenticeship.
Tim O'Suiiivan
said he supported
the provisions in the Bill that would
allow incorporation and said he
would like to see limited
partnerships.
Brian McMahon
said
there would be casualties in the
profession if normal market forces
were allowed into play. It would be
a question of the survival of the
fittest and the cheapest.
Andrew
Crowley
said the Bill was a slur on
the profession. He said there
should be a sanction in the Bill for
anyone who charged an un-
economic fee. He said there came
a point in economics where
competition went beyond bene-
fiting the consumer.
Frank Lanigan
said that Section 63
dealing with fees advertising looked
very much the same as the 1988
advertising regulations. He said the
criteria in both were essentially
subjective and a tightening up of the
criteria should be considered to
prevent tasteless, badly, or impro-
perly worded advertisements.
Donnchadh Lehane
said that in
opposing the Bill the Society should
hone in on those provisions that
were unconstitutional and seek to
impugn the legislation when the Bill
became law.
Replying to these comments,
Maurice Curran,
Chairman of the
Solicitors Bill Committee, pointed
out that not all of the provisions in
the Bill were at the Society's be-
hest. Some of the provisions in the
Bill had been included even though
the Committee had trenchantly op-
posed them. The Committee had
been successful in ensuring that
even more unpalatable provisions
(Cont'd on page 420)