The Gazette 1952-1955

at least three weeks before the second reading? Few

would be inconvenienced by such a circumstance

and much good might result to the body politic

by the blending of our voices with those of our

legislators.

Conscious of the fact that members of the press

are present and that some members of the newspaper

reading public may see my words, it is with a sense

of delicacy that I mention a matter which is causing

great inconvenience to the profession and public

alike in that it involves a question of costs. When

last I addressed you, I referred to your Society’s

views and to the assistance they had given in

connection with the extension of the jurisdiction

o f the District and Circuit Courts pursuant to the

Courts o f justice Act, 1954- While any views I

might express would be merely personal ones, I

cannot comment one way or another as to whether

or not the measure has been a success. It is too

soon to assess the result even though as a city

solicitor, I am less likely to be affected by its

workings than my brothers in the provinces^ I

cannot, however, be wholly silent on this subject

as long as there is continued failure somewhere to

prescribe costs for the transferred jurisdiction of the

District Court. Most appalling anomalies are daily

arising put of the individual views of various Judges

and Justices as to their power to award costs for a

jurisdiction in respect of which no scale exists.

our

Council, fully alive to the dissatisfaction of both

practitioners and public alike, have spared no effort

to have scales enacted but without success. It is

hard to see why the honest endeavour o f the

appointed Rules Making Committee to have costs

commensurate with the work and issues involved

prescribed has not yet been accorded Ministerial

sanction. One can only assume that there is a

lingering but ever present notion in the back of the

heads o f the Minister’s advisers that the suggested

scales are excessive. I would be pushing an open

door to protest to this meeting that such is not the

case. The all-round increase in the cost of living

and of labour has never been met by the increases

granted in recent years on scales laid down in a

previous century when

£1

is to-day value for some

thing less than 3

fo.

While earlier on in this Report I

mentioned costs with diffidence, my honest indigna

tion at this point impels me to say publicly that the

rewards and gains in our profession are a matter on

which the public have wildly exaggerated notions.

It is disappointing to have to here confess that such

ideas o f grossly over-paid solicitors must prevail

in quarters where a more realistic view should be

taken o f our profession’s right to payment related

to the arduous and essential services rendered to the

Almost four centuries ago an English Bard

bewailed of “ The law’ s delays.” Unfortunately the

public, our clients, read that to mean the lawyer’ s

delays. In some instances they may be right because

we are not supermen and the nature and variety

of our activities makes it inevitable that at times

we fall behind temporarily with the work on hand.

Nevertheless, delays do occur for which we are in

no way to blame. I refer to the unexplained slowness

of some o f the Departments of State with which

we deal on behalf of our clients. It would be well

if the public were made aware of the fact that in

manv cases their work as far as it lies in our hands

to do it, is completed with expedition but cannot

be brought to finality by reason of the fact that there

are delays which we have no power to control in

certain Government Departments. I do not wish to

criticise any particular class of public servants or

individuals who are in the main willing and anxious

to help and to expedite. They are, however, appar

ently the victims of a “ system ” which makes it

almost impossible for them to meet our demands.

They listen with courtesy and even charm to our

complaints but still delays for which we bear the

brunt of our client’s complaints, still continue. Some

years ago the purported explanation for official

inability to keep pace with the work on hand was

that most Departments were understaffed. This

cannot be true, as the ever-increasing numbers of

public servants is apparent to all. It is ironical that

we who for centuries fought for our independence

and separate way o f fife have modelled and indeed,

slavishly followed, the legal and administrative

systems prevailing in another land. That these

institutions work admirably in the country of their

origin cannot be gainsaid where they may be suited

to the temperament of the peoples and the tempo

o f life, but it may well be that they are not geared

to the demands of the more individualistic character

istics of the Irish people. Who knows ? The fact

remains that we daily shoulder a burden of blame

for delay for which nobody seems to be blame

worthy but the

“

system.” That efforts to deal

with this problem, to eradicate delays, and to secure

the smooth working of the administrative machine,

by consulting efficiency experts wholly unacquainted

in many cases with the nature and importance of the

work involved, fills me with dismay.

Have you ever paused to weigh up the extent to

which we are dependent for the efficient running of

our offices on our staffs ? No solicitor can be expected

to give too per cent, personal attention to the

unnumbered tasks which fall to him in carrying out

his clients’ instructions whether in litigious or non-

contentious matters. He must have somebody to

whom he can, with safety, delegate some o f his