33 / 264
GAZETTE
MARCH 1977
the United Kingdom, in the British Commonwealth and
European countries over the years, without any
conclusions being arrived at, other than that the present
system should be retained. The Society welcomes the
views of the Consultant, as an economist, but believes that
far greater research is necessary on these fundamental
issues, before they can be fully debated and before
sensible conclusions can be arrived at, which in the final
analysis must be prepared to co-operate fully with the
Restrictive Practices Commission in its investigation.
The Society is conscious of the many problems which
have givenrise to criticism and in its own way and in so far as
it can, it has endeavoured to overcome some of the more
obvious inequities which exist
The Consultant's comments, that it was not possible
for him to cover all of the many areas in the legal
structure and system which would warrant consideration
is appreciated, having regard to the wide terms of
reference and the time at his disposal. Hence the Society,
in so far as fundamental issues are concerned, must
express serious reservations as to the correctness of the
basis from which are argued, some of the conclusions
arrived at. It will comment on these aspects in greater
depth at a later date.
While in general the Society welcomes the report of
Professor Lees, Consultant to the National Prices
Commission, it considers that the findings of the
Commission on its Consultant's recommendations have
been most unreasonable. In brief:
(i) Land Registry scale fees: The non-acceptance of the
Consultant's recommendation of an increase from | to }
of the scale in the case of registered land will bear
particularly hard on the situation of practitioners outside
Dublin and certain other large centres. Coupled with the
non-acceptance of the recommendation re Court fees it
will make it difficult for solicitors to earn a reasonable
living in smaller towns and will act contrary to the general
policy of encouraging the retention of services in the less
populated and less well-off areas. It is obvious that the
Commission has based its finding on the conveyancing
aspect of the transaction and has had no regard to such
ancillary work as advice on:-
(i) the tax situation in the context of new Capital
Tax legislation
(ii) the position in relation to the Succession Act,
1965.
(iii) the requirements in relation to the Planning and
Development Acts 1963 and 1976.
(iv) situation in relation to the Family Home
Protection Act, 1976
(v) the situation in relation to hire purchase and
credit sales.
These points were made to the Consultant and accepted
by him. The approach of the National Prices Commission
will leave solicitors throughout the country with no option
but to agree additional fees with their clients for this
additional work which the N.P.C. has not taken into
account.
(ii) Court Costs: The Society's initial application for
150% increase in Court Costs was based on its
understanding of the deterioration of the situation in this
area. The Consultant, in relation to District Court work,
the major court work item in a solicitor's practice outside
Dublin vindicated the Society's application. Now that
solicitors fully understand the cost implications, the effect
26
of the National Prices Commission findings, if
implemented, will be a reduction in the time solicitors are
prepared to spend on Court work, especially having
regard to the present very inefficient organisation of the
Courts.
(iii) Criminal Legal Aid: The findings of the National
Prices Commission which are of particular relevance to a
small section of the profession in Dublin are completely
unacceptable. Coupled with the present considerable
delay in the submission of claims by the Dublin District
Court Office, it is more than likely that many of the more
experienced solicitors on the panel will withdraw from this
type of work.
Taking the Commission's suggestion the Society
proposes making further comment to the National Prices
Commission on the foregoing points and on certain other
aspects of the Consultant's report.
A matter affecting seriously the well being of its
members is the time lag involved in the processing of the
application. This was first made to the relevant statutory
bodies in 1st May, >1975, almost two years ago, and based
on income figures for the year 1974 at the latest. Since
then further very substantial increases have occurred in
wages of solicitors' staffs and in other overhead costs,
particularly so in the case of postage and telephone costs.
The result is that while the National Prices Commission
regards its findings as complete increases, the Society is
left with no option but to process a further application for
an adjustment in the gross remuneration of its members.
1st March, 1977.
Mr. W. Beatty - Here and Now - 2/3/77, R.T.E. Radio
The Solicitors went in looking for 150% and they came
out with 50% increase. For that I suppose we can be
grateful, but given the flow of complaints that come into
this programme about the legal profession I know that a
lot of listeners will be unhappy with any increase granted.
The increase is mostly for civil litigation fees and many
people will be interested to know that the Examiner for
Restrictive Practices is being asked to look at the
monopoly solicitors have in Conveyancing. So how do
the Solicitors feel about the way the N.P.C. has treated
them?
Are you a happy man this morning, Walter?
I am not, Rodney, because we feel that it is most
disappointing that the Prices Commission should appoint
a Consultant who is a very intelligent man, a professor of
Nottingham University, that he should issue
recommendations, which for the most part are realistic
and fair and that these should be almost totally rejected
by the Commission. It is also quite wrong to talk about
50% increase. On page 13 of the Commission's Report
they say that "From mid-February to mid-November,
1975 the consumer index increased by 52% In our view
Court Fees for civil litigation should be increased by 50%
on average. The distribution of this percentage between
the High Court, Circuit Court and District Court will best
be decided by the Legal Profession. Now this does not
mean a 50% increase — far from it. It means that the
District Court fee may be increased if the Statutory Rules
Committee so decide by perhaps 25%, the Circuit
Court by 15% and the High Court by 10%. So, it is
wrong and misleading to say there is a 50% increase.