The Gazette 1986

GAZETTE

sepTemBER

1986

Proceedings at Annual General Meeting

Insurance and Advertising prime issues

at Society's AGM

Major discussions on Professional Indemnity Cover

and Advertising by solicitors were features of the

Incorporated Law Society of Ireland Annual General

Meeting at Blackhall Place, Dublin, on 13 November,

1986.

During consideration of reports by Committees, the

Professional Indemnity Committee's Chairman, Mr.

Thomas J. Shaw and Mr. E. J. Margetson moved the

following resolution:

"That this Annual General Meeting endorses the

decision of the Society to make the taking out of

Professional Indemnity Cover compulsory with

effect as and from 1st May, 1986, and each anniver-

sary thereafter and further endorses the decision of

the Council to inaugurate a Professional Indemnity

Fund to meet claims made on members of the

profession with effect as and from 1 May, 1987 and

without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing,

generally in accordance with the outline furnished

in the attached report of the Chairman of the

Professional Indemnity Committee, Mr. T. Shaw,

dated 28 October, 1985".

Mr. Shaw said that having regard to the increases in

premiums experienced in recent years and the likelihood

of further increases, the Society proposed embarking on

its own Professional Indemnity scheme to provide a

more economic service for members. Insofar as making

the matter of Professional Indemnity Insurance cover

compulsory, Mr. Shaw said that the public made no

distinction between the misappropriation of client funds

and negligence. The public dissatisfaction with the

situation made it clear that the profession should be

covered under both heads and it was generally accepted

by firms that they should carry such cover. It had been

made clear to the Society's representatives who were

discussing the amendment of the Solicitors' Acts that

the Minister would regard mandatory cover in respect of

Professional Indemnity as an important consideration.

Mr. Shaw added that a practitioner who was not in a

position to afford Professional Indemnity cover at the

levels which the Society hoped to introduce, should not

really be in practice on his own account.

Dealing with the proposed Scheme Mr. Shaw

indicated that the figure of £200,000 cover per solicitor

had been agreed with the Department of Justice.

Over 1,100 firms had replied to the questionnaire out

of total of 1,400. The Society's scheme would initially

be limited to those who responded to the questionnaire.

The Committee was currently in discussion with regard

to "top up" cover and it was hoping to accommodate

all firms under the proposed scheme.

Mr. D. Moran opposed compulsory insurance

because once people knew such a facility was available,

they would claim. He queried whether the Society would

obtain a licence under the Insurance Act; whether the

Society would employ additional staff, and whether it

would pay legal costs in the handling of claims.

Mr. P. O'Murcu asked that special provision should

be made for a reduced contribution from solicitors

engaged in less remunerative practice, for instance

criminal legal aid work. Some allowance should be

made for the lesser likelihood of claims in that area. He

also felt that the scheme would be restrictive on new

practitioners. Mr. R. O'hUadaigh argued against the

obligatory requirements in relation to Professional

Indemnity. He maintained that the Society had objected

to such a requirement in the past and it should not now

accept it.

After several other members had raised points on the

motion Mr. Shaw said that the final scheme would not

be put to the profession until the "top up" cover

situation had been clarified. The one point he wished to

make clear was that insurance premiums were not going

to fall in the foreseeable future.

The resolution was put to the meeting and carried.

Debate on advertising

The President (Mr. Laurence Cullen) outlined the

steps taken by the Council of the Society in considering

the question of advertising by members of the

profession, backgrounding the resolution proposed by

Mr. J. Dillon-Leetch and seconded by Mr. M. Keane

that:

"We, the undersigned, hereby propose that the

Council of the Law Society should not ratify the

draft Statutory Instrument dealing with advertising

by solicitors recently circulated to the Profession."

Mr. Dillon-Leetch said that he and his colleagues did

not want the opposition to the proposed Advertising

Regulations to be seen as a rural/Dublin divide. In the

past the profession had managed without advertising. A

solicitor in practice was as good as his last client. He

depended on his training and skill and could only

provide a service on the basis of that background. In his

view advertising fostered monopolies in that bigger

firms could attract business on a country-wide basis

leaving the small practitioner with the crumbs. Adver-

tising leading to a price war, would result in the

disappearance of the smaller firms which was inconsis-

tent with the profession's integrity. The client might

seek the solicitor but the solicitor should not seek the

client. In his view advertising was indistinguishable

from touting and would result in more problems.

Mr. Dillon-Leetch and several speakers supported

institutional advertising for the professions, but Mr. B.

O'Reilly and other opponents of the resolution pointed

to the difficulties of Dublin suburban solicitors making

themselves known to the communities in which they

practised. A personalised imaginative approach was

necessary in such conditions.

In the course of the debate Mr. J. F. Buckley

commented that advertising embraced far more matters

than straightforward notices in the media. Even with

adoption of regulations to provide for advertising, the

big firms would not be taking media space but would

engage in promotion by way of brochures and other

avenues. Accountants, who had been allowed to

295