313 / 330
GAZETTE
sepTemBER
1986
Correspondence
The Editor,
The Law Society Gazette,
Blackhall Place,
Dublin 7.
26 November, 1986
Re: Proposed Status of Children Bill
Dear Sir,
The draughtsmen of the proposed Bill, which is to
provide for illegitimate children being entitled to
succeed, on a putative parent's death, in equal shares
with his legitimate children does not appear to have
provided against the possibilities for fraud which are
inherent in the proposals as drafted. There would be
nothing to prevent an unscrupulous woman claiming
that her child is the illegitimate child of a deceased
person. If the claim is made after the death of the
deceased there would be no reubtting evidence to that
produced by the claimant and blood tests could not be
obtained. This would cause great distress and in many
cases hardship on the widow and her lawful family. This
whole question should receive adequate consideration
before the proposals go any further. There is also the
possibility that the proposals may conflict with Article
41 of the Constitution dealing with the family.
Yours faithfully,
Desmond Moran,
Solicitor,
Moran & Ryan,
35 & 36 Arran Quay,
Dublin 7.
The Editor,
The Gazette,
Law Society,
Blackhall Place,
Dublin 7.
Dear Madam,
Your editorial in the November issue of the
Gazette
on the Building Societies Bill is carping. That the
Building Societies need reorganising with legislative
change is beyond question. However, three of the five
paragraphs heap ire on the role of the Solicitors to
Building Societies. The Editorial is calculated to cause
as much damage as possible to such Solicitors by
offering them as sacrifice for others.
I was not aware that the Council of the Law Society
condemned Societies from employing their own
Solicitors. To my recollection, the Council passed a
motion endeavouring to sway the Building Societies
towards using purchasers' Solicitors for completion of
house mortgages. It did not condemn the use by
Societies of their own Solicitors, nor should it do so,
although that does not appear to be your leader writer's
view.
When the move failed to impress the Societies, the
Council lobbied the media and in the corridors of
political power to have their way and in doing so
endeavoured to divide the profession.
It is not the Council's function to instruct any client
as to which Solicitor they should entrust their business;
it has always been the profession's cry of independence
of choice that has served its integrity and the public it
represents best. Building Societies, as other clients,
should be entitled to have Solicitors of their own choice.
The Council in making a point seem to have entirely
7 January, 1987
missed that most basic of rights — freedom of choice or
association.
Merely because the Council passes a motion on a
matter of perceived importance to the profession does
not mean that it is reflecting the views of the profession
as a whole. Was the Council not sadly out of step on the
advertising issue?
I suggest that it may also have done the profession a
great disservice by publicly attacking the legitimate use
by clients, in this case Building Societies, of their own
freely chosen Solicitors. If three Solicitors are
considered too many, although they perform different
roles on the part of the respective clients, is it really clear
that the Solicitor to drop out should be that of the
Building Society? Is there an argument that says a
purchaser's Solicitor is any better qualified than a
Building Society Solicitor, or vice-versa? I think not,
although it is common ground that Building Society
Solicitors tend to concentrate on conveyancing.
To suggest that a Building Society Solicitor might act
for a purchaser as well as a Society is not as illogical as
the Council might think, although it would not
necessarily be a result for which it would wish. I would
suggest that the Council either adopt a lower profile on
the issue of Building Society Solicitors, or take a poll of
the profession as to whether it is desirable to pre-empt
from any prospective client the free choice of Solicitor
before campaigning further.
Financial institutions have great resources and their
desire to provide services until now traditionally the
preserve of Solicitors may within the near future put the
entire profession under greater pressure than it presently
realises. One only has to look at the U.K., where the
Council seems to gaze all the time, to note that a
Solicitor and a Conveyancer are no longer coterminous.
Statistically,
I believe
Conveyancing
produces
approximately
50% of
Solicitors
fee income
nationwide. It has to be a possibility that Building
Societies and other financial institutions might press in
the future to provide conveyancing services traditionally
provided by the Solicitor's profession. Can an already
over capacitated profession really withstand the loss of
any more traditional work areas to others?
The Council might be better advised to publicly and
vigorously campaign, possibly with the Auctioneering
and Accountancy professions, to highlight the real and
unjustified expense of change of house, if one is again
to measure by looking across the Irish sea, and for the
abolition of stamp duty on the conveyances of dwelling-
houses and the reduction of exorbitant Land Registry
fees on even the most pedestrian of transactions and, of
course, the high level of VAT.
Yours faithfully,
John Hooper
Solicitor, Dun Laoghaire.
gj
Executives
FULLY EXPERIENCED FREE-LANCE LAW CLERKS
WILL PROVIDE AN EFFICIENT, COST EFFECTIVE
SERVICE TO THE LEGAL PROFESSION.
RATES VERY COMPETITIVE. SAME-DAY SERVICE DUBLIN FIRMS
TOWN AGENCY WORK A SPECIALITY!
Avondale House,
189-193 Parnell Street,
Dublin 1.
Telephone:
(01) 734344.
303