142 / 364
their advice following his suspension from duty as
an employee of the Department on the ground of
alleged indiscipline. Members forwarded copies of
correspondence to the Department from which it
appeared that the policy of the Department is to
refuse to consider representations or to supply
information to solicitors acting for employees of the
Department. In the case in question members had
unsuccessfully applied for copies of the relevant
regulations. They were informed that they would
be supplied only to the client direct. The Council
decided that representations be made to the Depart
ment.
London agency allowance
The solicitors, London Agents' Association wrote
to the Society concerning the question of the agency
allowance expected from London agents by solicitors
practising in the Republic. The point raised by the
Association concerns the amount solicitors in Ireland
require as agency allowance.
It would appear that
criticism is made of the allowance if less than 33!-%
is given by the London Agent. This Association
carried out a survey to ascertain the allowances
granted by London Agents to the profession and
clients practising in England. The survey showed
that the average allowance granted by the members
of the Association was approximately 13%.
A
significant number of leading agency firms gave
little or no agency allowance which should mean
that the average allowance received by the pro
fessional client in the country would be considerably
less than 33^%. It was stated that the Association
do not recommend a particular allowance as a
condition of membership but it states that it reflects
the opinion of a number of London agents namely
that agency is something of an anachronism which in
the course of the next five or ten years will probably
disappear. The Secretary of the Association sought
the views of this Society so that when individual
members of the Association are negotiating with
solicitors in Ireland they will be aware of the attitude
of the Law Society here. The matter was referred to a
Committee.
TOWN PLANNING APPEALS
The following is the text of a letter of zand
October, 1965, addressed by
the Society to the
Department of Local Government in connection with
the above.
Dear Sir,
The attention of the Council has been drawn to the
memorandum on the procedure at oral hearings of
planning appeals issued by the Department in July
96 5. After referring to the provisions in the Regula
tions dealing with planning appeals (S.I. No. 216 of
1964) the memorandum contains statements which,
in the opinion of the Council, are seriously prejudicial
to the legal profession. The Council are obliged to
take exception to the general impression sought to be
given by the memorandum and in particular to the
following paragraph:
There is no obligation on any party to an appeal to be
represented by counsel or solicitor.
Any party may
appear in person or, if he wishes, be represented by
any other person e.g. a relative or a technical or
professional adviser. The inspector will afford any
assistance required by a party appearing on his own
behalf. The planning authority will have such
officials in attendance as may be required to deal
with issues likely to arise.
The whole emphasis and tenor of this paragraph is
tendentious. When a statement of this kind is issued
under the name of the Minister, who decides the
appeal, it can only be understood by the public as the
expression of a wish by the deciding authority that
the parties should not be legally represented. The
Council note the distinction drawn between appear
ance by counsel or solicitor, which is discouraged,
and representation by "a technical or professional
adviser", which is apparently unobjectionable. The
Council are at a loss to understand why a distinction
should be made between different professions or why
the Minister should think it appropriate to give
advice of this kind. The public are well aware of
their rights and the issue of this memorandum had
only one purpose viz., to influence parties against the
legal profession when choosing their professional
advisers and representatives.
Apart from purely technical issues involved in
planning appeals, it is important for an appellant that
his case should be properly presented and argued.
An engineer, architect, or other professional technical
adviser is not normally the best qualified advocate.
The inspector conducting the appeal cannot represent
any of the parties. The impression sought to be given
by the circular that the interests of all parties will be
adequately safeguarded by the inspector and officials
of the planning authority is contrary to the basic
principle that the inspector is acting in a judicial
capacity to consider the arguments of all parties and
to give an objective decision.
Legal advice and representation need not detract
from procedural informality. The same informality
is achieved at arbitrations where the parties are
legally represented. The fact that a planning appeal
is divested of the trappings of a Court does not mean
that the interests of the parties at the inquiry are the
same.