194 / 364
(h) the statement that fusion reduces expense
is disputed. Time and skill of the advocate must
be remunerated whether he practises
indepen
dently or as a member of a firm. Opponents of
fusion point to the United States as a country in
which fusion has not reduced expense. In some
other countries where there is fusion
de jure
there
is separation
de facto;
(i)
in common
law countries fusion depends
on large firms and a high degree of specialisation.
In continental countries it is linked with a codified
legal system and a different judicial system. In
West Germany for instance there are about 12,000
judges and magistrates which
pro rata
would
correspond to about 600 in the Republic of Ire
land. Under
the civil
law of
the continental
countries the judge does a great deal of the work
performed by advocates under the common law
system;
(j)
the supposed economies of fusion would
largely disappear unless each law firm had its
own law library or unless law libraries were estab
lished throughout the country. There would be
serious difficulties for the country practitioner who
at present through counsel has access to the Bar
library in the Four Courts;
(k)
if all solicitors may practise as barristers
the converse position also holds. The large number
of non-practising barristers in the civil service,
administration, education, etc., would have the
right to practise and there might be overcrowding
and difficulties of control.
There are other arguments on both sides but
these seem to be the most important looking at
the problem from the point of view of the public
interest and the administration of justice.
E.A.P.
A further contributed article will be published
in our next issue.
MEDICO LEGAL SOCIETY OF IRELAND
A meeting of the Medico Legal Society was
held in the Royal Hibernian Hotel on Thursday,
24 February 1966, when a symposium was held
on the subject of "Juries in Civil Trials"
The first speaker was Mr. P. C. Moore, solicitor,
who referred to the case of Ward v. James decided
by the Court of Appeal in England, in January
1965 and particularly to Lord Denning's judg
ment. Mr. Moore emphasised that there had only
been jury trials in civil cases until 1854 but that
at present the opposite tendency—trial by judge
alone prevailed in England. In fact 98 per cent of
actions for personal injuries are tried by a judge
alone. The advantage of having a judge alone is
that definite standards are laid down in respect
of awards and
that there
is
a uniformity of
decisions. The element of predictability in awards
is thus established whereas there is neither uni
formity nor predictability in awards by juries.
Another objection to trial by jury in civil cases is
that it is well nigh impossible to upset a verdict
of a -jury on appeal unless it is perverse. In any
event in such a case the appellant court only
normally orders a new trial. In civil cases trial by
jury is a time consuming process and it results in
an
expensive
undertaking
for
a middle-class
plaintiff as
the average case
lasts
three days'
instead of one. In his view therefore juries in
civil trials should be abolished.
The next speaker was an eminent psychiatrist
Dr. McLoughlin. The speaker was broadly in
favour of the retention of juries in civil cases save
in the case of inquisitions by juries as to whether
a particular person was insane or not. The speaker
gave instances of various such inquisitions in order
to prove that in such a case a jury would be
unsuitable. In cases under the Mental Treatment
Act, he advocated an independent assessment by
two doctors.
The next speaker was an eminent surgeon Mr.
O'Connell who stated that he and many of his
colleagues agreed that juries in civil actions should
be abolished. He agreed that a judge alone should
find the facts of the case but he suggested that the
assessment of damages should be done by an
expert panel composed of doctors, engineers, sur
veyors, etc. Once the rights and wrongs of the case
had been established the judge should refer the
case to the panel for expert assessment and this
panel should report back to the judge, who would
then assess the appropriate damages.
The final speaker was Mr. Niall McCarthy,
Senior Counsel, who
referred
to
the seventh
amendment to
the Constitution of
the United
States in which anyone was entitled to a jury in
a civil case if the claim exceeded 20 dollars. He
stated that the Committee on Court Procedure
had rejected the idea of juries in civil trials by a
narrow majority of seven votes to five. In his
view, a judge would be unable to judge the truth
in any better way than twleve reasonable men.
A judge was liable to place a particular interpre
tation upon the evidence as he had to give reasons
for his decisions whereas a jury did not give any
reasons for
their verdict but merely answered
specified questions. If cases of personal injuries
were heard before a judge alone this would mul
tiply the work of the Supreme Court fivefold
because judges would have to give reasons for
their decisions. In his view, on the whole jury
verdicts could be forecast by insurance companies
with accuracy and he wondered whether
the
88