206 / 364
One of the effects of fusion of the professions in
Ireland would be
to substantially increase the
income of the larger and efficient city firms whose
services would be sought by industry, wealthy
clients and so on. On the other hand, the one
man firm or small partnership would have to try
and cope with all branches of the Law and the
attractions of large partnerships would tend to
reduce the number of such small firms
to the
great detriment of the less wealthy class of clients.
In Canada, I practised for almost eight years in
what was considered a small firm as the number of
lawyers engaged in it were four or five over the
period. Prior to that I spent two years as legal
adviser to a Government Department. I think I
realise both the advantages and disadvantages of
the united profession and will try and set them
down.
Advantage to Client in Superior Court
Proceedings
In the smaller firms where there is not special
isation, the client selects his own lawyer who con
ducts all interviews with the client and witnesses
and who handles the correspondence, all prelim
inary proceedings, motions, examinations for dis
covery and the trial. The client, if he had confi-
cence in his lawyer, knows that all the facts of his
case can be considered and put to the Court.
On the other hand, in a larger firm where there
is specialisation, the client may be interviewed by
one lawyer and perhaps have the initial stages of
his case dealt with by him and Court proceedings
dealt with by another who acts as counsel for
the firm.
In either event, the client has only one fee to
pay.
Disadvantages to Client in Superior Court
Proceedings
A person tends to consult his own lawyer no
matter what type of proceedings are contemplated
or he makes a selection of lawyer on the basis of
reputation or recommendation and he may have
his case dealt with by someone inexperienced or
with little ability for the type of work involved.
In the case of the firm with its own counsel this
situation occurs, for it is unlikely that any one
counsel is equally expert in such diverse matters
as will suits, paternity suits, admiralty law or
running down actions.
il: Where the one man acts as solicitor and counsel
•
(and
the
two
functions are acknowledged
in
Canada) it is extremely difficult for him to deal
with the case on the basis of the relevant facts
only and dismiss the irrelevant from his mind.
Likewise, he finds it extremely difficult to take a
detached view of the facts and make decisions
and give opinions unpopular to his client.
In the smaller firms it is unusual to find lawyers
with good court technique and because of inex
perience in court work, the average lawyer has to
be concerned with too many incidental details
such as rules of evidence, procedure and so on
and his attention from the issues
is distracted.
Also, the lawyer who infrequently appears in court
will not do his client's case full justice because of
his relative inability at examination and cross-
examination of witnesses.
Advantages and Disadvantages to Client in Non-
Litigious Matters and Lower Court
Proceedings
I do not think that any real difference exists
between the two systems so far as non-litigious
matters are concerned except in the matter of cost.
In the fused profession, the lawyer is first a solici
tor and, with the exception of a specialist, most
lawyers are as competent as Irish solicitors to carry
on a general practice. Again, the problem arises in
matters requiring specialist skill which are outisde
the competence of the general practitioner, for he
does not have the choice of highly skilled experts
as are available in the Bar Library in Ireland to
advise and guide him.
In proceedings in the lower courts, the client is
probably given better service in Canada than is
generally available to him in Ireland. For the
average Canadian lawyer, because of his training
in law school and his experience in practise, is
more competent in this field than the average
solicitor in this country. There are, of course,
many very competent solicitors practising in the
District and Circuit Courts and on
the other
hand many Canadian lawyers never set foot in a
court, although they call themselves barristers, so
my comments are only intended to apply to the
general situation.
Advantages and Disadvantages of Fusion
to
Lawyers
The principal advantage to lawyers resulting
from fusion
is
the substantially higher earning
power of a large firm. The trend in North America
is
towards
large partnerships and, as a
result,
there is a wide range of specialist service in all or
many branches of the law. Allied to this, one firm
can earn all the fees payable by a client in respect
100