The Gazette 1961 - 64

entrusted to the legal profession. Committees have sat both in Scotland and in Northern Ireland on the subject of legal aid and both the Guthrie Report in Scotland and the report of the Steele Committee in Northern Ireland emphasises strongly that it is undesirable that any scheme of legal aid or advice should be administered directly by persons employed by the State or by any local or public authority. The State and local authorities are themselves frequently parties to litigation and civil proceedings and this alone is an unanswerable argument against either of them being in control of the administration of a legal aid scheme. The State is, of necessity, a party to all criminal proceedings. The funds in any legal aid scheme must be provided by the State but, beyond this it is in accordance with justice that the actual administration of the scheme should be in the hands of the profession who stand apart from any such proceedings. The minister has indicated his willingness to co-operate with the society and, while regretting that he has not seen fit to concede the administration of the present limited scheme to the profession, we must hope that he will barken to the words of the independent committees which have considered the problem elsewhere and will ensure that in any further or extended scheme the administration is entrusted to the profession. The present Bill envisages the setting up of panels of solicitors and it must be clear that any solicitor who so wishes and is in the possession of a practising certificate shall be entitled, as of right, to have his name on thepaneland not to be capable of being removed from the panel except in accordance with the existing disciplinary procedure. Furthermore, it must be a fundamental of every legal aid scheme that every citizen availing of the scheme should have an absolute right to select his own legal adviser from the panel. The traditional and long-established personal relationship that exists between solicitor and client must be preserved and its basic principle would be destroyed if the client was not entitled to rely on the advice of the solicitor of his choice but had somebody thrust upon him. The panel may have to be divided into districts as it would not be right to allow additional travelling expenses to be incurred by permitting an accused person to select a solicitor from another part of the country. Local panels would be satisfactory but there are many instances of solicitors practising in more than one area and they should be permitted to have their names on more than one panel provided the panels were in areas in which they normally practised, which presumably would be contiguous areas. If legal aid is to be a success there must be absolute con fidence by the public in the aid which they receive and whole hearted co-operation by the profession. It will not be a matter for the society but for the individual solicitors to vo lunteer their names for the panel. The profession has always been quick to come to the aid of a person charged with a criminal offence and I have no doubt that solicitors will be anxious and willing to co-operate in working the Bill but the fees which will be allowed to them under the Act, when it becomes law, must be on some fair and reasonable basis and related to the amount of work and responsibility involved. At present no regulations have been made and no scale of fees disclosed but I should like to emphasise that if the scheme is to get the support from the individual solicitors that I and my colleagues on the council would like to see it get, it must be legal aid at the expense of the public funds and not at the expense of the solicitors. ADMINISTRATION OF THE COURTS, ETC. The minister has recently set up a committee of inquiry to inquire into the operation of the courts with a view to considering whether the cost of litigation could be reduced

and the convenience of the public and the efficient despatch of business be more effectively secured by amendments in the law. Here again, we see the hand of the reformer and we shall, as a profession, be very glad and willing to assist the com mission in its investigations and we feel sure that it will find ways and means to cut out unnecessary and wasteful steps and procedures. The public may well feel that there is too much formality in the administration of the law but every citizen must realize that justice is a very precious thing and, while modern tempo tends to lead us to try and streamline all procedures, this, while estimable even in the case of the ad ministration of justice, must be watched very carefully as it would be all too easy to over-simplify the procedures and formalities which have stood the test of years to the detriment of justice itself. The principle of justice and equal rights under the law must not be prejudiced in any way, and not only must justice be done but it must be seen to be done. No changes can be con templated which would, in any way jeopardise such principles. EDUCATION Many of my predecessors have spoken to you on the subject ofthe education ofour apprentices. This question is perennially to the forefront of our minds and is probably, with the advent of the common market, going to assume even greater im portance in the near future. The present system of apprentice ship is, in my view, outmoded. The law is becoming ever more diverse and complex and the solicitor is the poor un fortunate G.P. who is expected to know something, and often more than something, about everything. The courses which the apprentice has to study are more diverse and the examin ations more searching than they used to be and I think that this is inevitable. At the same time an apprentice is supposed, while studying his theory of law, to work in his office and to learn the practical aspects of the legal principles in day-to-day business which is, in itself, a full-time education. An apprentice has, of necessity, to seek long stretches away from the office to study and it is very difficult for the practitioner to give an apprentice ground work in the practical application of the law when he is only intermittently in attendance at the office. The effect of our present system of apprenticeship is to train would-be lawyers to have a competent knowledge of the theory of law and of the law itself but very little practical experience of how to apply their knowledge. From the apprentice's point of view it is very difficult to mix both theory and practice though, to a certain extent, they can help each other. I consider that the whole basis of the apprenticeship should be changed to a system whereby the student, first of all, learns his theoretical subjects, and passes his exams therein. The theoretical training should be given in conjunction with the Universities and the student should be encouraged, if not required, to take a university degree during this period. Sub sequently he would do an uninterrupted period of practical apprenticeship, whole-time in his master's office. This would mean lengthening the period of apprenticeship, which, by statute, the Society cannot itselfdo but I think it will ultimately be found to be necessary. The main objection that would be raised to a longer apprenticeship could well be off-set by providing that apprentices who have qualified in theoretical subjects and are learning the practical application full-time in their offices, should be paid a salary during such period on a scale which would be prescribed. Your profession has always been highly regulated by statute and the time has come when it should be left to the society itself as in other professions, to prescribe free from any statutory restrictions what is the proper period and method of training for a solicitor. Surely the profession is in much the