The Gazette 1977

MARCH 1977

GAZETTE

the United Kingdom, in the British Commonwealth and European countries over the years, without any conclusions being arrived at, other than that the present system should be retained. The Society welcomes the views of the Consultant, as an economist, but believes that far greater research is necessary on these fundamental issues, before they can be fully debated and before sensible conclusions can be arrived at, which in the final analysis must be prepared to co-operate fully with the Restrictive Practices Commission in its investigation. The Society is conscious of the many problems which have givenrise to criticism and in its own way and in so far as it can, it has endeavoured to overcome some of the more obvious inequities which exist The Consultant's comments, that it was not possible for him to cover all of the many areas in the legal structure and system which would warrant consideration is appreciated, having regard to the wide terms of reference and the time at his disposal. Hence the Society, in so far as fundamental issues are concerned, must express serious reservations as to the correctness of the basis from which are argued, some of the conclusions arrived at. It will comment on these aspects in greater depth at a later date. While in general the Society welcomes the report of Professor Lees, Consultant to the National Prices Commission, it considers that the findings of the Commission on its Consultant's recommendations have been most unreasonable. In brief: (i) Land Registry scale fees: The non-acceptance of the Consultant's recommendation of an increase from | to } of the scale in the case of registered land will bear particularly hard on the situation of practitioners outside Dublin and certain other large centres. Coupled with the non-acceptance of the recommendation re Court fees it will make it difficult for solicitors to earn a reasonable living in smaller towns and will act contrary to the general policy of encouraging the retention of services in the less populated and less well-off areas. It is obvious that the Commission has based its finding on the conveyancing aspect of the transaction and has had no regard to such ancillary work as advice on:- (i) the tax situation in the context of new Capital Tax legislation (ii) the position in relation to the Succession Act, 1965. (iii) the requirements in relation to the Planning and Development Acts 1963 and 1976. (iv) situation in relation to the Family Home Protection Act, 1976 (v) the situation in relation to hire purchase and credit sales. These points were made to the Consultant and accepted by him. The approach of the National Prices Commission will leave solicitors throughout the country with no option but to agree additional fees with their clients for this additional work which the N.P.C. has not taken into account. (ii) Court Costs: The Society's initial application for 150% increase in Court Costs was based on its understanding of the deterioration of the situation in this area. The Consultant, in relation to District Court work, the major court work item in a solicitor's practice outside Dublin vindicated the Society's application. Now that solicitors fully understand the cost implications, the effect 26

of the National Prices Commission findings, if implemented, will be a reduction in the time solicitors are prepared to spend on Court work, especially having regard to the present very inefficient organisation of the Courts. (iii) Criminal Legal Aid: The findings of the National Prices Commission which are of particular relevance to a small section of the profession in Dublin are completely unacceptable. Coupled with the present considerable delay in the submission of claims by the Dublin District Court Office, it is more than likely that many of the more experienced solicitors on the panel will withdraw from this type of work. Taking the Commission's suggestion the Society proposes making further comment to the National Prices Commission on the foregoing points and on certain other aspects of the Consultant's report. A matter affecting seriously the well being of its members is the time lag involved in the processing of the application. This was first made to the relevant statutory bodies in 1st May, >1975, almost two years ago, and based on income figures for the year 1974 at the latest. Since then further very substantial increases have occurred in wages of solicitors' staffs and in other overhead costs, particularly so in the case of postage and telephone costs. The result is that while the National Prices Commission regards its findings as complete increases, the Society is left with no option but to process a further application for an adjustment in the gross remuneration of its members. 1st March, 1977. The Solicitors went in looking for 150% and they came out with 50% increase. For that I suppose we can be grateful, but given the flow of complaints that come into this programme about the legal profession I know that a lot of listeners will be unhappy with any increase granted. The increase is mostly for civil litigation fees and many people will be interested to know that the Examiner for Restrictive Practices is being asked to look at the monopoly solicitors have in Conveyancing. So how do the Solicitors feel about the way the N.P.C. has treated them? Are you a happy man this morning, Walter? I am not, Rodney, because we feel that it is most disappointing that the Prices Commission should appoint a Consultant who is a very intelligent man, a professor of Nottingham University, that he should issue recommendations, which for the most part are realistic and fair and that these should be almost totally rejected by the Commission. It is also quite wrong to talk about 50% increase. On page 13 of the Commission's Report they say that "From mid-February to mid-November, 1975 the consumer index increased by 52% In our view Court Fees for civil litigation should be increased by 50% on average. The distribution of this percentage between the High Court, Circuit Court and District Court will best be decided by the Legal Profession. Now this does not mean a 50% increase — far from it. It means that the District Court fee may be increased if the Statutory Rules Committee so decide by perhaps 25%, the Circuit Court by 15% and the High Court by 10%. So, it is wrong and misleading to say there is a 50% increase. Mr. W. Beatty - Here and Now - 2/3/77, R.T.E. Radio