The Gazette 1952-1955

Almost four centuries ago an English Bard bewailed of “ The law’ s delays.” Unfortunately the public, our clients, read that to mean the lawyer’ s delays. In some instances they may be right because we are not supermen and the nature and variety of our activities makes it inevitable that at times we fall behind temporarily with the work on hand. Nevertheless, delays do occur for which we are in no way to blame. I refer to the unexplained slowness of some o f the Departments of State with which we deal on behalf of our clients. It would be well if the public were made aware of the fact that in manv cases their work as far as it lies in our hands to do it, is completed with expedition but cannot be brought to finality by reason of the fact that there are delays which we have no power to control in certain Government Departments. I do not wish to criticise any particular class of public servants or individuals who are in the main willing and anxious to help and to expedite. They are, however, appar­ ently the victims of a “ system ” which makes it almost impossible for them to meet our demands. They listen with courtesy and even charm to our complaints but still delays for which we bear the brunt of our client’s complaints, still continue. Some years ago the purported explanation for official inability to keep pace with the work on hand was that most Departments were understaffed. This cannot be true, as the ever-increasing numbers of public servants is apparent to all. It is ironical that we who for centuries fought for our independence and separate way o f fife have modelled and indeed, slavishly followed, the legal and administrative systems prevailing in another land. That these institutions work admirably in the country of their origin cannot be gainsaid where they may be suited to the temperament of the peoples and the tempo o f life, but it may well be that they are not geared to the demands of the more individualistic character­ istics of the Irish people. Who knows ? The fact remains that we daily shoulder a burden of blame for delay for which nobody seems to be blame­ worthy but the “ system.” That efforts to deal with this problem, to eradicate delays, and to secure the smooth working of the administrative machine, by consulting efficiency experts wholly unacquainted in many cases with the nature and importance of the work involved, fills me with dismay. Have you ever paused to weigh up the extent to which we are dependent for the efficient running of our offices on our staffs ? No solicitor can be expected to give too per cent, personal attention to the unnumbered tasks which fall to him in carrying out his clients’ instructions whether in litigious or non- contentious matters. He must have somebody to whom he can, with safety, delegate some o f his 48

at least three weeks before the second reading? Few would be inconvenienced by such a circumstance and much good might result to the body politic by the blending of our voices with those of our legislators. Conscious of the fact that members of the press are present and that some members of the newspaper­ reading public may see my words, it is with a sense of delicacy that I mention a matter which is causing great inconvenience to the profession and public alike in that it involves a question of costs. When last I addressed you, I referred to your Society’s views and to the assistance they had given in connection with the extension of the jurisdiction o f the District and Circuit Courts pursuant to the Courts o f justice Act, 1954- While any views I might express would be merely personal ones, I cannot comment one way or another as to whether or not the measure has been a success. It is too soon to assess the result even though as a city solicitor, I am less likely to be affected by its workings than my brothers in the provinces^ I cannot, however, be wholly silent on this subject as long as there is continued failure somewhere to prescribe costs for the transferred jurisdiction of the District Court. Most appalling anomalies are daily arising put of the individual views of various Judges and Justices as to their power to award costs for a jurisdiction in respect of which no scale exists. Y our Council, fully alive to the dissatisfaction of both practitioners and public alike, have spared no effort to have scales enacted but without success. It is hard to see why the honest endeavour o f the appointed Rules Making Committee to have costs commensurate with the work and issues involved prescribed has not yet been accorded Ministerial sanction. One can only assume that there is a lingering but ever present notion in the back of the heads o f the Minister’s advisers that the suggested scales are excessive. I would be pushing an open door to protest to this meeting that such is not the case. The all-round increase in the cost of living and of labour has never been met by the increases granted in recent years on scales laid down in a previous century when £1 is to-day value for some­ thing less than 3 fo. While earlier on in this Report I mentioned costs with diffidence, my honest indigna­ tion at this point impels me to say publicly that the rewards and gains in our profession are a matter on which the public have wildly exaggerated notions. It is disappointing to have to here confess that such ideas o f grossly over-paid solicitors must prevail in quarters where a more realistic view should be taken o f our profession’s right to payment related to the arduous and essential services rendered to the