The Gazette 1955-58

in this State, but which have been abolished elsewhere as unsuited to twentieth-century conditions. Following the publication of the report of the sub-committee in the daily press the following leading articles appeared in the newspapers : THE MAILED FIST. Yesterday at the annual general meeting of the Incorporated Law Society, its president read the report of a special com mittee set up to deal with the Solicitors' Remuneration General Order, 1957. It appears that the Order in question was made upon the application of the Law Society by a statutory body at present consisting of the Chief Justice, the President of the High Court, the Senior Ordinary Judge of the Supreme Court, and the President of the Incorporated Law Society. The Order, in effect, proposed to substitute for the present detailed bill of costs furnished by a solicitor in non-contentious work outside court a bulk fee of such amount as should be fair and reasonable, based upon certain tests detailed in the Order. The Order further reserved to the public two safe guards stated to be peculiar to the solicitors' profession— namely, the client's right to obtain free of charge from the Law Society a certificate of the reasonableness or otherwise of the charge, and the over-riding right to have the bill taxed by the Taxing Master. The Order, when made, was laid upon the table of both Houses of the Oireachtas, either of which could within one month by motion upon notice revoke it. It was, in fact, revoked by the small majority of two votes last week in the Senate upon a motion brought by the Minister for Justice. Quite apart from the rights and wrongs of this Order, concern must be felt over the way in which the Minister and his department dealt with the matter, as revealed by the debate which took place in the Senate and by the report of the Law Society. It would be hard to conceive of any persons better qualified to deal with the question of solicitors' remuneration than those named above, and it is quite incon ceivable that they would make this or any other Order without very careful consideration. In his closing speech in the debate, the Minister for Justice said : " We made it clear in our com munication to the statutory body that if they wished to con sider other ways and means, we would be prepared to give sympathetic consideration to their views." In other words, if the statutory body care to make another Order upon terms dictated by him and his department, then he will not oppose it. This appears to be the kernel of the whole affair. It seems strange that any Minister or Department of State should decline to discuss such a matter with a body like the Law Society, which was obviously anxious to explain its case and smooth out any difficulties that might have arisen. It was a matter of sufficient importance apparently for the Taoiseach to intervene and himself arrange to receive repre sentatives of the Law Society to discuss it. It seems clear that the Taoiseach was reasonably satisfied after hearing the society's representatives, that their case should be further considered, for he then asked them to put in writing certain undertakings they had given to him ver bally. This was done, and, in the words of the Law Society report, " they felt that the Government would accept the undertakings." Apparently they were wrong, for some days later a notice of motion to disallow the Order—giving, in fact, the barest possible notice—appeared on the Senate order paper. It is of interest that there is no member of the solicitors' profession in the Senate, whereas there are solicitor members of the Dail who could have made their society's case. In spite of this fact, every one of the eleven members of the Senate who spoke—and they came from varied walks

of life—opposed the motion in no uncertain terms. They protested most vigorously against the methods used by the Minister to steam-roll, by the use of the Government majority, the motion through the House, and against his failure to produce for the information of the House the documents relating to the matter. Not a single senator raised his voice in favour of the motion. In his closing speech the Minister expressed his hope for a continuance of the good relations existing between his department and the society, but by his action in this matter he has treated not only the Law Society but the Chief Justice and his colleagues with scant courtesy, if not utter contempt— (Irish Times, 22nd November, 1957.) A WRONG DECISION The Incorporated Law Society has issued an emphatic but reasoned protest against the Government's decision to procure the disallowance of the recent Order governing solicitors' remuneration. The incident to which the protest refers was, to say the least, somewhat disedifying. In the first place, the Order which has been disallowed was not an order made by the solicitors' body. It was an order made and approved by a statutory body which includes the Chief Justice, the President of the High Court and another Judge of the Supreme Court—men whose status is a sufficient assurance that they had the interests of the public foremost in their minds. In the second place, it was an Order not designed to increase the costs allowable to solicitors but to introduce a simpler and more business-like method of deal ing with costs in certain non-contentious business. Thirdly, the Order has been disallowed at the behest of the Govern ment by a minority vote of the Seanad on arguments which were fallacious and erroneous. It is difficult to lay all the blame on the Minister for Justice. He is a layman and naturally must rely on the advice of his permanent officials. The attitude of the permanent officials may be gauged by the revelation now made by the Incor porated Law Society. The Society sought an opportunity of expressing its views through a deputation to the Minister. One would have thought that such a request from such a a responsible body would at once have been granted. In fact the Minister—again, no doubt, acting at the suggestion of his officials—declined to receive the deputation. The Minister cannot, however, be altogether absolved, nor can the other members of the Government. Fair play and ordinary courtesy would have at once prompted a readi ness to receive the deputation and to hear and consider the solicitors' views before a decision was taken. This course was all the more desirable because the statutory body respon sible for the Order, headed by the members of the judiciary, could obviously not be involved in any public controversy. The Government, acting through the Minister, preferred to invoke a British Statute of 1881 to nullify the Order, to ignore and not receive the views of one of our leading learned pro fessions, and to act on the views of the officials of the Depart ment who presumably advise the Minister on such matters. The whole incident has been not only disedifying but disturbing. It is quite clear from the full official report of the debate in the Seanad that even the minority vote which was sufficient to secure the disallowance of the Order was obtained if not by party directions certainly by arguments which were untenable and based on a misunderstanding of the whole situation. This is no way to treat the legal profession. It is no way to treat the members of the judiciary and the other members of the legal profession who give their services in such matters to the public. It is a disquieting indication of the attitude of the officials, whoever they may be. And it is not serving the interests of the public at large. Steps should be taken forthwith to undo this wrong.— (Irish Independent, z3rd November, 1957.)