The Gazette 1971

CORRESPONDENCE Legal Education John F. Buckley Dear Sir, I have read with considerable interest hut increasing puzzlement Mr. Golding's article on legal education for the European Community in the last issue of the Cazcttc. There is much that I would like to comment on in the earlier parts of his article but save for a comment that I do think he might have enquired whether there were courses in foreign and comparative law included in the law school syllabus of University Colleges Cork and Galway (because there certainly is one at Cork), I will confine my comments to the part of his article dealing with the U.C.D. diploma in European Law. Let me first declare my interest. I am one of those who attended, with Mr. Golding, at the inaugural year of the course in 1968-69 hut unlike him I am one of those who "chickened out" when it came to the exam- ination. I find it very difficult to see how he can say that there is nothing the matter with the course. He goes on to enumerate the various difficulties which face busy prac- titioners or diligent civil servants but apparently is as oblivious as any academic would be that the necessity of planning a course of this sort is to make it suitable for those who propose to attend. If it is impossible or very difficult for practitioners of some experience to make use of this course then the course is a failure. I expressed the view, while I was taking the course, to the then Dean of the Law Faculty in U.C.D. that the course was unsatisfactory in several ways and I see no reason to change my opinion particularly as the figures quoted by Mr. Golding for the results of the courses seem to support the contention that there is something wrong with this course. Apart from the question of whether any of the courses themselves are unsatisfactory

the work load is excessive for busy practitioners to fit into one year. I have argued before that the most obvious solution to the problem would be to make the course a two-year course with a commitment of two nights per week. Not merely would this make it easier for practitioners to commit themselves to attend more readily but it would also enable the course to be more satisfactorily divided into introductory and advanced material instead of the present unsatisfactory amalgam of both. Further, it ought to be possible to persuade the French and German departments of the college to pro- vide a special course, on a supply basis, to assist those of the students whose working knowledge of these lan- guages is weak. As far as the course itself is concerned it is essential that the course in confhcts of law should be extended from the present introductory course to a much more detailed course with considerable emphasis on torts. I believe that the course may be basically misconceived being an attempt to cater for a possible demand for courses on E.E.C. law by practitioners by providing this fairly general course which as events have proved have, following the experiences of the first students, not commended itself to practitioners.

I am aware that preliminary negotiations with a view to arranging a different type of course more directly related to E.E.G. law and to be of shorter duration have been opened with the universities and it is to be hoped that such progress will be made as to enable a course to operate during the 1972-73 academic year. Yours Faithfully, John F. Buckley. 8 Glare Street, Dublin 2. 11th October 1971 Rules of the Superior Courts, No. 3, 1971 Statutory Instrument No. 284 of 1971 (1) Part II of Appendix W shall be deleted and the following substituted therefor : Part II [0.99, r. 36 (1)] Shorthand Writers (1) Taking a note of evidence : for each day engaged £8.35 (3) Transcript required by the Court or any party to be furnished on the morning after the note has been taken : for certified copv and two carbon copies, per folio £0.37 for additional copies, per folio £0.03 (2) These rules shall apply to business done after these rules have come into operation.

if engaged after 4 p.m. for each successive period of two hours or part thereof, an additional (2) Transcript of evidence for appeal : for copy (certified by the shorthand writer) to be lodged in Court and a carbon copy to the applicant's solicitor (inclusive fee for both copies) per folio for certified copy for respondent's solicitor, per folio

(3) These rules shall be construed together with the Rules of the Superior Courts, and may be cited as the Rules of the Superior Courts (No. 3) of 1971. Explanatory Note These rules, which come into operation on the 11th October 1971, provide for an increase in the costs in respect of shorthand writers and transcripts of evidence, as prescribed in Part II of Appendix W to the Rules of the Superior Courts (S.I. No. 72 of 1962). 157

£3'.34

£0.11

£0.06 £0.02

for additional copies, per folio