The Gazette 1971

Solicitors in the Republic. A Reply to the Professors Eric A. Plunkett*

part of the national income). The argument apparently runs thus. Wage and salary increases must be controlled to contain inflation. This cannot be achieved because of a feeling, albeit based only on suspicion, that pro- fess : onal men are overpaid. Ergo, let us make an example of the professionals pour encourager les autres. Professor Fogarty is deservedly held in high esteem for his contributions to thinking on our current economic problems and it is therefore surprising that ht should draw conclusions based, as he admits, on premises without any adequate statistical support on the basis of mere suspicion. He is on record elsewhere as saying that the total of shopkeepers' margins and all professional mens' fees amount to little over 5p in the pound of the national income. The economic impact of the fees of all professional men, and particularly of solicitors' fees, is insignificant as a contribution to inflation. Still, if Professor Fogarty is right in attributing to the solicitors' pro- fession as a whole a declension from proper standards of professional integrity in their financial dealings with the tax authorities and the public the position is indeed serious. He has adduced no evidence to justify this statement. There are exceptions to every rule, but it is a remarkable fact that the average client, while possibly affected by propaganda in the communica- tions media about the profession as a whole, usually regards his own solicitor as a trusted and competent adviser. Professor Kaim-Caudle and others have dealt with the problem under various heads. C ross-subsidisation Cross-subsidisation occurs in regard to solicitors' re- muneration when members undertake certain types of business which are unremunerated or underremunerat- ed relying on the income from other sources, mainly conveyancing and probate, to cover their overhead expenses and provide a profit. It is said to be unfair that client A should have to subsidise client B in the cost of legal services and that there is no reason why a particular client should have to pay more than reasonable profit plus the actual cost of providing the services. The fact that another client may obtain different legal services at a specially reduc- ed rate is no concern or satisfaction to the client who has to pay more than what would otherwise be the normal rate. It is said that each service should pay its own cost irrespective of the means or ability of the client to whom the service is rendered and that, if income or cost transfers are justified, they should be made by the State, not by a professional body. These views, with respect, are those of the pure economist and take little account of the facts of daily life. The average solicitor must be guide, philosopher and friend to all his clients. He can refuse no request for advice and turn away no client. Opportunity for

It has become fashionable to criticise the legal profession as being conservative, unprogressive, overprivileged and overpaid. The twenty to forty per cent activities of the solicitors' profession in the field of litigation, debt collection and contentious work, which by and large is unremunerative while socially necessary, creates unpopularity for the profession which is no less real because it is based on misunderstanding of its work. Ninety per cent of the community regularly avail of the health service and are familiar with the work of the medical practitioners and dentists. They are grate- ful because they see the results of the work. It is ex- tremely unlikely that the majority of publicists who criticise the legal profession have had any extensive experience of legal services. They speak from hearsay rather than fact. That is not to argue that the profess- ion is infallible or faultless or that there is no case for reform of the law. Professor Kaim-Caudle in several recent publications in Léargas 1 and in the New Irish Jurist 2 and more re- cently Profesor Fogarty in Léargas 3 have voiced opinions about fee structures and practices of the pro- fession which, generally speaking follow the line taken in England by the now obsolescent National Prices and Incomes Board and by the Monopolies Commission. Professor Fogarty's views are crystallised in the follow- ing passage from his article in Léargas : "The earnings of professional men . .. are hard to judge because the statistics on them are so poor. Recent studies at the E.S.R.I. have established for certain professions, what has been widely suspected of the professions generally, that the rates charged for professional services are unreasonably high having regard to the general level of incomes in the country . . .The main contribution of professional workers and the self-employed to inflation however . .. is through creating an atmosphere of fiddle and sus- picion. The doctor, the solicitor, the substantial builder or shopkeeper are prominent citizens of the local community. If people like these are widely sus- pected, as they are, of falling short of the highest standards of professional integrity in their financial dealings with the tax authority or with the public, it is hard to persuade others to be more self re- strained." Professor Fogarty acquits civil servants and others in widely dissimilar categories from the charge of being a basic cauie of inflation. Later he says that the culpable professional class is not criticised because of the scale of their contribution to inflation which, he says, is only "peanuts" (wages and salaries being by far the biggest * Secretary, The Incorporated Law Society of Ireland. 1. "Solicitors' Charges and Incomes," Léargas (Public Affairs), January 1970. 2. "Productivity. Income and Standards of Solicitors in the Irish Republic" 5 Irish Jurist (nj.) 40 (1970). 3. "Fighting Inflation—the Role of the State", Léargas (Public Affairs), March 1971.

172