The Gazette 1972

surveyors, auditors and accountants will be subjected to similar investigation and control under this Act, it will be interesting to see how the remuneration fixed for us compares with that fixed for these other professions, particularly when it is now generally conceded that the average annual income of a solicitors falls far below most, if not all, of these other professions. The Central Costs Committee The Advisory Body or Committee that will make its recommendations under this Act on our remuneration to the Minister will not, we are assured, be the existing National Prices Advisory Committee, but a Central Costs Committee to be specially appointed by him. In previous discussions, we got the impression that the Minister had in mind a Committee consisting of Mem- bers of the Judiciary, the legal profession, one or two chartered accountants and one or two responsible mem- bers of the public, but at our most recent interview, he appeared to think it reasonable that it should also embrace a member of his own Department. For the Minister to have the last word on the findings of this Committee and at the same time to have a member of his own Department sitting in on its deliberations seems grossly unfair, and we had no hesitation in telling him so as diplomatically as we could. One further aspect of this Bill is still causing us concern. As drafted, there is no provision for making any application for an increase in our costs, once the Minister fixes them, because no Statutory Body or Com- mittee can now function without his consent. We pointed out to the Minister that it would be most unjust if, on being turned down by him for an increase in costs in future years, we were to have no opportunity of having the position examined even by his own Central Costs Committee, but the Minister said that, as the Bill was not his, the matter was one that might be taken up by us wih the Minister for Industry and Commerce. As a result, we now find ourselves seeking a further interview and can only hope that we shall eventually succeed in rectifying this very important matter. Increase of 20% in costs I am glad to have one small piece of good news for you, viz., that the Minister has indicated his willingness to grant us an increase of 20% on our Schedule 2 costs, instead of the 42% we asked for, with a similar increase in High Court, Circuit and District Courts costs, subject to certain adjustments in the latter two, having regard to the increased jurisdiction. These adjustments will be carried out after agreement on figures has been reached between the Department's and the Society's representa- tives. And that, I hope, will be within the next few weeks. I am sorry to have wasted so much of your time on such a pedestrian matter as solicitors* remuneration, but until our anxieties in this connection are resolved, thoughts on the higher things with which the Society should be concerning itsef will, I fear, have to be left over to another day. Messrs. T. O. McLoughiin and John Buckley spoke on matters arising on the President's statement. The pro- ceedings then terminated.

civil legal aid, and because we recognise the justice of that demand, we must continue to press the State to provide it. Costs of loans on new houses All too frequently, our Profession attracts adverse criticism because of the costs involved in buying a new house and securing a loan thereon—particularly when young people are setting-up home for the first time. The most recent article in one of our Sunday newspapers suggested that those costs—so far as the newly-weds are concerned—constitute for them the last-straw. To us it is both just and reasonable that anybody buying a new house and securing a loan for its purchase-price, should not have to pay any other solicitor's costs but his own. What people, however, do not realize is that as the law stands at present, the builder as owner of the ground on which the house is built is entitled to have his solicitor's costs for furnishing title paid by the man who buys the house. In addition, the lending body that grants the loan is entitled to have its costs paid out by the same man. The Law Society has • recommended that both these impositions should be removed, that the Lessor or Builder should pay his own solicitor for the cost of furnishing title and that the lending body should pay its own solicitor for the work involved in the mortgage. Neither those who grant leases nor those who lend money may be pleased with these recommendations of ours, but until legislation is introduced giving effect to these recommendations, the Society's hands are tied, and the public and the press should appreciate this. We are pleased to note that the Minister for Justice has inti- mated his intention of introducing legislation making it obligatory on Building Societies to bear their own solicitors' costs. Our recommendations go still wider and if we can persuade the Minister to adopt our suggestions, the cause of all this adverse criticism should disappear. Prices (Amendment) Bill Despite all the pressure which we brought to bear upon the Government in relation to the Prices (Amend- ment) Act, it now seems certain that the Bill will go through unaltered in so far as Executive control over solicitors' remuneration is concerned. The fact that all other professions will be similarly controlled is of little consolation to us if we are right in our contention that Executive control over our costs constitutes a significant curtailment of the independence of our profession resulting in a vital safeguard of the independence of the ordinary citizen being curtailed with it. It is assumed that the Minister for Industfy and Commerce will exercise the right conferred on him under Sec. 6 (i) of the Act to delegate his powers to the Minister for Justice. In an interview which we had recently with the Minister, he expressed the view that the present system of legal remuneration favours the solicitor dealing with substantial transactions in conveyancing and adminis- tration matters or in High Court actions, leaving those practising in the lowers Courts relatively underpaid. In a profession such as ours there will always be the need for cross-subsidisation until the State agrees to subsidise what was always the unremunerative side of our work, but that day, I fear, is still very far away. If however, the fees of doctors, dentists, engineers, architects and

164