The Gazette 1973

discussion between the University authorities and the Society. It has always seemed to me that our syllabus in the Society's Law School omits one important subject— namely Business Methods and Office Organisation. A Solicitor's office can no longer be run on Dickensian principles of filing, accounting and recording and dis- patch of business. We must be as up-to-date as other professions. Time-costing and other modern methods must be adopted in large and small offices. The neces- sary knowledge and discipline must be imparted at student level so that practitioners of the future, whether starting their own offices or entering established firms, will have a complete grasp of the business organi- sation which alone can enable the practitioner to operate profitably and provide a good service for clients. Future Organisation of the Profession How will the profession be organised in the future? This brings up the twin topics of amalgamation of offices and the often-canvassed question of fusion of the two branches. We are already witnessing the grow- ing tendency of amalgamations of offices in the cities particularly Dublin, Cork and Limerick. It has the advantage of division of labour, and specialisation which enables the partners to obtain expertise in parti- cular branches of practice and thereby increase efficiency and speed of work. The busy conveyancer is no longer obliged to interrupt his work to respond to the urgent call of a client to defend him on a running- down charge in a local District Court. In the beginning specialisation can be divided broadly into contentions and non-contentious business, but as it proceeds and the size of the office justifies it, we may expect further specialisation in Conveyancing, Probate, Company Law, Tax Law, Planning Law and contentious work with an ever-increasing facility and expertise in these departments. At first, these developments will be con- fined to the cities and some of the larger towns. There will still be a demand for the single general practitioner to serve the rural population. But even here there is room for a degree of rationalisation. Assuming an equal level of competence and compatibility, a partnership of two would in my opinion operate more successfully than a single practioner. Problems of sickness and annual leave can be more easily dealt with, avoiding interruption of work. A town with nine individual practitioners would, in my opinon, receive a better service from 3 or 4 offices organised in groups of three. The Problem of Fusion What of fusion of the two branches? I think the argu- ments about this problem commenced about a century ago. We know that the last Minister for Justice fre- quently spoke in favour of fusion and his statements may have reflected the thinking of his Departmeht. A step towards it was taken by Section 17 of the Courts Act 1971 which gave a right of audience to solicitors in all Courts. There are arguments pro and con. The protagonists say that it is more efficient to have one lawyer operating a case from beginning to end with the aid of assistants if required. There might be an economy of time and work in the abandonment of the present briefing system because the solicitor, advocate, attorney, call him what you will, would carry the facts in his head, or record them on files for use in Court. There might be a saving in advocates' fees and a better distribution of work amongst advocates. At

present 80 per cent of litigation is probably handled by 10 to 20 per cent of the Bar. Cases might be settled more easily. It is also said that the system works on the Continent, in the U.S.A. and in parts of Australia. As against this, it is said that no man can be a Jack-of- all-Trades, and that even under a fused system there would still be need for the office practitioner gathering and assembling the facts, and the lawyer or advocate doing legal research and presenting the facts and legal arguments in Court. How would the interests of the poorer client be affected? The best legal talent would undoubtedly gravitate to the firms serving wealthy corporations and indeed the State, while the poor man might have to make do as best he could. It is pointed out that under the present system the poor litigant with a reasonable case may get the services of the best Counsel. The country solicitor might run into difficulties under a fused system. He could operate successfully only if every office, or at least every town, had a fully stocked law library. The Bar Library at present serves this need for counsel throughout the country on the various Circuits. Few solicitors in general practice can afford to spend time on legal research without letting their office work get into arrear. They tend more and more to become men of business and administrators. To my mind, one of the strongest arguments against fusion is the need for a fully independent Bar with freedom from State control. Under the present system, the Attorney-General who is responsible for all State prosecutions is answerable to opinion of the Bar Council and his colleagues in the Law Library of which he is a member. Any deviation from the strict rules of fairness in the conduct of prosecutions would expose him to the powerful in- fluences of his colleagues at the Bar. The ultimate result of a fused system would in my opinion be the appointment of paid full-time public prosecutors answerable not to the profession but to their employer, the State. There would be no powerful check on the conduct of prosecutions by part-time barristers from the Bar Library paid by ordinary fees on briefs. This, I think, could ultimately lead to an undesirable increase in the power of the State to direct advocates as to how prosecutions should be conducted, a diminution of the independence of advocates and of the rights of the accused. We stand today at a watershed for the profession, Lawyers are traditionally conservative, and slow or indifferent to change. The solicitor of 1870, engaged in the business of'chancery suits, family settlements in tail, land law litigation, and the complexity of pleadings in litigation, did not foresee the advent of the internal combustion engine. Conveyancing was then an in- volved and lengthy operation which was simplified by the system of Registration of Title. Who knows the future of personal injury litigation? Will it continue to occupy the Courts or will it become part of administra- tive machinery as in the case of the former Workmen's Compensation Code? Will Conveyancing continue to make its present major contribution to Solicitors' earn- ings, or will it be overtaken by a system of computerised titles? One of the greatest mistakes of the human mind is to assume that because certain things have seemed permanent in the past they will continue so in the future. Just as the internal combustion engine with its attendant litigation replaced the horse-drawn carriage, and registered titles replaced complex conveyancing under the old system, so conditions may and indeed must change with time. The profession must be pre- pared for such changes. 137