The Gazette 1980

APRIL 1980

GAZETTE

Presentation of Parchments President's Address

"Choice of Lawyer". "When you read the small print you find that there is no choice of lawyer. If you do not accept the lawyer in one Legal Advice Centre then you must resort to another lawyer whose services have been engaged by the Board for the purpose of providing legal services under the scheme. At best, 'choice of lawyer' means that in difficult circumstances you can move from one centre to another. You certainly cannot go to the lawyer you know - maybe you sat beside him at school. Maybe you like him - and probably you trust him. You cannot go to him because he is not a Government official employed by a Legal Advice Centre. On the Western seaboard, that could mean that if there was a clash of personality between an aided litigant and the advice centre he could be sent North or South - a hundred miles — to another centre. "There is a means test, and aided persons will have to pay towards the cost of the scheme. Therefore, they should have the same right of choice that exists in the case of a patient and his medical practitioner. The right to choose was given recently in the case of dental and opthalmic services. "Fancy a wife, in a family law situation, taking the bus to a law centre. Do not tell me that her neighbours and friends will not know where she is going, and where she has been. Her husband may not know, but he will be told soon enough. Supposing the next law centre is a hundred miles away - which is quite probable on the Western sea- board. Does then the husband, who is the other party in the dispute, have to travel, or are we to assume a Utopian situation where one law centre can deal with two parties in dispute? "This Society urges the Department to broaden the scope of the free civil legal aid scheme, and to give the public the system which they deserve. Such a system must have enshrined in it the right to choose one's lawyer." The President said that the Society emphasises the necessity for civil legal aid to be extended to the representation of the public who have to appear before certain tribunals, particularly the Employment Appeals Tribunal. "We have pressed for this very strongly but no concrete recognition has been given to our argument. An

Two major topics - the discipline of the profession and the Civil Legal Aid Scheme - were the subject of the President's address to recipients of parchments in January. Commenting on the work of the Disciplinary Committee he said that the first great step forward in legislation, concerning the Solicitors' profession was the Solicitors' Act, 1954. Apart from bringing the profession in a statutory way into the 20th century, it achieved two great things: voluntary contribution to compensate for the errors of those few who took money that did not belong to them. It extablished the Compensation Fund of the Law Society, which is now close to one million pounds. It also gave Solicitors the right to police their own profession with a disciplinary hearing, and, in a fairly swift way, deal with a member of the profession who through his conduct did not deserve to continue to practise in the profession. The Act was fair. It provided that an appeal would lie to the Chief Justice by either the applicant who had brought the complaint against the solicitor, or the solicitor who had been struck off the Rolls. "The public feel that we are not policing our profession sufficiently. Let us examine the case of any man who, through his humanity, errs, and ask ourselves do we administer the ultimate sanction without first giving him a second chance? The answer must be 'No'. It is wrong for people to be too hasty. It would be terrible not to give a second chance, and maybe a third chance, before taking a man's livelihood from him and reducing his wife and family to a life where shame replaces the zest for living. "However, a rogue solicitor causing anguish to his clients, and to the community generally, must be disciplined, and this Society devotes many man hours, and a lot of expertise, to ensure that this happens. We were given the power to do this by the Solicitors' Act, 1954, with a right of appeal, by the injured party, to the Chief Justice. The system worked very well. However, the constitutionality of the Solicitors' Act, 1954, was challenged in the Supreme Court and it was decided, by a majority, that we had no right to strike off a solicitor. It was decided that this was a judicial function, because enrolment of solicitors was the function, in those days, of the Supreme Court. It is now vested in the President of the High Court. "Let the public understand that we would welcome restoration of what was given to us in the Solicitors' Act, 1954. We do not wish to burden the Courts with the discipline of our members, so perhaps the legislature would help us and eliminate two bodies dealing with the same matter. Let me emphasise to those who criticise us for not dealing swiftly with those few members whom I have termed 'rogue solicitors', that the function is a judicial function and not a Society function." While welcoming the Civil Legal Aid scheme and the publication, last December, of "Scheme for Civil Legal Aid and Advice" by the Minister for Justice, the President said that the Society quarreled about one section headed

Contributors to this issue: William Binchy, LL.M., Barrister-at-Law, Research Counsellor, Law Reform Commission;

John F. Buckley, Solicitor; Ian F. French, F.R.I.C.S.

2 7