The Gazette 1986

sepTemBER

1986

GAZETTE

Proceedings at Annual General Meeting

Insurance and Advertising prime issues at Society's AGM

be made for a reduced contribution from solicitors engaged in less remunerative practice, for instance criminal legal aid work. Some allowance should be made for the lesser likelihood of claims in that area. He also felt that the scheme would be restrictive on new practitioners. Mr. R. O'hUadaigh argued against the obligatory requirements in relation to Professional Indemnity. He maintained that the Society had objected to such a requirement in the past and it should not now accept it. After several other members had raised points on the motion Mr. Shaw said that the final scheme would not be put to the profession until the "top up" cover situation had been clarified. The one point he wished to make clear was that insurance premiums were not going to fall in the foreseeable future. The resolution was put to the meeting and carried. Debate on advertising The President (Mr. Laurence Cullen) outlined the steps taken by the Council of the Society in considering the question of advertising by members of the profession, backgrounding the resolution proposed by Mr. J. Dillon-Leetch and seconded by Mr. M. Keane that: "We, the undersigned, hereby propose that the Council of the Law Society should not ratify the draft Statutory Instrument dealing with advertising by solicitors recently circulated to the Profession." Mr. Dillon-Leetch said that he and his colleagues did not want the opposition to the proposed Advertising Regulations to be seen as a rural/Dublin divide. In the past the profession had managed without advertising. A solicitor in practice was as good as his last client. He depended on his training and skill and could only provide a service on the basis of that background. In his view advertising fostered monopolies in that bigger firms could attract business on a country-wide basis leaving the small practitioner with the crumbs. Adver- tising leading to a price war, would result in the disappearance of the smaller firms which was inconsis- tent with the profession's integrity. The client might seek the solicitor but the solicitor should not seek the client. In his view advertising was indistinguishable from touting and would result in more problems. Mr. Dillon-Leetch and several speakers supported institutional advertising for the professions, but Mr. B. O'Reilly and other opponents of the resolution pointed to the difficulties of Dublin suburban solicitors making themselves known to the communities in which they practised. A personalised imaginative approach was necessary in such conditions. In the course of the debate Mr. J. F. Buckley commented that advertising embraced far more matters than straightforward notices in the media. Even with adoption of regulations to provide for advertising, the big firms would not be taking media space but would engage in promotion by way of brochures and other avenues. Accountants, who had been allowed to

Major discussions on Professional Indemnity Cover and Advertising by solicitors were features of the Incorporated Law Society of Ireland Annual General Meeting at Blackhall Place, Dublin, on 13 November, 1986. During consideration of reports by Committees, the Professional Indemnity Committee's Chairman, Mr. Thomas J. Shaw and Mr. E. J. Margetson moved the following resolution: "That this Annual General Meeting endorses the decision of the Society to make the taking out of Professional Indemnity Cover compulsory with effect as and from 1st May, 1986, and each anniver- sary thereafter and further endorses the decision of the Council to inaugurate a Professional Indemnity Fund to meet claims made on members of the profession with effect as and from 1 May, 1987 and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, generally in accordance with the outline furnished in the attached report of the Chairman of the Professional Indemnity Committee, Mr. T. Shaw, dated 28 October, 1985". Mr. Shaw said that having regard to the increases in premiums experienced in recent years and the likelihood of further increases, the Society proposed embarking on its own Professional Indemnity scheme to provide a more economic service for members. Insofar as making the matter of Professional Indemnity Insurance cover compulsory, Mr. Shaw said that the public made no distinction between the misappropriation of client funds and negligence. The public dissatisfaction with the situation made it clear that the profession should be covered under both heads and it was generally accepted by firms that they should carry such cover. It had been made clear to the Society's representatives who were discussing the amendment of the Solicitors' Acts that the Minister would regard mandatory cover in respect of Professional Indemnity as an important consideration. Mr. Shaw added that a practitioner who was not in a position to afford Professional Indemnity cover at the levels which the Society hoped to introduce, should not really be in practice on his own account. Dealing with the proposed Scheme Mr. Shaw indicated that the figure of £200,000 cover per solicitor had been agreed with the Department of Justice. Over 1,100 firms had replied to the questionnaire out of total of 1,400. The Society's scheme would initially be limited to those who responded to the questionnaire. The Committee was currently in discussion with regard to "top up" cover and it was hoping to accommodate all firms under the proposed scheme. Mr. D. Moran opposed compulsory insurance because once people knew such a facility was available, they would claim. He queried whether the Society would obtain a licence under the Insurance Act; whether the Society would employ additional staff, and whether it would pay legal costs in the handling of claims. Mr. P. O'Murcu asked that special provision should

295