The Gazette 1986

GAZETTE

sepTemBER

1986

Correspondence The Editor, The Law Society Gazette, Blackhall Place, Dublin 7.

missed that most basic of rights — freedom of choice or association. Merely because the Council passes a motion on a matter of perceived importance to the profession does not mean that it is reflecting the views of the profession as a whole. Was the Council not sadly out of step on the advertising issue? I suggest that it may also have done the profession a great disservice by publicly attacking the legitimate use by clients, in this case Building Societies, of their own freely chosen Solicitors. If three Solicitors are considered too many, although they perform different roles on the part of the respective clients, is it really clear that the Solicitor to drop out should be that of the Building Society? Is there an argument that says a purchaser's Solicitor is any better qualified than a Building Society Solicitor, or vice-versa? I think not, although it is common ground that Building Society Solicitors tend to concentrate on conveyancing. To suggest that a Building Society Solicitor might act for a purchaser as well as a Society is not as illogical as the Council might think, although it would not necessarily be a result for which it would wish. I would suggest that the Council either adopt a lower profile on the issue of Building Society Solicitors, or take a poll of the profession as to whether it is desirable to pre-empt from any prospective client the free choice of Solicitor before campaigning further. Financial institutions have great resources and their desire to provide services until now traditionally the preserve of Solicitors may within the near future put the entire profession under greater pressure than it presently realises. One only has to look at the U.K., where the Council seems to gaze all the time, to note that a Solicitor and a Conveyancer are no longer coterminous. Statistically, I believe Conveyancing produces approximately 50% of Solicitors fee income nationwide. It has to be a possibility that Building Societies and other financial institutions might press in the future to provide conveyancing services traditionally provided by the Solicitor's profession. Can an already over capacitated profession really withstand the loss of any more traditional work areas to others? The Council might be better advised to publicly and vigorously campaign, possibly with the Auctioneering and Accountancy professions, to highlight the real and unjustified expense of change of house, if one is again to measure by looking across the Irish sea, and for the abolition of stamp duty on the conveyances of dwelling- houses and the reduction of exorbitant Land Registry fees on even the most pedestrian of transactions and, of course, the high level of VAT. Yours faithfully, John Hooper Solicitor, Dun Laoghaire. gj Executives

26 November, 1986

Re: Proposed Status of Children Bill

Dear Sir, The draughtsmen of the proposed Bill, which is to provide for illegitimate children being entitled to succeed, on a putative parent's death, in equal shares with his legitimate children does not appear to have provided against the possibilities for fraud which are inherent in the proposals as drafted. There would be nothing to prevent an unscrupulous woman claiming that her child is the illegitimate child of a deceased person. If the claim is made after the death of the deceased there would be no reubtting evidence to that produced by the claimant and blood tests could not be obtained. This would cause great distress and in many cases hardship on the widow and her lawful family. This whole question should receive adequate consideration before the proposals go any further. There is also the possibility that the proposals may conflict with Article 41 of the Constitution dealing with the family.

Yours faithfully, Desmond Moran, Solicitor, Moran & Ryan, 35 & 36 Arran Quay, Dublin 7. The Editor,

The Gazette, Law Society, Blackhall Place, Dublin 7. Dear Madam,

7 January, 1987

Your editorial in the November issue of the Gazette on the Building Societies Bill is carping. That the Building Societies need reorganising with legislative change is beyond question. However, three of the five paragraphs heap ire on the role of the Solicitors to Building Societies. The Editorial is calculated to cause as much damage as possible to such Solicitors by offering them as sacrifice for others. I was not aware that the Council of the Law Society condemned Societies from employing their own Solicitors. To my recollection, the Council passed a motion endeavouring to sway the Building Societies towards using purchasers' Solicitors for completion of house mortgages. It did not condemn the use by Societies of their own Solicitors, nor should it do so, although that does not appear to be your leader writer's view. When the move failed to impress the Societies, the Council lobbied the media and in the corridors of political power to have their way and in doing so endeavoured to divide the profession. It is not the Council's function to instruct any client as to which Solicitor they should entrust their business; it has always been the profession's cry of independence of choice that has served its integrity and the public it represents best. Building Societies, as other clients, should be entitled to have Solicitors of their own choice. The Council in making a point seem to have entirely

FULLY EXPERIENCED FREE-LANCE LAW CLERKS WILL PROVIDE AN EFFICIENT, COST EFFECTIVE SERVICE TO THE LEGAL PROFESSION. RATES VERY COMPETITIVE. SAME-DAY SERVICE DUBLIN FIRMS TOWN AGENCY WORK A SPECIALITY! Avondale House, 189-193 Parnell Street, Dublin 1. Telephone: (01) 734344. 303