The Gazette 1989

GAZETTE

APRIL 1989

at this meeting and it may interest the profession to know just exactly who has their finger in this particular pie. The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England & Wales; The Chartered Institute of Patent Agents; Royal Institute of British Architects; The Chartered Institute of Management Accountants; The National Association of Estate Agents; Association of Consulting Engineers; Insurance Brokers Registration Council; Institute of Actuaries; The Incorporated Society of Valuers and Auctioneers; The Chartered Association of Certified Accountants; The Institute of Trade Mark Agents; The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors; The Chartered Association of Loss Adjusters; The Corporation of Estate Agents; The Society of Pension Consultants. These various organisations were joined by representatives from our Society, The Law Society of Scotland, The Council of the Bar and of course, representatives of the Law Society of England & Wales. Not everybody was in favour of this new development, notably the Law Society of Scotland and the National Association of Estate Agents. But there were a number of people in favour, some of them making strange bed-fellows such as Accountants, Actuaries, Estate Agents, Chartered Surveyors, Valuers and Auctioneers, Con- struction Engineers, Architects and Trade Mark Agents. Much was made of the distinction that should be drawn between Multidisciplinary Practices involving major institu- tions and small partnerships covering more than one discipline. Differences in professional standards were highlighted and it was felt that the higher standard, wherever that prevalied, should be adopted by everyone else in a Multidisciplinary Practice. Clearly, such a vast subject could not be dealt with in one meeting and it was decided that a working group would be established at staff level in the Law Society in London and their deliberations were to be considered

in conjunction with the green paper which has recently been issued by the Lord Chancellor. There are clear problems for the profession in contemplating Multi- disciplinary Partnerships. What about the Compensation Fund for instance? What if some members of the Multidisciplinary Partnership (MDP) were from professions which are not covered by a Compensation Fund? Clear distinctions would have to be made here obviously. There are problems of jurisdictions where every decision in relation to discipline must be taken by a High Court Judge. There are difficulties in relation to arrangements for Professional Indemnity Insurance. Clearly there would have to be arrangements made for situations where certain work was reserved to particular elements in the MDP, solicitors as officers of the court, or Chartered Accountants as Auditors. What about Privilege for instance, and Confidentiality? Different professions have differ- ent relationships with their clients and in the pursuit of these different relationships may have different views on how particular client problems should be handled. Who is to have the final say? Will the majority rule? And if that majority is from one particular profession will not tension develop within the MDP itself? Ultimately, it is the client that is served by the Multidisciplinary Partnership and the client must receive the best possible advice and feel confident that he is dealing with professionals. It would be very easy to lose sight of the client in the possible wrangles that might ensue! The Professional Purposes Committee are considering the Green Paper and liaising with the Law Society of England & Wales in relation to this interesting and difficult development. It is hoped that at some stage this year it may be possible to circularise the profession with a better distillation of views about the subject so that they may make their own minds up about whether this revolution is likely to catch on. For the moment there are more questions than there are answers. • James Donegan, Chairman, Professional Purposes Committee

Professional Purposes

I think it is safe to say that the Professional Purposes Committee is the practitioners' committee. In other words it is the committee to which the practitioner can bring his problems, whether they be generated within his own practice or caused by a breakdown of the proper levels of co-operation which should exist between all solicitors offices. The committee which is responsible for the preparation and publication of the Guide to Pro- fessional Conduct of Solicitors in Ireland, has the unenviable task of creating guidelines for the pro- fession in the area of good conduct or the application of good common sense to everyday problems. Very often of course, there are preced- ents for the problems which come before the committee but increas- ingly the committee is getting into consideration of those areas of practice which are brought about by the continuing development of a dynamic profession, which finds itself operating in an ever more competitive environment. Members of the profession will be familiar with the involvement of the committee in conduct and practice matters, in the friendly resolution of problems between colleagues, and jn advice to individual practitioners on a variety of day-to-day problems. However, the committee does try to keep an eye on the future and in this regard has recently been looking at the matter of Multidis- ciplinary Partnerships. The idea of the Multidisciplinary Partnership has been aired in England and Scotland for some time now and indeed is being actively encouraged by the present Lord Chancellor, who has covered the subject in his very controversial review of the Legal Profession in England and Scotland. The committee is conscious of the Restrictive Practices Commission enquiry into the professions in this Country, and is equally conscious of the impending Solicitors' Bill. It was with this in view that I, as Chairman of the Professional Purposes Committee, attended a meeting at the English Law Society on the 9th December, 1988. A large number of bodies were represented

133