The Gazette 1989

GAZETTE

FEBRUARY 1989

From the

countries that permit Mu l ti Disciplinary Partnerships are the Netherlands and Germany. There are not many so far and it is not clear what the problems are. It must be remembered that amongst the Lord Chancellor's proposals will be provision for International Legal Partnerships and Multi Disciplinary Partnerships. The position in the Netherlands is that full partnerships wi th "similar" professions such as Tax Advisers and Notaries are allowed Partherships with Accountants are also permitted but as yet none have been formed. The basic requirement is that the members must be subject to disciplinary rules comparable to those applicable to lawyers and provide that as a result thereof no obligation is imposed that could jeopardise the free and independent exercise of the profession. In Germany the larger legal part- nerships have not entered into Multi Disciplinary Partnerships because they believe that to do so would prevent Accountants, Tax Advisers and Patent Agen ts referring work to them on a reciprocal basis. On the question of discipline for lawyers working outside their home territory, the general feeling seemed to be that the rules of the host territory should be the ones that applied but t hat the disciplinary process should be carried out by the home Society. The Council of the Law Society has taken no decisions in relation to Multi Disciplinary practices (the matter is currently being consid- ered by the Professional Purposes Committee). However in our submissions to the Department of Justice in connection with the forthcoming Solicitors Bill we have asked that there be included enabling sections which would permit Mu l ti National or International Legal Practice Partnerships, incorporation either with limited or unlimited liability of legal practices and Mu l ti Disciplinary Partnerships, if and when it is decided that this is the appropriate course to follow. Some people argue that the correct phrase is not Multi Disciplinary but Multi Professional. All in all it was a most stimulating few days and confirms once again, as many of my predecessors have discovered, that the problems seem to be very similar in very many different jurisdictions. • MAURICE R. CURRAN, President. 45

Buildings Societies Bill) wi ll eventually percolate to this jurisdiction only time can tell, but it is a very interesting situation and one that the Law Society is watching very closely as no doubt are our colleagues at the Bar. My information is that whilst the English Bar is in a state of shock they will be vigorously opposing the proposals. On the conveyancing front there was an interesting submission from the Danish President relating to a Financial Institution (similar I gather to a Building Society) which had set up a conveyancing service in Denmark. Apparently conveyan- cing was not restricted to lawyers in that jurisdiction, as it has been here, but in practice nobody else carried out the work which is responsible for one-third of the fees of the Profession. When this happened the Danish Lawyers Assoc i a t i on commenced an advertising campaign attacking this Financial Institution, stating that such an offer of conveyancing services was unethical and lacking in independence. It emphased the independence of the legal profession and how important it was that anyone buying a house (for most people the most important capital transaction of their lives) should have independent disinterested advice. It seems that this campaign has been so successful that any other Financial Institution proposing to get more involved in the property sector has specifically stated that they will not offer conveyancing services. If we are not successful in objecting to Building Societies being pe rmi t t ed to o f f er conveyancing services under the Building Societies Bill then it may be that some such campaign advising the public of the dangers of dealing with a Building Society, which cannot, by its nature, offer an independent disinterested ser- vice, may become necessary in the public interest and also to give some reasonable protection to the profession. The International Bar Association took the opportunity of this meeting to hold a meeting of its general Professional Programme Committee which dealt with first, Inter Professional or Mu l ti Disciplinary Partnerships and secondly the problem of disci- plinary con t r ol of lawyers practising outside their home territory. For the moment the only

)

As I write this, I have just returned from the European Presidents' Conference which is held each year in Vienna. Almost 30 European nations both Eastern and Western and including almost every country in the Soviet Block were represented, as were all the Scandinavian countries. There were simultaneous translations in English, German and French. Peter Shanley,. S.C., represented the Chairman of the Bar Council and Colin Haddick, President of the Northern Ireland Law Society was also there. There were short Submissions from a number of countries setting out recent developments in their jurisdictions and, of course, the contribution by Richard Gaskell, President of the Law Society of England and Wales was received with particular interest in the light of the three Green Papers which the Lord Chancellor has issued dealing with contingency fees, the work and organisation of the Legal Profession (which appears to point to a de facto merger of the two branches of the Legal Profession) and the authorisation of Building Societies to carry out convey- ancing. The impression I obtained from listening to Mr. Gaskell and in subsequent conversations with him is that whilst the views of the Lord Chancellor are described as the provisional views of the Government, he does not believe there will be many changes and that legislation will be actually introduced in Parliament by the Autumn. No proposals have yet been issued for Scotland or Northern Ireland. Whether any of these proposals (other than the Building Societies being pe rmi t t ed to offer conveyancing services, which is already provided for in the