The Gazette 1993

GAZETTE

_

_

_

^

,

_

^

^

.

~

NOVEMBER 1993

P R E S I D E N T ' S

M E S S A G E

Anticipating The New Solicitors Bill

view the legal profession, I believe it should recognise that any perceived public interest in increased competition is far outweighed by the clear public interest in not putting in jeopardy the future of the smaller practice unit, urban as well as rural, in this country. By any objective standard there is enough internal competition within the profession to serve the public interest, without passing legislative provisions facilitating the Jonah-like subsuming of conveyancing and probate services into the 'innards' of the banks, there to risk an anti-public interest 'indigestion' when combined with the 'juices' already present. Whatever perceived objectives all or any of the Irish banks have in seeking such provisions, I question whether they are served by putting in jeopardy the future of single practitioners or smaller firms. May I suggest that when next talking to your friendly bank manager, in order to focus his mind on your concerns about those provisions, you might consider presenting him with the following 'boot-on-the-other-foot' question, so oft used by advocates - 'How would your bank respond if the Law Society, with equal lack of detailed consideration of the potential consequences, sought Government sanction to setting up its own bank for solicitors?' Michael V O 'Mahony President •

I have been entrusted with the Presidency of the Law Society for the next twelve months, which I regard as a great honour. I can only express the intention and resolve that during my term I will work to represent the whole profession to the best of my ability. The year ahead will certainly be a year during which solicitors will again come under the legislative spotlight, with the re-introduction of the Solicitors (Amendment) Bill. The Minster for Justice has recently indicated her intention to circulate the Bill before Christmas. If that happens we can anticipate the commencement of the Second Stage debate in Dáil Éireann early in 1994. We can also anticipate from what occurred during the Second Stage debate on the 1991 Bill, that some backbench Deputies will avail of the opportunity on this occasion to seek headlines at our expense. It is a fact of life that the ordinary and commonplace rarely makes headlines, so the headline-seeking parliamentarian must highlight the extraordinary and exceptional. The ordinary and commonplace is that the overwhelming majority of solicitors provide a good and efficient service to their clients, which the clients appreciate. The extraordinary and exceptional is that a very small number of solicitors do not provide a good and efficient service and cause upset and hardship to their clients in various unacceptable ways and thereby provide the headline-making 'fodder', which, in turn, unfairly taints the profession as a whole. In the face of the implicit generalisations brought about by specific incidents of misconduct of negligence, the Society will continue as best it can to balance any public misconception by repeating as often as necessary the 'good news' that

Michael V. O'Mahony

most clients are happy with their own solicitor, and that where problems outside the norm do arise, the Society, assisted by the additional powers to be provided for in the amendment Bill, will intervene. As you will be aware, most of the provisions of the 1991 Bill were recognised as welcome improvements to the Solicitors Acts 1954/60. However, some provisions of that 1991 Bill were emphatically opposed by the Society, particularly the provisions which would enable banks to provide conveyancing and probate services. At that time (following the debate at the November, 1991 AGM) the Society presented to the then Minister for Justice strong public interest arguments why the existing statutory restrictions (contained in the 1954 Act) that such services be provided only by solicitors should remain. Arguments which were subsequently presented and supported by some Deputies during the course of the Second Stage debate. It is to be hoped that the Society's strongly argued opposition at the time will have caused the present Minister for Justice to give some reconsideration to the desirability in the public interest of those particular provisions. Irrespective of how any government might from time to time

NORTHERN IRELAND AGENT * Legal work undertaken on an agency basis * All communications to clients through instructing Solicitors

* Consultants in Dublin if required Contact: Seamus Connolly, Moran and Ryan, Solicitors

Arran House.

Bank Building.

35 Arran Quay.

Hill Street.

Dublin 7.

Newry. Co. Down. Tel: (080693) 65311 Fax: (080693) 6 2 0%

Tel:(0l) 8725622 Fax: (01) 8725404

331