The Gazette 1994

GAZETTE

APRIL 1994

N E W S C o n c e r n r e I n v o l v e m e nt o f P r i v a t e P r a c t i t i o n e rs i n L e g a l A i d S c h e me

At its meeting on 4 March the Council of the Law Society discussed the involvement of private practitioners in the Scheme of Civil Legal Aid and Advice. Some Council members expressed reservations that in a speech to the Annual Dinner of the Council, the Minister for Equality and Law Reform, Mervyn Taylor TD, had conveyed the impression that the Society had co-operated with the Minister's pilot project involving private practitioners in the Scheme, whereas, in fact, the Society had been unable to reach agreement with the Minister on an adequate level of fees for solicitors participating in the project. Council members said that they believed there were indications that the pilot scheme had not been as successful as the Minister had hoped and that a review of the scheme was currently underway. While the increased resources allocated by the Minister to the Scheme of Civil Legal I Aid and Advice were welcome, it was disappointing that the Minister had not consulted the Law Society about the expansion of the Scheme. Council members suggested that there should be further discussions with the Department of Equality and Law legal aid. The research done by the Society's Costs Committee, which indicated that a practitioner needed to earn a minimum of £65.00 per hour to cover overheads, should form the basis of discussions on what would be an appropriate level of fees payable to private practitioners under the Scheme. The President of the Society, Michael V O'Mahony, said that the I Minister should look at what it cost the Legal Aid Board to process a case and that this might be used as a basis for further discussions on the matter. He said he was hopeful that the Minister would come forward with an improved and more realistic offer. Reform concerning the involvement of private practitioners in the provision of

about the current level of delay in j family law cases in circuits throughout I the country. The President of the Society asked the Family Law and 1 Civil Legal Aid Committee to consider I the matter. Solicitors Bill The President informed the Council that the debate on the Second Stage of the Solicitors Bill would commence in the Dail towards the end of March and the Bill would then be referred to a select committee of the Dail. The President emphasised that it was important that members of the profession would forward their views on the Bill as promptly as possible. The Solicitors Bill Committee was already considering detailed drafting amendments. There were, he said, two main areas of principled opposition by the Society to the Bill. The first related to the provision that would prevent the Society from and the second concerned the provision that would oblige the Law Society to bear the costs of the office of the Legal Adjudicator. The President said he believed that this obligation had been placed on the Society because of a view in political circles that the Bill had to be exchequer-neutral. However, if the ' Society were to bear the cost of the office of the Legal Adjudicator, the independence of the adjudicator might be open to challenge. Members of the Council queried recent media reports that the provision in the Bill that would place a cap on claims on the Compensation Fund of £250,000 was being reconsidered by the Government. The President and the Director General informed the Council that following discussions with the | j Department of Justice, and at political ! level, they believed it unlikely that the provision would be removed though there might be a question about the level of the cap. j prohibiting advertising on fees, j

Council Members noted with disappointment that the 1994 Bill retained a provision in the earlier 1991 Bill, which had permitted the Society to specify different rates of contribution to the Compensation Fund in relation to different classes of solicitor, despite the fact that in 1992 a policy decision had been taken by the Council of the Society to oppose the provision. The President confirmed that the Society had made it clear to officials of the Department of Justice and the Government that the profession was against the provision. Proposal to Cap Personal Injuries Awards The Council was informed that the previous day a meeting had taken place of Presidents and Secretaries of Bar Associations to consider the issue. It has been emphasised to the representatives from the Bar Associations that it was essential to | lobby intensively their local TDs and public representatives on the issue. It was felt that it was particularly important to emphasise the injustice that would be created if a limit was placed on the level of compensation awards in personal injuries cases. Some Council Members expressed unease about what they perceived to be a lack of a sense or urgency in the profession about the proposal although it was acknowledged that it was difficult to mount a campaign against the proposal in the absence of specific details as to how the Minister hoped to give effect to it. It was also noted that the President and the Director General would be meeting the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, the insurance companies and Insurance ; Industry Federation for discussions. It ! was agreed that it was important to maintain lobbying efforts at a political level and to use every | opportunity to highlight the inequity of the proposal. •

The Council also expressed concern

91