The Gazette 1995

GAZETTE

MAY/JUNE 1995

L A W B R I E F

The At torney General 's Of f ice: The Model Legal Of f ice of the Future? By Dr. Eamonn G. Hall Introduction by Kingsmill Moore J. as "a great officer of State, with grave

Recommendations of Review Group The Review Group recognised that legal work undertaken by the Office of the Attorney General was very demanding in terms of knowledge and time and that the achievement of quality was of the "highest priority". The staff were stated to have "worked assiduously" in responding to the demands placed on them from the growing volume of legal activity, at both domestic and European levels. However, the Group considered that despite the best efforts of the staff, "the systems and procedures used [did] not enable the office to optimise output and performance to the extent achievable with modern systems". In certain areas, the Group found "major scope for improvements". The preparation of a Strategic Management Plan encompassing both the Advisory Section, the Parliamentary Draftsman's Office together with the Office of the Chief State Solicitor was recommended. Apart from other management aspects, the Review Group considered that "the single greatest inhibitant to optimal function in the AG's Office [was] the undeveloped state of its information technology" . Truly, the same could be stated of many legal offices. In the Parliamentary Draftsman's Office, the Group considered there was a great need to extend the use of computer systems and databases in: • researching and retrieving precedents and legal opinions; • streamlining the process of drafting bills; • streamlining the process of publishing legislation; and • statute updating and indexing. 149

responsibilities of a quasi-judicial nature as well as of an executive nature". {McLoughlin v Minister for Social Welfare [1958] IR 1 at 17; see also The Office of the Attorney General in Ireland by Professor James Casey (1980). A second edition of the book is forthcoming}. As readers know, three wise men, Mr. John Hurley, Secretary, Public Service Management and Development in the Department of Finance (Chair), Mr. Frank Murray, Secretary of the Government and Mr. Tim Dalton, Secretary of the Department of Justice, carried out a review of the Office of the Attorney General at the end of last year. The report was published in February 1995. Incidentally, McCann FitzGerald and Eugene F. Collins, Solicitors, were thanked in the introduction for their assistance.

Recently, the office of a powerful statesman came under scrutiny; the subsequent and inevitable "Report" was not favourable. The head of the Office spent nearly a quarter of his time trapped in staff meetings after discussing matters that had little to do with his primary objective. In terms of "marketing" its services, (among other Government Departments), the Office was described as a "dud". Mid-level officials were reported as going straight into the boss's office, persuading him to undo decisions that others thought had already been determined. Certain officials of the Office, who didn't fit into any box on the organisational chart, we're held accountable to no one. Management had a reputation for ineptitude. Computer facilities were lacking. Subsequently, staff members were seen clutching a document labelled "Strategic Goals for 1995". There was active talk of striving towards a "zero-defect operation". Whose office was described above? This was not, repeat not, the Office of the Attorney General of Ireland but the office of Clinton & Co, the current administration in the White House in Washington. {See "White House has Tapped a Businessman to Make Some Order From Chaos", The Wall Street Journal Europe February 15, 1995}. This illustrates a truism: if three wise men, or women, visited any of our offices with a view to "reviewing" operations, improvements may always be possible. The Review Group The Attorney General was described

Justice Cardozo noted that

precedents

that are outworn

may be decently

dis-

carded without affront to the sentiment that there shall be no breach of the legal order in the house of its custodians.