We need your help now
Support from readers like you keeps The Journal open.
You are visiting us because we have something you value. Independent, unbiased news that tells the truth. Advertising revenue goes some way to support our mission, but this year it has not been enough.
If you've seen value in our reporting, please contribute what you can, so we can continue to produce accurate and meaningful journalism. For everyone who needs it.
Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
By continuing, you are indicating that you accept our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
Yesterday TheJournal.ie published a column by Ken Murphy, the director general of the Law Society, in which he argued that reforms to the legal system are necessary but the current proposals must be amended.
Here, Minister for Justice Alan Shatter responds and argues that the Bill is in fact a positive move for consumers – and for the legal profession.
KEN MURPHY’S OBJECTIONS to the Legal Services Regulation Bill – which have also been voiced by others – are more theoretical than real.
The Bill stands on a basic principle that lay people understand: solicitors and barristers exist for their clients, not the other way round.
Reflecting this principle, the Bill gives effect to the Government’s pledge to:
The Bill creates the Legal Services Regulatory Authority (LSRA) to operate a system of independent regulation of the legal profession. I fully intend to harmonise independent regulation with the independence of the legal profession. The LSRA is expressly conferred with statutory independence. When undertaking its statutory duties it will not be subject to control by any Government or Minister. Nor will the legal profession when advising or representing clients be subject to any such control.
My commitment is that the new regulatory architecture will be independent, both in reality and appearance. So that there can be no suspicion or perception of external control or interference, I am taking positive steps to reinforce the independence of the LSRA and the new disciplinary system from executive control or interference. Specifically, I am considering amendments to:
Strikingly, the Bill is the first piece of legislation in the history of the State to articulate the principle of the independence of the legal profession. Retaining the essential marks of independence, every lawyer:
Importantly, under the Bill one of the criteria for promotion to the status of Senior Counsel – which will be open to solicitors as well as barristers – is a record of professional independence.
The Bill makes several other important consumer-oriented reforms. Thus, lawyers will have to give clients a notice of costs as soon as they are hired. They must keep the costs under review to reflect any changes that may raise the cost. This will help clients to make a more informed choice about whether to take legal proceedings in the first place, and about whether to stop legal proceedings before the costs become too much for them to bear. Moreover, on completing the work, lawyers must give clients an itemised statement of the services and costs involved. They must also inform clients about what steps they can take if they wish to dispute the bill.
The Bill also prohibits several restrictive practices that are anti-competitive and simply do not benefit clients. It prohibits junior counsel from charging fees based on a percentage of the senior counsel’s fees. It prohibits lawyers from charging fees based on a percentage of the compensation awarded to a client. It allows direct access by consumers to barristers for advice.
The Bill allows the creation of new business-structure options for delivering legal services. It endorses the principle of partnerships between barristers or between barristers and solicitors. It allows multi-disciplinary practices involving lawyers and other professionals such as accountants or tax specialist. Lawyers will have new opportunities, and consumers will have the freedom to choose legal services that are tailored to their needs at a reasonable cost.
I encourage the Law Society and the Bar Council to engage, constructively, with me in perfecting this Bill. Clearly, the Law Society is not shutting the door against enlightened reform. On 20 January last it agreed that it would be in the best interests of the public and of the profession to support the new independent complaints structure set out in the Bill. I welcome constructive dialogue with all stakeholders on the key issues. The Bill is an opportunity to make a historically significant structural reform that puts consumers at its very heart.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Perhaps laws should be amended to prevent politicians from hiring family and friends once they enter government, Alan.
While an independent regulatory body is a welcome change, why is it The Minister must appoint the majority of the individuals on this authority?
For that reason alone, it doesn’t seem to be genuinely independent.
It’s a major step in the right direction but i’d prefer that the appointee’s were majority independent rather than the Minister. What if we got some one like John o’Donoughue or a Michael McDowell again. That does leave one worried.
All the same it is a massive improvement on what is currently in existence. The Law. Soc have consistently proven that they are not up to the job. The legal system here is sub par.
I like the general thrust what Shatter is doing, tho’ maybe amendments are necessary, I wouldn’t be an expert.. But it’s about time someone took on the legal profession. I forget how many millionaires the tribunals created???
How many millionaires did politics create? How many millionaires did accounting, developing, investment banking create?
Dermot that is such a narrow, blinkered, sensationalist view its just unbelieveable. A tiny tiny fraction of legal practitioners were involved in the tribunals which our politicans created through corruption and greed.
Not alone have those few “millionaires” as you call them forever tainted the perception of the entire profession but also engendered this frankly ludicrous notion that
a) the majority of barristers were involved in tribunals
b) the majority of barristers are millionaires
c) the majority of barristers are fat cats successful and feeding off the public
Heres a few titbits for you. Over 50% of the bar are in their first 7-8 years of practice thanks to an explosion of numbers during the last 10-15 years. That means the MAJORITY of barristers are in their first 7-8 years.
That also means the majority are broke or seriously financially struggling. Barristers are expected to work for FREE for their first two years of practice and then expected to scratch around hoping and praying for work for the next few years earning far far less than the minimum wage and unentitled to social welfare.
The few that make are able to stay on only really start to break even – not make a living, BREAK EVEN – after about 6 – 7 years. After that they slowly start to make a wage that most apprentice solicitors get from their first day.
Thats just those who make it. There is a staggeringly high rate of people forced to leave the profession because they cannot afford to stay. Hard working, intelligent, enthusiastic lawyers who leave because they cannot make a living. Most leave the profession – leave it having never made a nickel out of the place. Leave it after minimum 4 years of college (usually far longer) just to get there and €12,000 spent on qualification alone (borrowed or begged) not to mention several thousand euro a year charged to be a member of the law library.
The people that are leaving are also now leaving the country. Emigrating for jobs and better lives elsewhere. Our best and our brightest. The ones who we should, in fact, be looking to to help get us out of the appalling mess that our old, senior, fat cat politicans, public servants, bankers and developers have gotten us into. THOSE people are leaving now.
So when you attack the legal profession for making so much money – remember that the majority of them have never made even a modest living out of it and that those are the people we will wish had stayed.
Felix. Much of what you say is true but your posts are too long. When posting on a site like this there is no need for the flowery language you received all the extra points for in Blackhall Place. It is always better to be concise. You’re not talking to a judge here. Just a very large jury and it’s your comments on trial.
Btw you forgot to mention the huge insurance solicitors have to pay due to the rogue solicitors. And you didn’t get a decent dig in at Shatter either. ;)
Sorry Felix. Just saw your comment on the other thread. Nice one.
I did not attend Blackhall Place – and I doubt very much that marks are handed out for “flowery language” . They certainly arent in the Kings Inns.
My posts are long because of the sheer scope and size of the ignorance being displayed by the average poster.
And if, as you say, its is my comments on trial – surely it is in my interest to make full comprehensible comments.
Concise and to the point Felix. A+
have your say