What does the law society actually do?

They look after their own. In a closed shop. They are not interested in mere clients. Note the arrogance on display. Note how you need to be a man of means to take them on. And it’s no easy thing to get another firm to represent you.
 
For anyone paying attention, there have numerous such cases in the news in the last couple of years. The handling of probate and inheritances seems to be a particularly murky one, since the beneficiaries never get a clear picture of what they were entitled to. As Bronte said, the law society are looking after their own, first and only. Self-regulation in the legal profession is a complete farce, especially since mounting a challenge is nigh on impossible.

The judiciary who are drawn from the same ranks are in on it too. In the most egregious cases that do make it to court, a solicitor will often be slapped on the wrists and put under the supervision of another solicitor temporarily. This is in cases that are quite plainly screaming out for jail time. They need to apply the same criteria that the Revenue Commissioners would to you or me if we "accidentally" slipped up in our accounting.

I hasten to say there is no evidence that solicitors generally are a bunch of crooks. But equally clearly from recent cases, a subset of them are. Crooks should not be self-regulated. It's the most basic, glaringly obvious fact. But then, who has the independence and the technical competence to do it? That's a tricky one. The ODCE spring to mind, with it's well-funded hordes of competent professionals and crack team of investigators. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
This is a tough one. The original case did seem complicated - it went on over 10 years. It was not a simple sale of a three bed semi.

There was a complaint to the Taxing Master which went to the High Court.

I don't think that the Law Society could hold parallel hearings on the matter.

After the High Court upheld the decision of the Taxing Master, the Law Society should have dealt with the complaint.

Brendan
 
But the case took seven years to trundle its way to the High Court. That's bad enough on its own. But if the Law Society can't act in the interim it seems hardly fit for purpose. At least something should have been in place so that disciplinary proceedings were automatic and swift on foot of the High Court decision (which, in fairness, is kind of what you're getting at).
 
If you have a complaint regarding a financial institution you can go to the financial ombudsman.

If you have a complaint about a Garda you can go to the Garda ombudsman

If you have a complaint about a communications provider, you can go to comreg.


If you have a complaint against a solicitor or other member of the legal profession they will attempt to sue you for defamation.


The country Desperately needs an independent ombudsman for the legal profession.
 
peemac said:
If you have a complaint against a solicitor or other member of the legal profession they will attempt to sue you for defamation.
Click to expand...

Anybody can sue for defamation, what is the basis for your assertions that solicitors as a body do this?

In the course of my work I have had a few situations (5 & 6) where we had to threaten solicitors with the possibility of a complaint and I cannot recall any of them coming up with the idea of suing us for defamation...
 
peemac said:
I'd prefer not to in case they try again..
Click to expand...

Hi pee

If there is a report in the paper about a solicitor suing for defamation in a case where the client complained, you can link to that freely.

I am absolutely sure it has happened. But I would say it's very rare. And the risk of defamation would not put me off complaining about a professional service.

Brendan
 
On the basis that we are all human and no group is inherently more or less honest that any other I am not a fan of self regulation. I don't think solicitors or doctors are any more of less honest as a cohort than taxi drivers or plumbers. Therefore the body which represents them should not regulate them and the body which regulates them should be comprised of competent people who are not part of the cohort which they are regulating. That may mean a requirement for medical advice from a doctor outside Ireland or a legal opinion from someone who is not a practicing solicitor or barrister but that is not an insurmountable problem and would go a long way to addressing allegations or perceptions that just because people went to school and college together and worked together for decades they might somehow to consciously or unconsciously biased.

I know that may seem incredible to many professionals but you must understand that some of us non professionals just don't understand how you guys have attained a higher level of moral and ethical virtue than the rest of us simply because of the career you chose. Some of us think that your job, your income and your social status shouldn't allow you the presumption of virtue. Heck, some of us think that justice should be blind in that every citizen should be treated equally under the law. On that basis self regulation of lawyers, doctors etc is no more credible than self regulation of taxi drivers or childcare workers.

In fairness to the Medical Council it is a Professional Standards body, with a non-medical majority on any boards and no representative function. The Law Society can claim no such clarity in it's role.
 
The Law society both represents solicitors and seeks to uphold standards. Those two functions are incompatible for any organisation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top