"Legal Reforms represent an attack on independence"

[Brendan Burgess]

According to Carol Coulter in today's [broken link removed]

It's an unfortunate heading as the first paragraph appears to welcome the bill

THERE IS much that is good in the Bill to regulate the legal professions recently published by Minister for Justice Alan Shatter, notably the measures to bring transparency to legal costs and to enable clients to challenge costs they consider unjustified through a new office of legal costs adjudicator

But her main point is

The proposed authority will have 11 members, four of whom will be nominated by the Bar Council and the Law Society. The remaining seven will be lay people appointed by the Government on the nomination of the Minister for Justice.

Of 56 operative sections in the Bill as a whole, 21 require ministerial approval.

The role of the Medical Council parallels in many ways that of the proposed legal services authority – it maintains a register of doctors, specifies and reviews standards, approves programmes of registration and training, and generally protects the public by promoting high standards.

Up to now the solicitors and barristers have regulated themselves.

Independence from the profession is far more important than independence from the government.

Having said that, the minister can address some of these issues in the bill as it proceeds through the Oireachtas.

I think it's better that the Minister appoints the Authority. I am not sure who else could do so? The universities? The Consumers Association? The Minister can make sure that the Authority has a balance of skills and represents a variety of interests.

As with all boards, it would be better if appointments were made by some group independent of government. But then they would be subject to criticism and bribery as well, if we didn't like their appointments.

 

[onq]

I'm not worried who appoints the authority so long as the people on are competent enough to carry out their task.
We have just recovered from Michael Casey's unfounded broadside on the architectural profession.

I doubt that someone who thinks like that would do any good on the board of the authority.
Merit-based appointments only please, with swift exits if they start spouting nonsense.

 

[Purple]

Independence from the profession is far more important than independence from the government.

That’s the key point. Who better to appoint the members than a minister elected by the people and accountable to the Dail and the people?

 

[Mrs Vimes]

Carol Coulter also makes the point that half of all cases involve the government. The fear is that solicitors or barristers who regularly challenge a branch of the government - eg suing the gardai could be penalised by the regulatory body.

 

[Purple]

Carol Coulter also makes the point that half of all cases involve the government. The fear is that solicitors or barristers who regularly challenge a branch of the government - eg suing the gardai could be penalised by the regulatory body.

That's a bit of a stretch.

 

[T McGibney]

The State should not be seeking to actively control the legal profession, or any other profession for that matter. The notion of self-appointed interest groups like the Consumers Association monitoring standards in the legal profession is, frankly, comical.

The key to effective regulation of the legal profession lies in the proper adoption and enforcement of high standards within all strands of the profession. The state should act as facilitator in this, but it is a step too far in my opinion for it to act as enforcer as well.

 

[Brendan Burgess]

The key to effective regulation of the legal profession lies in the proper adoption and enforcement of high standards within all strands of the profession. The state should act as facilitator in this, but it is a step too far in my opinion for it to act as enforcer as well.

Hi Tommy

Are you saying that it should stay as it is? That they should continue to regulate themselves? I am not sure what "facilitate" means in this context.

Brendan

 

[T McGibney]

Hi Tommy

Are you saying that it should stay as it is? That they should continue to regulate themselves? I am not sure what "facilitate" means in this context.

Brendan

Hi Brendan,

I'm not saying as such that the current system should remain as it is, as I'm sure that there is plenty of room for reform. That said, as someone with absolutely no vested interest in the legal profession, that self-regulation is the only way forward, albeit with a degree of State oversight, if this is deemed desirable.

I am firmly opposed to the concept of the State actively regulating the sector. The Law Society and Bar Council may have made a poor effort to date in this regard but they have yet to plumb the depths of incompetence that the State has reached in regulating the industries and sectors that it is responsible for. It should not be seeking to extend its regulatory functions until it cleans up its own abysmal record.

 

[onq]

That’s the key point. Who better to appoint the members than a minister elected by the people and accountable to the Dail and the people?

"Who better than..."
What makes these guys "better" than anyone else?

Have they excelled at anything except kissing babies and handshakes?
The last thing we need is to place on a pedestal the practice of appointing cronies to boards...

 

[ClubMan]

"Who better than..."
What makes these guys "better" than anyone else?

I presume (at least part of) Purple's point is that "these guys" have at least been elected under our representative democracy to do a certain job and this might logically fall within their remit? Certainly more so than some of the self appointed interest groups that TMcG refers to.

Have they excelled at anything except kissing babies and handshakes?

No offence but that's a pretty gross generalisation and puerile argument. And anyway - why would they kiss handshakes?

 

[Purple]

"Who better than..."
What makes these guys "better" than anyone else?

What makes them better? Nothing. What is better about how they are appointed is that they are accountable to the people and not some vested interest group. If the minister appoints and retains people who don’t do their job properly or in a way that is acceptable to the populace then the minister and possible his/her government will not get re-elected. Therefore the minister has to make sure that the people they appoint are the right people and do their job properly.

Accountability and a sanction for dropping the ball.

The last thing we need is to place on a pedestal the practice of appointing cronies to boards...

How do we know that’s not what happens now (for appointments to the Law Society)? If it does happen now what sanction can the citizen take against the appointed or appointees, indeed how can the citizen find out who the appointees are and what the appointment process is?

Clarity, transparency, accountability and a sanction. That’s what we don’t have now and that’s what we need.

 

[onq]

We don't have any real sanction against politicians.

That's the myth these creatures feed you as a sop to a real sanction.

When I see politicians being jailed or fined serious money for making disastrous economic decisions or bad laws, THEN I'll call it "accountability"...

 

[Brendan Burgess]

Tommy raises an interesting point. But while financial regulation has been poor over the past few years, would a self-regulating financial system have done any better? I very much doubt it.

Although the Financial Regulator failed to stop the disastrous lending, it has achieved some things.

• A pretty good Consumer Protection Code
• A very good Mortgage Arrears Code
• Some enforcement regarding overcharging
• Some removal of people deemed unfit to act as directors
• Elderfield got stuck into Quinn Insurance very quickly, although this showed up his predecessor's shortcomings.

Would an industry body have achieved this?

 

[Purple]

We don't have any real sanction against politicians.

Yes we do, its called an election.

 

[onq]

Does the Law Society already have a statutory function?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_Society_of_Ireland#Functions

Functions

The Law Society has a range of statutory and non-statutory functions. Its statutory functions under the Solicitors Acts relate to the education and admission of persons to the profession; regulatory and disciplinary matters and protection of solicitors’ clients. The Law Society’s non-statutory functions relate to the representation and provision of services to its members and protecting the public interest.

 

[onq]

Yes we do, its called an election.

That's not a proper means of accountability - that's the platitude by which incompetents get elected again and again to "serve" - not the people - but themselves at the taxpayer's expense.

 

[Purple]

That's not a proper means of accountability - that's the platitude by which incompetents get elected again and again to "serve" - not the people - but themselves at the taxpayer's expense.

Firstly; it's a hell of a lot better than what we have now.

Secondly; if I employ a painter to paint my house and he does a really bad job, breaking his promises and proving to be incompetent in the process then that’s his fault. If I then employ his again and again with the same results then that’s my fault.
The same goes for politicians; if they truly are incompetents who spout platitudes but get elected again and again the problem is the electorate, not the system. There’s no fixing that.

 

[onq]

Allow me be quite clear on this -
I know some fine politicians and some who should never have got to high office.
However suggesting that "appointment by croneyism" is any way to achieve competence is a specious argument.

Its almost as bad as the way company law allows people of any level of competence to become directors of companies.
A glissade of "competence" is required, but no objective test and no requirement to show competence at any stage.
Many directors I know have had no management ability, no business acumen and hardly any marketing ability.

If we're serious about setting standards in Ireland Inc we need to set it a company and political level first.
Then if some "Entrep-in-are" gets appointed we might hope he can do more than get grants from Fás.
To get back on topic, Board Members should at least have a good working knowledge of the law.

Re your painter - I and others are pushing for a Register of Contractors and Sub-Contractors.
This would include only those who can prove competence or have an acceptable record.
People should expect good service from those who get paid the most on building jobs.

We should be able to get good service from professionals, trades and companies.
So getting architects registered and the legal profession is only a bare start.
I want trades, consultants and company directors subject to review.

ONQ.

 

[ClubMan]

Off topic but that's a beautiful boat shaped post.

 

[T McGibney]

Allow me be quite clear on this -
I know some fine politicians and some who should never have got to high office.
However suggesting that "appointment by croneyism" is any way to achieve competence is a specious argument.

Its almost as bad as the way company law allows people of any level of competence to become directors of companies.
A glissade of "competence" is required, but no objective test and no requirement to show competence at any stage.
Many directors I know have had no management ability, no business acumen and hardly any marketing ability.

If we're serious about setting standards in Ireland Inc we need to set it a company and political level first.
Then if some "Entrep-in-are" gets appointed we might hope he can do more than get grants from Fás.
To get back on topic, Board Members should at least have a good working knowledge of the law.

Re your painter - I and others are pushing for a Register of Contractors and Sub-Contractors.
This would include only those who can prove competence or have an acceptable record.
People should expect good service from those who get paid the most on building jobs.

We should be able to get good service from professionals, trades and companies.
So getting architects registered and the legal profession is only a bare start.
I want trades, consultants and company directors subject to review.

ONQ.

Did you have to pass an exam in business administration before being allowed to open your own business? If not, why force this on others?

If a company director is complying with relevant laws by engaging compliance advisors and delegating tasks to specialists, what harm are they doing? Why should they be put out of business?

Are you suggesting that a 'bob a job' kid should only be allowed paint a wall if they're on an official register? Sounds like something Erich Honecker would have dreamed up.

There are enough barriers to enterprise in this country without creating new ones.