Brendan Burgess
Founder
- Messages
- 52,275
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
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.
Independence from the profession is far more important than independence from the government.
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.
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
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?
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."Who better than..."
What makes these guys "better" than anyone else?
No offence but that's a pretty gross generalisation and puerile argument. And anyway - why would they kiss handshakes?Have they excelled at anything except kissing babies and handshakes?
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."Who better than..."
What makes these guys "better" than anyone else?
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?The last thing we need is to place on a pedestal the practice of appointing cronies to boards...
Yes we do, its called an election.We don't have any real sanction against politicians.
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.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?