What does the law society actually do?

Discussion in 'Recommend advisors - solicitors, accountants etc.' started by AlbacoreA, 9 Mar 2019.

  1. AlbacoreA

    AlbacoreA Frequent Poster

    Posts:
    3,139
  2. Bronte

    Bronte Frequent Poster

    Posts:
    13,016
    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.
     
  3. dub_nerd

    dub_nerd Frequent Poster

    Posts:
    1,955
    Last edited: 9 Mar 2019
    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: 9 Mar 2019
  4. Brendan Burgess

    Brendan Burgess Founder

    Posts:
    36,770
    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
     
  5. dub_nerd

    dub_nerd Frequent Poster

    Posts:
    1,955
    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).
     
  6. AlbacoreA

    AlbacoreA Frequent Poster

    Posts:
    3,139
    The system seems to be set up to drag things out and bankrupt people.