# Legal Reform - Summary of Bill



## Brendan Burgess (26 Oct 2011)

I am surprised that there seems to have been very little consumer debate on the Legal Services Bill which was published earlier this month.

http://www.oireachtas.ie/viewdoc.asp?DocID=19208&&CatID=59

To read the 32 page Explanatory Memorandum, click on the heading in the first page of the Bill. (I can't figure out how to post a link to it)


*Summary of the Legal Services Regulation Bill 2011 (From Alan Shatter's [broken link removed]at the launch of the bill)
*

*Introduction*
 The Legal Services Regulation Bill 2011 is an innovative reforming  measure. Until now, the regulatory framework of the legal-services  market in Ireland lacked clear objectives. It also had inadequate regard  to the interests of consumers. Business structures for delivering legal  services have changed little even though business practices in the  domestic and global economy have changed significantly. The Bill creates  a new regulatory framework that allows consumers a high degree of  choice in how they obtain legal services and choice for lawyers in the  type of business they use to deliver legal services. The Bill aims to  increase access to justice through increasing competition in the legal  services market by removing unnecessary restrictions on the way legal  services can be delivered.

*Objectives*
 The Bill sets out clearly six objectives for the new regulatory  framework. The consumer will no longer be a voiceless participant in the  legal-services market. Three objectives directly concern consumers.  Thus, when performing its functions, the new Legal Services Regulatory  Authority must have regard to:
 · protecting and promoting the public interest;
· protecting and promoting the interests of consumers relating to the provision of legal services; and
· promoting competition in the provision of legal services.
 The Bill also sets out objectives intended to promote high standards  in the provision of legal services. The Legal Services Regulatory  Authority must have regard to:
 · supporting the proper and effective administration of justice;
· encouraging an independent, strong and effective legal profession; and
· promoting and maintaining adherence to professional principles.
 These are balanced objectives. They cover the interests of consumers,  the general public interest, the independence of the legal profession,  and access to justice.

*An Independent Regulatory Authority*
 For the first time in our legal history, there will be independent  statutory regulation of both branches of the legal profession. The new  Legal Services Regulatory Authority, made up of 11 members, will be an  independent regulatory body. The following features reinforce its  independence:
 · It has a lay majority of members and a lay chairperson;
· The legal profession has a minority representation on the Authority,  with 2 representatives from each branch of the legal profession;
· It is accountable to Dáil Éireann (e.g its Committees) in its own right;
· It must follow standards of sound and transparent governance by  preparing strategic and business plans, reporting annually, and  following proper accounting standards subject to audit;
· It must keep the public informed of its role, and their rights and remedies.

*An Independent Complaints Procedure*
 The Bill will create an independent complaints procedure. This means  that consumers will no longer have to complain directly to the law  Society or to the Bar Council to obtain redress.  The first step  involves making a complaint to the Legal Services Regulatory Authority.  The Complaints Committee will have a majority of laypersons on it. It  will decide on the admissibility of the complaint. To save consumers  time and money, an alternative dispute resolution options will be  offered. Alternative dispute resolution is a procedure for settling a  dispute by means other than going into court. An example is mediation.
 For complaints that go to a hearing, there will be a new, independent  disciplinary body to adjudicate on allegations of professional  misconduct. In other words, the professional bodies – the Law Society  and the Bar Council – will not run this body. The new body will have a  range of powers to discipline lawyers found guilty of professional  misconduct. The range includes the ultimate sanction involving striking  off a lawyer from the roll of practitioners.

*Comprehensive Regulation*
 The new Legal Services Regulatory Authority will have an armoury of  functions and powers that will enable it to engage in comprehensive  regulation of the legal profession and the legal-services market. Thus,  it will have power:
 · to prepare or approve Codes of Practice to ensure high standards of legal practice;
· to propose regulations on key matters including the keeping of  accounts, advertising, professional indemnity provision, the protection  of clients; moneys, and so forth;
· to monitor admission policies in respect of the legal profession and  to accredit education or training services of would-be lawyers;
· to review the structure of the legal profession and how legal services are provided;
· to provide information on the legal-services market;
· to conduct research into important issues relating to legal services;
· to help with the coordination and development of policy in relation to legal services and
· to inspect legal practices and independently supervise the accounts of legal practitioners.
 These developments serve the interests of consumers. They also serve  the interests of the legal profession, because they will no longer be  accused of regulating or disciplining themselves. The costs of  regulation will be borne by the professional bodies.

*Liberalising the Legal Profession*
 The Bill seeks to achieve greater flexibility in the legal-services  market, more competition and improved access to justice. It is crucial  to ensure that there are no unnecessary barriers to competition created  by restrictions on business models for offering legal services or by  restrictive practices within the legal profession. The radical changes  include the following:
 · The Legal Services Regulatory Authority will review the legal  professions’ monopoly in the field of legal-professional education. The  aim is to open up such education to other providers in a more  competitive market.
· The Legal Services Regulatory Authority will carry out essential  research and engage in a process of consultation to come up with  proposals to advance more complex issues such as:
o the unification of the two branches of the legal profession;
o a separate profession of "conveyancers"
o barrister partnerships, partnerships between barristers and solicitors  and multi-disciplinary practices (e.g. lawyers/non-lawyers)
o direct access to barristers for contentious business.
· For the first time, solicitors will be able to become Senior Counsel as well as barristers.
· Procedures will be put in place to ease switching between the two branches of the legal profession.
· The legislation allows for solicitors and barristers to act jointly as advocates in court and other proceedings.
· Clients will be allowed nominate who should lead their case in court when members of both legal professions are involved.
· Solicitor/barrister employees of private and State entities will be  allowed to act as advocates in court proceedings for their employers.
· Whistleblowers’ protection will be put in place to protect those who report in good faith misconduct in the legal profession.
 These changes will enable the legal profession to operate in new,  more efficient, ways. It will also enable law firms to have access to  non-legal expertise in order to deliver new business models and for  non-lawyers to have an ownership stake in the business.

*More Competitive and Transparent Legal Costs*
 For the first time in our legal history, the Bill will fully spell  out the Principles that guide the assessment of legal Cost. The key  principle is the principle of reasonable costs for appropriate work  done. How lawyers charge costs will be brought into the light of day  with the intention of protecting consumers, bringing about transparency,  and fostering greater competition among service providers. Lawyers will  be required to notify clients in a more detailed and intelligible way  about legal costs. And consumers will be able to find out what the legal  costs principles require. Key changes are:
 · Both solicitors and barristers will now have to provide proper  costs information. A detailed Bill of Costs is required which contains  specified information.
· The process of notification of costs to clients is ongoing and not just an initial once-off notification.
· Contravention of the notification requirements is "misconduct" and can  be taken into account to disallow costs in an adjudication.
· Arbitrary costs practices such as imposing the 2/3 of Senior Counsel  rule in charging for the services of a Junior Counsel are abolished.
· The existing Taxing-Master is to be replaced by a Legal Costs  Adjudicator who will assume a modernised and much more transparent legal  costs adjudication function.
· Recruitment to the role of the Legal Costs Adjudicator, previously  confined to solicitors of ten years standing only, is now extended to a  wider skill-set, i.e. to similarly qualified barristers and legal-costs  accountants.
 The Office of the Legal Costs Adjudicator (who is currently called  the Taxing Master) will be made subject to the sound governance and  accountability practices applied to public bodies generally. Alternative  dispute resolution will be promoted to save costs.
There will be appeal to the High Court. Guidelines on legal costs will  be accessible to the public and not just to lawyers. There will be  annual reporting by the Office of the Legal Costs Adjudicator. The  Office of the Legal Costs Adjudicator will maintain a Register of  Decisions on adjudications for the first time. This will publicise the  reasons behind costs adjudications and their outcomes.

*Solicitor/Barrister Bankruptcy*
 The Bill reflects the current legal provisions and rules that  presently apply and result in bankrupt solicitors and barristers being  prohibited from legal practice. These rules were designed in a different  era and with regard to solicitors were particularly targeted to ensure  that clients’ funds weren’t improperly used by bankrupt solicitors and  also to ensure that clients did not suffer financial loss as a  consequence of a solicitor becoming bankrupt.
 There are circumstances in which legal practitioners may be rendered  bankrupt due to their involvement in commercial matters that have no  connection to legal practice nor with their legal expertise. In such  circumstances depriving a lawyer of the opportunity to continue to earn  an income both to facilitate his or her own support and to create the  possibility of creditors recouping money due to them can be contrary to  the public interest. In the context of the work being undertaken in the  development of comprehensive reform to our bankruptcy laws further  consideration will be given to this issue.

*Conclusion*
 In sum, the Bill is a radical step in creating a supportive, robust  and flexible regulatory framework for promoting high standards of  legal-professional conduct in a more efficient, transparent, competitive  and flexible legal-services market. It will serve consumers’ interests,  the public interests and the interests of an independent legal  profession. It will also enhance the rule of law and access to justice.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (26 Oct 2011)

*Alan Shatter is trying to reform the Legal Profession*

*Some reaction to the bill or the issues in the bill

*The Public Interest in the Retention of the Independent Referral Bar as Currently Organised - from Cian Ferriter Law Library

[broken link removed] discussion


[broken link removed]

   [FONT=&quot]BAR [/FONT][FONT=&quot]C[/FONT][FONT=&quot]O[/FONT][FONT=&quot]U[/FONT][FONT=&quot]N[/FONT][FONT=&quot]C[/FONT][FONT=&quot]I[/FONT][FONT=&quot]L[/FONT][FONT=&quot] [/FONT][FONT=&quot]EX[/FONT][FONT=&quot]PRESSES F[/FONT][FONT=&quot]U[/FONT][FONT=&quot]N[/FONT][FONT=&quot]D[/FONT][FONT=&quot]A[/FONT][FONT=&quot]MEN[/FONT][FONT=&quot]T[/FONT][FONT=&quot]A[/FONT][FONT=&quot]L[/FONT][FONT=&quot] [/FONT][FONT=&quot]C[/FONT][FONT=&quot]O[/FONT][FONT=&quot]N[/FONT][FONT=&quot]C[/FONT][FONT=&quot]E[/FONT][FONT=&quot]R[/FONT][FONT=&quot]N[/FONT][FONT=&quot]S [/FONT][FONT=&quot]R[/FONT][FONT=&quot]EG[/FONT][FONT=&quot]AR[/FONT][FONT=&quot]D[/FONT][FONT=&quot]I[/FONT][FONT=&quot]N[/FONT][FONT=&quot]G PROPOSED [/FONT][FONT=&quot]L[/FONT][FONT=&quot]E[/FONT][FONT=&quot]G[/FONT][FONT=&quot]A[/FONT][FONT=&quot]L SERVICES [/FONT][FONT=&quot]R[/FONT][FONT=&quot]E[/FONT][FONT=&quot]F[/FONT][FONT=&quot]O[/FONT][FONT=&quot]R[/FONT][FONT=&quot]M[/FONT][FONT=&quot]S[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
  [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
  [FONT=&quot]1[/FONT][FONT=&quot]2 October 2011 – Commenting on today’s publication of the Legal Services Regulation Bill 2011 the Bar Council said that while it remains fully open to reform of the legal system the Bill raises fundamental concerns about the administration  of justice in this country and access to legal services for members of the public.[/FONT]
  [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
  [FONT=&quot]T[/FONT][FONT=&quot]h[/FONT][FONT=&quot]e[/FONT][FONT=&quot] [/FONT][FONT=&quot]B[/FONT][FONT=&quot]a[/FONT][FONT=&quot]r Council [/FONT][FONT=&quot]added that today’s Bill goes far beyond implementing the outstanding  recommendations of the Competition Authority (and contradicts a number of them) and the EU/IMF programme  for support.[/FONT]
  [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
  [FONT=&quot]T[/FONT][FONT=&quot]h[/FONT][FONT=&quot]e[/FONT][FONT=&quot] [/FONT][FONT=&quot]C[/FONT][FONT=&quot]o[/FONT][FONT=&quot]u[/FONT][FONT=&quot]n[/FONT][FONT=&quot]ci[/FONT][FONT=&quot]l [/FONT][FONT=&quot]s[/FONT][FONT=&quot]aid it had specific concerns over the structure of Minister Shatter’s Legal Services Regulatory Authority, the introduction of multidisciplinary practices and partnerships and their impact on access to justice for the public at a time when there have been serious cutbacks in legal aid.[/FONT]
  [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
  [FONT=&quot]A[/FONT][FONT=&quot]s [/FONT][FONT=&quot]a result, this Bill will have the impact of increasing costs due to more regulation and bureaucracy, reducing competition, and by creating further obstacles for entrants to the legal profession.[/FONT]
  [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
  [FONT=&quot]T[/FONT][FONT=&quot]h[/FONT][FONT=&quot]e[/FONT][FONT=&quot] [/FONT][FONT=&quot]C[/FONT][FONT=&quot]h[/FONT][FONT=&quot]a[/FONT][FONT=&quot]i[/FONT][FONT=&quot]r[/FONT][FONT=&quot]m[/FONT][FONT=&quot]a[/FONT][FONT=&quot]n[/FONT][FONT=&quot] [/FONT][FONT=&quot]o[/FONT][FONT=&quot]f the Bar Council, Paul O’Higgins SC, commented, “An independent legal profession is a cornerstone of democracy and the Bar Council is determined to protect that principle.[/FONT]
  [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
  [FONT=&quot]“W[/FONT][FONT=&quot]e have been engaged in a reform process over the last decade and have implemented 11 of the 15 recommendations of the 2006 Competition Authority report.[/FONT]
  [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
  [FONT=&quot]“Wh[/FONT][FONT=&quot]i[/FONT][FONT=&quot]l[/FONT][FONT=&quot]e the Council recognises the desire of the Government, the EU and the IMF to reduce costs in many sectors at this time, we would point out that legal costs have been declining dramatically over recent years, with severe cuts in criminal and civil cases.”[/FONT]
  [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
  [FONT=&quot]M[/FONT][FONT=&quot]r O’Higgins added that the Bar Council had specific concerns on the manner in which today’s Bill went beyond the Competition Authority’s recommendations through the proposed regulatory structure and the extent of the oversight granted to the Government of the day.[/FONT]
  [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
  [FONT=&quot]“[/FONT][FONT=&quot]I[/FONT][FONT=&quot]f [/FONT][FONT=&quot]th[/FONT][FONT=&quot]e collective Government or an individual Minister has final say over all aspects of the regulatory function and code of conduct this could cause problems for barristers taking such a stance.”[/FONT]
  [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
  [FONT=&quot]T[/FONT][FONT=&quot]h[/FONT][FONT=&quot]e[/FONT][FONT=&quot] [/FONT][FONT=&quot]B[/FONT][FONT=&quot]a[/FONT][FONT=&quot]r Council [/FONT][FONT=&quot]h[/FONT][FONT=&quot]as also voiced its opposition to the proposal to introduce multidisciplinary partnerships and the abolition of the independent referral bar.[/FONT]

  [FONT=&quot]
 [/FONT]  [FONT=&quot]M[/FONT][FONT=&quot]r O’Higgins said, “If partnerships are to be introduced, this will dramatically contract the available numbers of barristers and greatly restrict access to justice for those who cannot afford legal representation. At a time when the Legal Aid provisions are being curtailed and the Legal Aid system has a waiting list of up to nine months and 4,500 clients waiting for a first appointment, this will severely impede availability of quality representation for the general public and those who cannot afford representation.”[/FONT]
  [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
  [FONT=&quot]M[/FONT][FONT=&quot]r O’Higgins warned that the net effect of these partnerships would be to diminish rather than increase competition and will contract the market. “As a result prices will be driven upwards as partners,  especially in niche areas of the law, can set their[/FONT]
  [FONT=&quot]p[/FONT][FONT=&quot]r[/FONT][FONT=&quot]i[/FONT][FONT=&quot]c[/FONT][FONT=&quot]e to meet market demand, which will increase as access lessens.[/FONT]
  [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
  [FONT=&quot]“[/FONT][FONT=&quot]M[/FONT][FONT=&quot]u[/FONT][FONT=&quot]l[/FONT][FONT=&quot]t[/FONT][FONT=&quot]i[/FONT][FONT=&quot]-[/FONT][FONT=&quot]d[/FONT][FONT=&quot]i[/FONT][FONT=&quot]s[/FONT][FONT=&quot]c[/FONT][FONT=&quot]i[/FONT][FONT=&quot]p[/FONT][FONT=&quot]l[/FONT][FONT=&quot]i[/FONT][FONT=&quot]n[/FONT][FONT=&quot]a[/FONT][FONT=&quot]r[/FONT][FONT=&quot]y[/FONT][FONT=&quot] [/FONT][FONT=&quot]p[/FONT][FONT=&quot]r[/FONT][FONT=&quot]actices will also retain the best of barristers to work for them either in-house or through various arrangements, cutting them off from members of the public who may wish to retain their services. It will also remove their independence and impact on decision making as their first priority will be to their employer as opposed to the court or other clients.”[/FONT]
  [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
  [FONT=&quot]M[/FONT][FONT=&quot]r O’Higgins added that the Bar Council would consider the Bill further and would engage with members of the Government, Opposition, and all other interested parties.[/FONT]
  [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
  [FONT=&quot]H[/FONT][FONT=&quot]e concluded, “Further analysis of this Bill is needed  by all those it effects, and that does not simply include the legal profession. We are open to well thought-out and productive reform and indeed welcome some of the proposals contained in today’s Bill. However, we must ensure that the proposed reforms do not jeopardise the integrity of our legal system.”[/FONT]
  [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
  [FONT=&quot]E[/FONT][FONT=&quot]N[/FONT][FONT=&quot]D[/FONT][FONT=&quot]S[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]


----------



## Brendan Burgess (26 Oct 2011)

*Alan Shatter is trying to reform the Legal Profession*

The Law Society doesn't like it either in a letter to its members. 

*The Proposed Legal Services Bill*

Dear Colleague, 



You  will be aware from media reports that the Legal Services Bill, which is  being prepared by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Defence, Alan  Shatter, TD, is due to be published by the end of this week.  This is to  comply with the deadline for the Bill which was set in the Memorandum  of Understanding of Ireland’s funding agreement with the EU and IMF of  1st December, 2010.
According to that  agreement, in the terms of the very short section dealing with the  legal profession, the Government is committed to “establishing an  Independent Regulator for the profession and implementing the  recommendations of the Legal Costs Working Group and outstanding  Competition Authority recommendations to reduce legal costs”.
The  Society sought meetings with Minister Shatter as soon as he took office  on 9th March, 2011, with a view to engaging constructively with him and  his Department in the preparation of the Bill.  However, the Minister  informed us that he did not wish to meet us prematurely. 
He  did in fact meet with us on the subject on 11th July, 2011, for an hour  accompanied by his officials.  The Law Society representatives at the  meeting were the Senior Vice-President, Donald Binchy, the Director  General, Ken Murphy, and me.  We discussed in broad terms the issues  that needed to be addressed in the Bill.  The Minister emphasised many  times at that meeting that no final decisions had yet been taken by him  in relation to the Bill’s contents.
Some  weeks later the Director General, Ken Murphy, met with Departmental  officials to go through with them in detail the various submissions that  the Society had made in the past in the course of the work of the Legal  Costs Working Group (and subsequently the Implementation Group), on the  subject of legal costs, and the Competition Authority in the process of  many years that led to the Authority’s report of December 2006.  Links  to some of the Society’s main submissions are here;


[broken link removed]
[broken link removed]
[broken link removed]
[broken link removed]
Although  we sought a further meeting in early September 2011, this was not  granted.  Nor has the Society been given any information or insight  whatsoever in to the contents of this Bill by Minister Shatter or his  officials.
As soon as the Bill is  published it is planned that I will send you a brief eBulletin in  relation to its contents together with a link to the Minister’s  Explanatory Memorandum and the text of the Bill itself.
As  there is expected to be a considerable amount of detail in the Bill,  the Society will take the time to read it thoroughly in advance of a  special meeting of the Society’s Council, which will be held on Friday,  7th October, 2011.
When we met with Minister Shatter we sought to put three simple points on the record.  They were:-


Contrary  to what is often alleged, solicitors are by no means opposed to all  change.  For example, the Society fully supports a move to a much more  modern, transparent and predictable system for the assessment of costs  in civil litigation.  When the Legal Costs Working Group report came out  in 2005 (with the Implementation report in 2006) the Society had  welcomed them subject to sight of their implementing detail;
We  urged the Minister, as a matter of principle, that whatever changes we  sought to introduce to the manner in which the profession is regulated  should not erode the independence of the profession which is a necessary  bulwark to the independence of the judiciary and a hallmark of any  free, democratic society;
We urged the Minister that whatever  changes, pursuant to the Competition Authority report, he intended to  bring in to the manner in which the profession is regulated should be  proportionate and should not unduly increase the cost of regulation.   This was particularly important at a time of great economic distress in  the solicitors’ profession.  Indeed, as any increase in the cost of  regulation must inevitably be passed on to clients, the Minister should  seek to avoid the counterproductive and ironic outcome that measures  designed to reduce legal costs might in fact increase them.
There can be no doubt that this piece of legislation will have a major impact on the profession and on the Society.
I will be in contact with you again when the Legal Services Bill has been published.

With kind regards.

Yours sincerely,


*John Costello*
*President*


----------



## Brendan Burgess (27 Oct 2011)

I have updated the opening post to provide a summary of the bill and to include a link to the Explanatory Memorandum and to post the reaction of the Bar Council and the Law Society.

I like this bit in the press release



> The new Bill does not see legal sector reform as a once-off phenomenon.  It puts a whole framework in place to prepare and roll-out reform on an  ongoing basis. For example, it prepares the way for opening the legal  system up to multi-disciplinary practices; easier switching between the  professions; direct access to barristers; letting solicitors and  barristers employed by companies or the Government represent their  employers to cut duplication and costs.


----------



## Complainer (27 Oct 2011)

If the Bar Council and the Law Society are against it, then it must definitely be a good thing.


----------



## AlbacoreA (27 Oct 2011)

Complainer said:


> If the Bar Council and the Law Society are against it, then it must definitely be a good thing.



It certainly makes you think about it.


----------



## onq (27 Oct 2011)

> The new Bill does not see legal sector reform as a once-off phenomenon.   It puts a whole framework in place to prepare and roll-out reform on an   ongoing basis. For example, it prepares the way for opening the legal   system up to multi-disciplinary practices; easier switching between the   professions; direct access to barristers; letting solicitors and   barristers employed by companies or the Government represent their   employers to cut duplication and costs.



Some of this isn't new, and any article presenting it as if it is, is misleading.

Architects have been allowed to brief barristers directly on cases going back nearly 10 years.

Since 2001 or so I have attended briefing meetings with clients where all were able to put questions to, and elicit answers from, the barrister.

Touting lay persons briefing barristers directly as a step forward is not correct in my opinion. While there may be a drive to use plain English in new acts and legislation, even plain English can be impenetrable when couched in the normal run of clauses and sub-clauses so favoured by the parliamentary draughtsmen.

The interpretative function provided by solicitors between barristers and client arose for a reason and in the abstruse legal world were barristers operate, they provide a necessary function.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (27 Oct 2011)

onq said:


> The interpretative function provided by solicitors between barristers and client arose for a reason and in the abstruse legal world were barristers operate, they provide a necessary function.



I can't follow your argument at all. 

The law is complex. The language is complicated. A good barrister should be able to explain the legal aspects of a tax issue to me, an accountant, without needing a solicitor to interpret. 

In a few cases in which I have been involved, the solicitor got in the way between me and the barrister.  In one particular case, the barrister seemed to understand the financial aspects of the case and I was interpreting them to the solicitor.


----------



## onq (27 Oct 2011)

Brendan Burgess said:


> I can't follow your argument at all.
> 
> The law is complex. The language is complicated. A good barrister should be able to explain the legal aspects of a tax issue to me, an accountant, without needing a solicitor to interpret.
> 
> In a few cases in which I have been involved, the solicitor got in the way between me and the barrister.  In one particular case, the barrister seemed to understand the financial aspects of the case and I was interpreting them to the solicitor.



You are a professional, Brendan.
In your area of expertise I expect your  detailed knowledge would equal or perhaps exceed that of a competent barrister.

I drew a specific distinction between professionals directly briefing and being briefed by barristers and laypersons who are likely to benefit from the solicitors advices.
 Architects have been able to discuss matters directly with solicitors for at least a decade in my own experience.

"Laypeople" in the sense I use it here, means non-professional and non-legal.
To avoid misinterpretation, allow me to state that I know of several "laypeople" who have as good a grasp of certain aspects of the law as senior counsel.

But we are talking about legislation for the good of the entire public and not a few unique laypersons.
My experience is that in general laypersons benefit from the involvement of a good solicitor in cases before the court.


----------



## Purple (27 Oct 2011)

There are areas outside the professions where specific expertise is required to construct a legal case or defence, i.e. expert witnesses may not necessarily hold a professional qualification. Examples include case around patents involve IT or medical devices. In these incidents briefing a solicitor who then briefs a Barrister is counterproductive. I’m sure people can think of many other cases (automotive, construction etc) but it is self-evident that an expert bringing a solicitor up to speed so that he or she can then bring a barrister up to speed is just plain stupid. I know that what often happens is that the solicitor sits there nodding their head while the expert briefs the barrister but the solicitor is still clocking up the hours either way.


----------



## onq (27 Oct 2011)

+1

There is a growing body of non-professional technical information where only the person presenting the evidence actually knows what his special knowledge means for the case.
Interpretation of this by a solicitor who doesn't know about this branch of knowledge would be like a concentrated version of Chinese whispers.

I believe that growing concern about the quality of information transferred via solicitors has led to the direct briefing of barristers by expert witnesses.
This is not to denigrate the solicitor who cannot be expected to understand every body of knowledge likely to come before the courts today - Pyrite would be one example.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (2 Nov 2011)

There is a good balanced summary and evaluation of the bill from a solicitor [broken link removed]

He seems to support most of the proposals, although questioning others. 

Brendan


----------



## onq (2 Nov 2011)

Thanks Brendan.

Astonished to see the insurance cost for conveyancing solicitors - €10,000 PA!

I think the Insurance Industry needs to be more fully transparent about ITS costs and soon!

I think the issue of Online Legal Services is the most interesting and potentially the most fraught if done badly.


ONQ.


----------

