I accept all of that is valid. I was commenting only on the law society and how it is perceived.
Financial Advisors v Solicitors v Doctors v Accountants
- Thread starter NorthDrum
- Start date
Fair enough. Do you accept that (recourse from other sources not withstanding), there is a potential conflict of interest what one body has a representative and a regulatory/disciplinary function? The fact that there are other checks in place and avenues for grievances (real or imagined) is a separate issue.
My apologies for being unclear but in my first post I was commenting only in the context of how the profession/industry is perceived.
Do you still feel, despite my other post, that the only professional regulation of solicitors is by the lawsociety, their representative body- or do you accept that in fact the disciplinary tribunal, the high court and the independant ombudsman are independant of the law society? In which case your question is hypothetical.
You are right but Purple is also right. As much as it probably annoys you the public perception is that the legal profession is self regulated. And you can't blame them. The Law society themselves describe themselves as follows:
"We are the educational, representative and regulatory body of the solicitors' profession in Ireland."
They don't say one of the regulatory bodies
Also taken from the Law society website on how to complain about a solicitor:
The vast majority of solicitors provide good and expert service to their clients, maintain high standards of efficiency, courtesy and conduct their practices with the utmost integrity. Regrettably, a tiny minority of solicitors do not. The Law Society of Ireland as the regulatory body for solicitors can help you if you think you have a complaint about a solicitor.
What are people supposed to think about making complaints?
Yes, that's what I was trying to say.
Purple- I was answering the post you made, not the one you thought you made or wanted to make.
Sunny- you make a good point but as stated I wasn't answering that point. I'm trying to do my bit to alter that perception but that is an uphill battle because at the moment I fear some people want to believe that solicitors are the bad guys.
Sunny- you make a good point but as stated I wasn't answering that point. I'm trying to do my bit to alter that perception but that is an uphill battle because at the moment I fear some people want to believe that solicitors are the bad guys.
Fair enough.
I think that solicitors are no different from any other group of people. My own experience is that I like and trust my solicitor and think I get good value for money.
Self-regulation of itself is not great from an "optical" point of view - its easy for cynics to rubbish it.
As an accountant I find, and the general perception amongst accountants is, that we are very heavily regulated, to the point that larger firms need a fulltime compliance guy to make sure we dont slip offside on the mountain of technical rules. Also we wish our Institutes were like the IFA fighting for our interests, not beating us over the head with more regulations.
Solicitors are just going through a bad run of luck. In my experience they are honest guys & gals - my only gripes would be more casual in that they are a bit more likely to be "up themselves" than your average accountant, particularly if you're dealing with the D4 crowd, and also a propensity to "await instructions" as opposed to mucking in and being a problem solver. These are minor things, and accountants, I included, could probably be accused of worse.
The only one case that really irked me was a recent one where a solicitor was getting his 12th remand or something ridiculous like that from the Law Society. I forget the names but one thing I remember was that he was going to settle a tax case for a client so he got the client to make a cheque out to the solicitor himself (no prizes for guessing what happened that money). Why he hadnt been shut down years ago was what I couldnt understand.
On the issue of value - from an accountancy point of view at least - clients need to find the right level of advice. If you are v price conscious and your affairs are simple then go to the lad working from his sitting room, or some student you heard of who know his way around a tax return. Dont go to a big firm and pay high fees and then ***** about it. They are geared to deal with big business and complex issues, while you think they robbed you they probably see you as a loss maker - neither of ye are necessarily wrong, ye are just mismatched.
Personally I wish charging could be more striaghforward and pricing simple so everyone always knew before they started what the fee would be -however life isnt that simple. I hate timesheets, issuing/arguing fees and collecting cash, its stressfull, but sure what you gonna do?, you gonna work for nada? get oudda here !!
As an accountant I find, and the general perception amongst accountants is, that we are very heavily regulated, to the point that larger firms need a fulltime compliance guy to make sure we dont slip offside on the mountain of technical rules. Also we wish our Institutes were like the IFA fighting for our interests, not beating us over the head with more regulations.
Solicitors are just going through a bad run of luck. In my experience they are honest guys & gals - my only gripes would be more casual in that they are a bit more likely to be "up themselves" than your average accountant, particularly if you're dealing with the D4 crowd, and also a propensity to "await instructions" as opposed to mucking in and being a problem solver. These are minor things, and accountants, I included, could probably be accused of worse.
The only one case that really irked me was a recent one where a solicitor was getting his 12th remand or something ridiculous like that from the Law Society. I forget the names but one thing I remember was that he was going to settle a tax case for a client so he got the client to make a cheque out to the solicitor himself (no prizes for guessing what happened that money). Why he hadnt been shut down years ago was what I couldnt understand.
On the issue of value - from an accountancy point of view at least - clients need to find the right level of advice. If you are v price conscious and your affairs are simple then go to the lad working from his sitting room, or some student you heard of who know his way around a tax return. Dont go to a big firm and pay high fees and then ***** about it. They are geared to deal with big business and complex issues, while you think they robbed you they probably see you as a loss maker - neither of ye are necessarily wrong, ye are just mismatched.
Personally I wish charging could be more striaghforward and pricing simple so everyone always knew before they started what the fee would be -however life isnt that simple. I hate timesheets, issuing/arguing fees and collecting cash, its stressfull, but sure what you gonna do?, you gonna work for nada? get oudda here !!
quarterfloun
Registered User
- Messages
- 117
Personally I believe that private solicitors should be removed from practice. It is in their interest to charge by the hour, by the letter, by expenses etc. which essentially means that access to the law is on a basis of affordabilty. One need only look at ratemysolicitor to see many miscarriages of law and the professions tend to shut their doors to these unfortunates. Whilst there is definately some windmill chasing going on the Judiciary has a lot to answer for if 1% of the claims on the site are correct and true.
And on the subject of the courts and law makers one could ask the question why laws are so open to interpretation? Being a bit cynical I might say the more complex it is written the more fees can be written on the back of it.
Plain English, off the shelf contracts, a few law changes and ratemysolicitor would be a thing of the past.
And on the subject of the courts and law makers one could ask the question why laws are so open to interpretation? Being a bit cynical I might say the more complex it is written the more fees can be written on the back of it.
Plain English, off the shelf contracts, a few law changes and ratemysolicitor would be a thing of the past.
ubiquitous
Registered User
- Messages
- 3,782
And what do you propose instead? That individuals are to be banned from attempting to enforce their legal rights, or to have these rights subject to the whims of the state as in some medieval societies?
ROFL
quarterfloun
Registered User
- Messages
- 117
RE your two points - A computer that looks at the facts, applies the laws, makes a decision. Abide by the decision. Easy. Could even build in a lie detector!
You may well ROFL but that suits your pocket. How much do you charge per ROFL
I really do not get it. If the law is written - say speeding - it's quite clear what the law is. It's because it is not written clear enough that allows someone to employ a solicitor to get them a lesser punishment based on said solicitors interpretation of how the law should be applied. In turn maybe said solicitor will oneday in turn write more vague laws and perpetuate the legal professions' fee generation. Were I to write software to do a job it either works or does not. So why can the same rules not apply to law writing as code writing?
You may well ROFL but that suits your pocket. How much do you charge per ROFL
I really do not get it. If the law is written - say speeding - it's quite clear what the law is. It's because it is not written clear enough that allows someone to employ a solicitor to get them a lesser punishment based on said solicitors interpretation of how the law should be applied. In turn maybe said solicitor will oneday in turn write more vague laws and perpetuate the legal professions' fee generation. Were I to write software to do a job it either works or does not. So why can the same rules not apply to law writing as code writing?You don't seem to understand the distinction between the lawmakers ( that would be the democratically elected government initially) and solicitors/barristers.
But in any case I treated your post that Ubi replied to ( he is not a solicitor BTW) as a troll.
RE your two points - A computer that looks at the facts, applies the laws, makes a decision. Abide by the decision. Easy. Could even build in a lie detector!
You may well ROFL but that suits your pocket. How much do you charge per ROFL
That's a staggeringly stupid and utterly unworkable idea.
It flies in the face of the most basic principles of justice.
Complainer
Registered User
- Messages
- 4,949
RE your two points - A computer that looks at the facts, applies the laws, makes a decision. Abide by the decision. Easy. Could even build in a lie detector!
You may well ROFL but that suits your pocket. How much do you charge per ROFL
Perhaps you could demonstrate how this simple approach to lawmaking would work by drafting a short piece of legislation covering any area that you are familiar with and sharing it with the class?
quarterfloun
Registered User
- Messages
- 117
I'd kick the whole lot of them into touch - Accountants, Lawyers, Some Doctors, we need to go back to the basics, make the rules easy enough to understand for all, not just those trained in the rules. If I know what is wrong with myself why do I need a doctor to look at me? So I can get a prescription - cost of visit €50. For What? Fifty quid so I have permission to go and spend more of my money on potions. Codswallop - thats what it is - legalised robbery and nothing short.
Opticians were up in arms over reading specs once upon a time - they cost around 70 a pair if my memory serves me - now you can get them in Tesco for a fiver. Go in, try a few pairs on - job done.
Put the whole lot in a boat and send them off to America. Then we can roll down the tax office, wad of fiftys in hand and pay the bill. Cut out the middlemen.
regarding my simple approach to law - yeah it is very naive at times but I truly do believe life does not have to be so complicated that I need a "professional" as soon as I get out of bed.
Opticians were up in arms over reading specs once upon a time - they cost around 70 a pair if my memory serves me - now you can get them in Tesco for a fiver. Go in, try a few pairs on - job done.
Put the whole lot in a boat and send them off to America. Then we can roll down the tax office, wad of fiftys in hand and pay the bill. Cut out the middlemen.
regarding my simple approach to law - yeah it is very naive at times but I truly do believe life does not have to be so complicated that I need a "professional" as soon as I get out of bed.
Complainer
Registered User
- Messages
- 4,949
I take that's a 'no' then to my suggestion that you demonstrate how workable your suggestion is by drafting a nice piece of simple legislation for the sake of example?
quarterfloun
Registered User
- Messages
- 117
Hi complainer !
Its not a no - I'm not qualified to formulate legislation but take this as an example.
Instead of a court think ATM. You recieve a summons for speeding in the post.
Wander down the ATM (no so speedily as before....... )
Pop in your summons number and the PIN you received seperately.
Read the details - decide whether to plead guilty or not
If you plead guilty get an automatic discount of 10% for pleading guilty and you get fined from a data set. If you are on the Dole / Social / Sick / Times are hard etc. select the appropriate mitigating circumstance. Opt to pay by DD, Laser etc. Wander off down the road with a printout of the session straight to the pub so you can celebrate the fact that no old duffer in a wig is quaffing quails eggs and fine port at your expense
If you plead not guilty then select a reason from the list - if it is not there you can add it save your session, come back in a week and find your reason listed.
Easy peasy lemon squeezy
The way I see it if you want to make it hard for yourself it should cost a shed load more than if you take it on the chin - be a a man about it.
If you did the crime and there were extenuating circumstances they can all have weightings to applied to the final fine.
Its not a no - I'm not qualified to formulate legislation but take this as an example.
Instead of a court think ATM. You recieve a summons for speeding in the post.
Wander down the ATM (no so speedily as before.......
)Pop in your summons number and the PIN you received seperately.
Read the details - decide whether to plead guilty or not
If you plead guilty get an automatic discount of 10% for pleading guilty and you get fined from a data set. If you are on the Dole / Social / Sick / Times are hard etc. select the appropriate mitigating circumstance. Opt to pay by DD, Laser etc. Wander off down the road with a printout of the session straight to the pub so you can celebrate the fact that no old duffer in a wig is quaffing quails eggs and fine port at your expense
If you plead not guilty then select a reason from the list - if it is not there you can add it save your session, come back in a week and find your reason listed.
Easy peasy lemon squeezy
The way I see it if you want to make it hard for yourself it should cost a shed load more than if you take it on the chin - be a a man about it.
If you did the crime and there were extenuating circumstances they can all have weightings to applied to the final fine.