I accept all of that is valid. I was commenting only on the law society and how it is perceived.Self-regulation is an old chestnut.
Can I point out that being able to make a complaint about a solicitor to their professional body is in addition to all recourse you have otherwise by law.
Secondly this is the actual system:
1. You can make a complaint to the complaints section of the law society. They will assess your claim and try to sort it out with the solicitor if it is a valid claim. And don't forget that a certain percentage of complaints will come from kooks who do not have a valid complaint. If they deem it necessary they will send it on to the disciplinary tribunal.
2. Or you can go directly to the disciplinary tribunal. Which is entirely independant of the law society and is made up of 20 solicitors and 10 laypeople appointed by the president of the high court.
3. And if you're not happy with that you can go to the high court.
4. And if you're not happy with the verdict of the complaints section of the law society you can also go to the independant ombudsman. Yes, independant.
5. And you can take a negligence action against your solicitor in court just like you can with any other service provided by any other service provider. Just most of the others don't have the other 4 possibilities above.
6. We all have to have professional indemnity insurance both while practising and now for a minimum of 6 years run off cover.
7. We have a compensation fund that all solicitors pay into every year.
So next time someone wants to reel out that old chestnut please think of the above.
In the case of lawyers there is a strong case to be made that since their regulatory body is also their representative body there is a conflict of interest but that’s a different matter.
Actually what you said was
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.
Yes, that's what I was trying to say.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?
Fair enough.Purple- I was answering the post you made, not the one you thought you made or wanted to make.
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.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.
I fear some people want to believe that solicitors are the bad guys.
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.
ROFLAnd on the subject of the courts and law makers one could ask the question why laws are so open to interpretation?
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?
Not a good place to be basing your argument on.One need only look at ratemysolicitor to see many miscarriages of law and the professions tend to shut their doors to these unfortunates.
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 ROFLI 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?
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.
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 ROFLI 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?
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?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.
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?