Let's not put how the medical profession are regulated up as an example.
Bill Number 58 of 2011
Sponsored by Minister for Justice and Equality
Source: Government
Method: Presented
Status:
New Bill
to provide for the regulation of the provision of legal services,
to provide for the establishment of the Legal Services Regulatory Authority,
to provide for the establishment of the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal to make determinations as to misconduct by legal practitioners,
to provide for new structures in which legal practitioners may provide services together or with others,
to provide for the establishment of a roll of practising barristers,
to provide for reform of the law relating to the charging of costs by legal practitioners and the system of the assessment of costs relating to the provision of legal services,
to provide for the manner of appointment of persons to be Senior Counsel,
and to provide for related matters.
Bill: http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/bills28/bills/2011/5811/b5811d.pdf
Memarandum: http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/bills28/bills/2011/5811/b5811d.pdf
I disagree that independent monitoring structures don’t and haven’t improved practice. They certainly haven’t improved them enough. I would like to see a structure in place where if it is shown that the medical council didn’t act appropriately on information of a criminal nature when they clearly should have then those involved on the investigating committee would face prison.I'm making the point that independent monitoring structures didn't improve the practise.
The assumption that they will underlies the calls of those seeking independent monitoring of professions.
True but that should be taken into account at the selection phase.It assumes that those making the decisions don't have an ingrained bias against the profession or professions in general.
I’m not sure what point you are making here.I'm not certain that such an assumption can be made in every case, given some of the comments I have seen on AAM this past year.
It seems clear that the focussed, unqualified, year on year approach of a director of a company isn't the same as a forty year professional perspective.
I disagree that independent monitoring structures don’t and haven’t improved practice. They certainly haven’t improved them enough. I would like to see a structure in place where if it is shown that the medical council didn’t act appropriately on information of a criminal nature when they clearly should have then those involved on the investigating committee would face prison.
The same structure should be in place for all other bodies regulating a particular sector.
The fear is that people who aren't part of a profession may not have the appropriate perspective to monitor it or appreciate the difficulties professionals face.I’m not sure what point you are making here.
The flip side of that is that the perspective and expectations of those within the sectors being regulated may not be in line with what their actual duties and responsibilities are. From reading posts in various sections of AAM it is clear that this is sometimes the case.There are degrees of criminality and already there is a high degree of liability attaching to professionals.
The fear is that people who aren't part of a profession may not have the appropriate perspective to monitor it or appreciate the difficulties professionals face.
Yes but the complaint/issue usually has to get past the regulatory body first.I'm not advocating looking the other way BTW, but the civil and criminal law exists already to deal with professionals.
I think we can all agree on that.I am reluctant to create more laws when we aren't using the ones we already have - more top-heavy bureaucracy.
Are there any changes proposed to the criminal law? To send someone to jail will presumably continue to be a function of the courts and the courts alone.the civil and criminal law exists already to deal with professionals.
This is the issue of lax or slipping standards which is a widely held view.The flip side of that is that the perspective and expectations of those within the sectors being regulated may not be in line with what their actual duties and responsibilities are.
I don't think this is true in the case of the legal profession.Yes but the complaint/issue usually has to get past the regulatory body first.
Are there any changes proposed to the criminal law? To send someone to jail will presumably continue to be a function of the courts and the courts alone.
The adversarial nature of civil law in Ireland is just not suited to someone seeking redress from the legal profession. You have a complaint against your solicitor and you have to use one of his colleagues to take a case for you. It takes years and it's very expensive.
Where is our legal services ombudsman?
[broken link removed]
In a letter to the director general of the Law Society, which has been seen by The Irish Times, an official in the Department of Justice said the Minister has decided “no useful purpose” would be served by making an appointment now in the light of the requirements of the EU-IMF deal.
Neither of the Ombudsmen so far have had a background in financial services. They have both done a balanced job so far.
The Legal Services Commission would delegate many regulatory functions to existing and possibly new self-regulatory bodies.
The Legal Services Commission would be given explicit authority to make new regulations and would have the power to veto the rules of
self-regulatory bodies.
Self-regulatory bodies would not be permitted to exercise representative functions.
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?