Legal Reform - Will the proposals reduce the consumers' access to justice?

[broken link removed] has said:

[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. ...[/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]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]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]

Click to expand...

The objective of the legislation is to improve access to justice. The cost is a huge barrier at the moment. So will the changes reduce the costs for the ordinary consumer?

The problem with the Bar Council's argument is that it assumes that the ordinary consumer has access to the best professionals. They only have this access if they can afford to pay for it.

There are two issues here.

The Bill proposes that solicitors and barristers can go into partnership together. The rules do not allow this at the moment. But the Bill won't force people into partnership. Barristers will be able to continue as sole practitioners and I suspect that most of them will continue to do so.

The Bill also would allow barristers employed by companies to represent their employer in court. At present, a company must be represented in court by a solicitor or by a barrister. An employee is not allowed to represent his own company. I can't see the logic in the present set up, so the new proposals are to be welcomed. But most barristers will continue to have their own self-employed practice.

The Legal Services Regulatory Authority will conduct a study to see if it is advisable to unify the professions i.e. to abolish the distinction between solicitors and barristers. At the moment the profession is broken down by function i.e. case preparer (solicitor) and court advocate (barrister). In the vast majority of consumer cases this distinction is not needed. In most other professions the profession is broken down by expertise e.g. different specialisms within tax advisors.

A solicitor specialising in a certain area e.g. probate, should be able to represent their client without a barrister in the vast majority of cases. There should be no need to have a junior and a senior. There is massive duplication at present and unifying the profession would help.

I'd be interested to hear an "insiders" view, as opposed to an interested outsider and I class myself as the latter.

I think its important to hear both sides of this and I have already commented on it in another thread.


ONQ.

Is the Bar Council not an insider?

What I am trying to do is to summarise and report both sides of the argument, while taking the consumer's side.

Brendan

No problems with what you are doing Brendan.

I meant a barrister or solicitor who would be affected by the changes proposed, as opposed to part of a body like that.

As a solicitor in provincial area I am against MDP's, Chambers and all other proposal which would restrict the choice of barristers.

While the current independent referral bar exists I have a choice of barristers with the appropriate specialised knowledge. The current proposals will reduce that choice.

After 40+ years practice experience I believe the present situation works best in the clients' interest.

I am also against fusion of solicitors and barristers professions. While in my time I have conducted many cases in the Circuit Court myself, and a few in the High COurt, these were in an area where I was a specialist. it is not realastic for e.g a barrister in addition to his/her advocacy role to manage all the investigations, correspondence, pleadings, witness selection and liason etc etc that is involved in any significant litigation. Also matters can arise during a hearing which an advoccate on his/her feet would not be able to deal with without stopping the case.

What nuac has described is my experience of the way the legal professional works. This blending of the two strands of the profession, barristers and solicitors seems similar to the American system. Is there any compelling evidence that this systems delivers better justice more affordably to the general public?