Reforming legal services

A REFORM agenda is finally catching up with the legal profession

A REFORM agenda is finally catching up with the legal profession. A Legal Services Regulation Bill that, among other things, provides for the establishment of an independent regulatory body for both solicitors and barristers was debated in the Dáil last week. The Bill has been fiercely opposed by the Law Society and Bar Council on the grounds that it will compromise the independence of the profession and give the minister of the day too much influence over the joint regulatory body.

As the legislation stands, there are grounds for concern. But Minister for Justice Alan Shatter has undertaken to address those issues and to introduce amendments.

Some scaremongering has accompanied the legislation. Suggesting that its implementation would reduce the independence of the Irish legal profession to that of their Chinese counterparts is risible. Such a wild allegation was designed only to obfuscate and to protect vested interests. A more measured response that recognised valid public interests would have been more effective.

Mr Shatter is not known for his bedside manner and, although a solicitor, is regarded as something of a bête noire by traditionalists within the legal profession. This reaction confuses the man with the mission. Reform of the legal profession is long overdue. The sclerotic nature of its structures and procedures have been identified as stumbling blocks to economic growth and recovery by the EU-IMF troika and by the Competition Authority. Report after report on the need for various kinds of reform gathered dust on ministerial shelves while the Law Society and the Bar Council resisted external oversight and successfully preserved their traditional controls and income streams.

READ MORE

Past successes may have emboldened the self-regulating bodies to target Mr Shatter personally. Their intemperate attacks encouraged the Competition Authority to defend the legislation as “a normal system of regulation” in a democratic society, designed to bring the legal profession into the 21st century and impose accountability. It was vitally important, a spokesman said, that sight was not lost of the huge benefits the legislation would bring to consumers who would receive a more flexible, responsive and transparent service. Where complaints arose, they would be able to take their concerns to a fully independent adjudicator.

Mr Shatter has promised to amend the Bill and to remove those ministerial powers causing genuine concern: that influence and control might flow towards the Department of Justice. The changes, he said, would ensure the absolute independence of the regulatory body and its head would be recruited through the normal public appointments process.

Such basic reforms involving the establishment of outside, independent regulatory bodies have been opposed at one time or another by all professions. But walls of self-interest are gradually being broken down to allow for greater competition and accountability. That is progress.