Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 16 Nov 1960

Vol. 53 No. 2

Solicitors (Amendment) Bill, 1960— Committee And Final Stages.

Sections 1 to 6, inclusive, agreed to.

SECTION 7.

Question proposed: "That Section 7 stand part of the Bill."

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

This section is subsidiary, really, to Section 6, but the point I want to make relates more to Section 7. Subsection (1) mentions that the Society or a person can apply to this Disciplinary Committee for the holding of an inquiry into the conduct of a solicitor on the grounds of alleged misconduct, and so on.

Subsection (2) says:—

Where an application in relation to a solicitor is duly made under this section and the Disciplinary Committee, after consideration of the application, are of opinion that there is no prima facie case for inquiry, they shall so inform the applicant in writing and shall take no further action in relation to the application.

My main point is to ask what further redress has an individual, once such an inquiry has been held and it has been decided by the Disciplinary Committee that there is no prima facie case and that they will take no further action? I want to know what is the further redress of the aggrieved person—the person entitled under subsection (1) to ask for the inquiry— when he finds that this Disciplinary Committee, after the inquiry, decide to take no action. As it is being set up under this Bill, this Disciplinary Committee is to be composed largely or wholly of solicitors.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Justice (Mr. Haughey)

Redress for what?

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

For the grievance, the alleged misconduct of the solicitor. The person asks for an inquiry and the Committee holds an inquiry and decides there is no case. I suggest there ought to be, and perhaps there is, some redress or some appeal against such a decision by a body of solicitors that there is no case against one of their fellows. I am not suggesting that the body of solicitors, the Disciplinary Committee, would necessarily be unjust, but it is just possible, nevertheless, that they might decide unfairly in relation to one of their fellows that there was no case. Under subsection (2), if the Disciplinary Committee decide there is no prima facie case, then no further action can be taken, apparently, under this Bill.

Professor Hayes

"They shall take no further action."

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

That is what I am saying. No further action can be taken under this Bill. I am asking the Parliamentary Secretary what other redress there is. I hope I am right in saying that, of course, despite such a decision, they would have the possibility of resort to law against their own solicitor, but I have in mind that it may sometimes be quite difficult to persuade a solicitor to take a case against a fellow solicitor, particularly if it arose out of something which happened in a small community. I am not quite sure that we should not have in this Bill some method of appealing against this decision by the Disciplinary Committee that they will have nothing further to do with it because they think there is no prima facie case.

Mr. Haughey

Of course, there is an alternative open to anybody. A solicitor is an officer of the High Court and the Principal Act, the 1954 Act, in Section 14, subsection (3), specifically provides:

The Chief Justice or any judge of the High Court may, notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, exercise any jurisdiction over solicitors which he might have exercised if this Act had not been passed.

Therefore, it is open to any aggrieved person to go to either the High Court or the Chief Justice on any matter involving misconduct.

Question put and agreed to.

Sections 8 to 15, inclusive, agreed to.

SECTION 16.

Question proposed: "That Section 16 stand part of the Bill."

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

This section deals with the making of rules by the Disciplinary Committee in relation to such inquiries, and I should like to know whether it is anticipated that under such rules an individual person asking for an inquiry into alleged misconduct on the part of his solicitor will receive any guidance or help in the preparation of the statement of his case before such a Committee? In other words, does the Parliamentary Secretary anticipate that these rules will include something to help an ordinary individual to state his case against his own solicitor, because clearly his solicitor will not be of much help to him in that? Will provision be made in such rules for legal or official aid in the framing of the application by the applicant?

Mr. Haughey

Let me say that I should not like to anticipate in any way what the rules will or will not contain, or indeed what general procedure will be adopted for the Disciplinary Committee. However, the rules will cover the making of an application by an aggrieved person and will, I am sure, set out the forms to be completed, and so on. I am satisfied that the rules will be such that a complainant will be enabled to put his case fully to the Disciplinary Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Sections 17 to 33, inclusive, agreed to.

First, Second and Third Schedules agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment.

Agreed to take the remaining Stages today.

Bill received for final consideration.

Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."

Mr. Carter

I should like, if it is permissible, to ask for some information. As I was not here for the Second Reading, I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to give an example of how it is proposed to work the Compensation Fund as visualised in the Bill.

Mr. Haughey

The Fund will be built up from contributions which will be paid annually by all solicitors, with some minor exceptions. The annual contribution payable by a solicitor, except a young solicitor starting off in his first three years, will be £20. The contribution will remain at £20 until such time as a reserve of £25,000 has been accumulated. That reserve must be a net reserve, after all outstanding liabilities have been provided for. In other words, if you take the resources of the Fund at any time and, having deducted the outstanding liabilities, you get a figure of more than £25,000, the contribution may be reduced to such amount as will maintain the reserve at £25,000.

If in, say, five years from now, the reserve becomes £25,000, the Law Society may consider reducing the contribution to £15. But before doing so, they must be satisfied that £15 from every solicitor will be sufficient to maintain the reserve during the next practice year. For the year after that the contribution will revert to £20, unless the Law Society make a further determination. In other words, the contribution will be £20, unless, for a particular year, the Law Society decides to alter it.

There is this further aspect. The Law Society may permit a greater reserve than £25,000 to accumulate, simply by leaving the contribution remain at £20. If a contribution of £20 will, over the years, make for a reserve of more than £25,000, there is no obligation on the Law Society to reduce the contribution if they are satisfied that a higher reserve than £25,000 is needed.

The Law Society may not increase the contribution beyond £20 to build up a reserve greater than £25,000. Thus, if they want to increase it beyond £20, they may do so only having regard to the maintenance of a reserve of £25,000.

I have agreed with the Council of the Law Society that, if it ever becomes desirable to have a reserve higher than £25,000 and to have a contribution greater than £20 to maintain such higher reserve, the Council may come back to us and that we will consider sympathetically any proposals.

Question put and agreed to.