Select Committee on Legislation and Security debate -
Tuesday, 10 May 1994

SECTION 71.

Ms O'Donnell

I move amendment No. 136:

In page 74, subsection (1), lines 34 to 37, to delete paragraph (a).

When I tabled this amendment, I wanted to get more information about multi-disciplinary partnerships. The amendment would delete the provision allowing for the establishment of multi-disciplinary partnerships. The combined lawyers of the Bars and Law Societies of all EU countries recently published a detailed critique of the concept of multidisciplinary partnerships. I have not had an opportunity to study the matter in great detail due to the demands of the Bill and other matters. However, I am interested to know the motivation behind the section and whether the Minister of State is happy that the independence of lawyers will not be undermined by allowing other professions to form allegiances with solicitors in partnerships. I question whether the securities built into the Bill on the compensation fund and the other regulatory requirements will apply to accountants or tax consultants who might join multi-disciplinary partnerships. Has the Minister of State any fears in that regard?

Mr. O'Dea

The amendment would delete the provision allowing solicitors to share fees in multi-disciplinary practices. Some years ago a trend appeared to emerge in Europe allowing for the establishment of multi-disciplinary practices. Such practices might include, for example, accountants and solicitors or solicitors and auctioneers. They could provide one stop shops which, it was thought, would be of great benefit and covenience to the public.

I understand that the views of the legal professions in other EU states on multi-disciplinary practices have changed somewhat in recent times. The current view of the Bars and Law Societies of the European Union, the CCBE, is that multi-disciplinary practices between lawyers and non-lawyers should not be permitted. This is an area where settled and final views, even within the professions, have not yet been arrived at. I understand that the Law Society is currently opposed to this provision although they did favour it some years ago when it was being considered for inclusion in the Bill. I am aware that vital considerations arise which affects the public issues in regard to such issues as solicitors' independence, standards of conduct and conflicts of interest in relation to any possible working association between solicitors and non-solicitors. If the Law Society ultimately makes proposals to enable such practices to be established, the Minister's concurrence will be needed for the necessary regulations and she would have to consult with the Minister for Enterprise and Employment before giving her consent to the society to make regulations. In other words, two Ministers would have to be satisfied that the regulations are satisfactory and provide a level pitch.

Ms O'Donnell

I accept that the Minisiter is aware of the various objections and concerns about the concept of MDPs. I accept the point he makes that any initiative to introduce such MDPs would have to go through another security system of another Minister. So, I accept the Minister's view on that and withdraw the amendment.

Mr. M. McDowell

It is a bit like putting doctors in partnership with undertakers.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 71 agreed to.