Dáil Éireann Debate, Tuesday - 16 October 2012
450. Deputy Pat Deering asked the Minister for Justice and Equality the reason persons transferring land to a son or daughter or multiple transfers must use different solicitors adding extra expense to what is already a very expensive transaction. [44109/12]
View answerThe matter the Deputy is referring to is the Conveyancing Conflicts of Interest Regulation which was adopted by the Council of the Law Society on 7 September 2012 with a view to it coming into effect on 1 January 2013. The Law Society is the independent statutory body for the regulation of the solicitors profession in the State. Section 5 of the Solicitors Act 1954 provides for the Society to make regulations which are necessary for the carrying out of its functions and requires that such regulations be laid by the Society before each House of the Oireachtas.
The new regulation, which prohibits the same solicitor from acting for both vendor and purchaser in conveyancing transactions, was made by the Law Society on foot of the recommendations contained in the "Conveyancing Conflicts Task Force Report" published by the Society in July. The Task Force was specifically set up to look at the existing guidelines and regulations relating to solicitors acting for both parties in such transactions. The Report, which is publicly available on the Law Society's website (www.lawsociety.ie), details the arguments that were put forward both in favour of and against the introduction of this regulation and explains the reasons behind the decision to propose its adoption. It sets out how the Task Force undertook extensive consultations with members of the solicitors profession and other relevant interested parties and stakeholders and took account, inter alia, of the November 2010 joint HSE and UCD report concerning the "Abuse and Neglect of Older People in Ireland". The Task Force also researched and reviewed the regulatory regimes in other jurisdictions and analysed judicial and academic commentary relevant to all issues considered.
In noting the Deputy's concerns about the possible cost implications of the new Law Society Regulation, I would expect the relevant costs to even out on the basis of the actual work being done for each party concerned and this is something that can be monitored including in the context of the new and more transparent legal costs regime to be introduced under the Legal Services Regulation Bill 2011. I also have to acknowledge the lessons of previous litigation in this area and of our last property boom which point to the fundamental need to avoid conflicts of interests in the conduct of conveyancing transactions - be that on the part of solicitors or on the part of their clients including where multiple, elderly or otherwise vulnerable family members may be concerned. While it would be better if such protections were not necessary at all, there can be no doubt that the new Regulation affords better protection - both to solicitors and to their respective clients - from any claims, now or in the future, that the issue of undue influence arises in relation to any conveyancing transaction concerned. Similarly, in non-family conveyancing transactions, the interests of seller and purchaser would seem better represented and protected in their own right under the new Regulation.
