Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
Yesterday TheJournal.ie published a column by Ken Murphy, the director general of the Law Society, in which he argued that reforms to the legal system are necessary but the current proposals must be amended.
Here, Minister for Justice Alan Shatter responds and argues that the Bill is in fact a positive move for consumers – and for the legal profession.
KEN MURPHY’S OBJECTIONS to the Legal Services Regulation Bill – which have also been voiced by others – are more theoretical than real.
The Bill stands on a basic principle that lay people understand: solicitors and barristers exist for their clients, not the other way round.
Reflecting this principle, the Bill gives effect to the Government’s pledge to:
The Bill creates the Legal Services Regulatory Authority (LSRA) to operate a system of independent regulation of the legal profession. I fully intend to harmonise independent regulation with the independence of the legal profession. The LSRA is expressly conferred with statutory independence. When undertaking its statutory duties it will not be subject to control by any Government or Minister. Nor will the legal profession when advising or representing clients be subject to any such control.
My commitment is that the new regulatory architecture will be independent, both in reality and appearance. So that there can be no suspicion or perception of external control or interference, I am taking positive steps to reinforce the independence of the LSRA and the new disciplinary system from executive control or interference. Specifically, I am considering amendments to:
Strikingly, the Bill is the first piece of legislation in the history of the State to articulate the principle of the independence of the legal profession. Retaining the essential marks of independence, every lawyer:
Importantly, under the Bill one of the criteria for promotion to the status of Senior Counsel – which will be open to solicitors as well as barristers – is a record of professional independence.
The Bill makes several other important consumer-oriented reforms. Thus, lawyers will have to give clients a notice of costs as soon as they are hired. They must keep the costs under review to reflect any changes that may raise the cost. This will help clients to make a more informed choice about whether to take legal proceedings in the first place, and about whether to stop legal proceedings before the costs become too much for them to bear. Moreover, on completing the work, lawyers must give clients an itemised statement of the services and costs involved. They must also inform clients about what steps they can take if they wish to dispute the bill.
The Bill also prohibits several restrictive practices that are anti-competitive and simply do not benefit clients. It prohibits junior counsel from charging fees based on a percentage of the senior counsel’s fees. It prohibits lawyers from charging fees based on a percentage of the compensation awarded to a client. It allows direct access by consumers to barristers for advice.
The Bill allows the creation of new business-structure options for delivering legal services. It endorses the principle of partnerships between barristers or between barristers and solicitors. It allows multi-disciplinary practices involving lawyers and other professionals such as accountants or tax specialist. Lawyers will have new opportunities, and consumers will have the freedom to choose legal services that are tailored to their needs at a reasonable cost.
I encourage the Law Society and the Bar Council to engage, constructively, with me in perfecting this Bill. Clearly, the Law Society is not shutting the door against enlightened reform. On 20 January last it agreed that it would be in the best interests of the public and of the profession to support the new independent complaints structure set out in the Bill. I welcome constructive dialogue with all stakeholders on the key issues. The Bill is an opportunity to make a historically significant structural reform that puts consumers at its very heart.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Plastic cards!!! About time, only in Ireland does a student ID look more official then the drivers licence
@ Alan, very true! My friend was in the States and said they don’t accept our drivers license as ID. A joke!
i think they should just ban driving under the influence of alcohol completely, get it over and done with
Good idea but not possible as even using mouthwash or having some sherry trifle would potentially mean you fail a zero level breath test.
Finally. It’s nice to see some initiative & solid action.
Newly qualified “R” drivers will have completed 12 mandatory driving lessons and passed the driving test like everyone before them, I don’t understand the need for restrictions.
The entire driving licence-driving education system in this country is a farce. I obtained my full driving licence after only 3 months on a provisional licence. My driving test was done in the daytime in near-perfect weather conditions. I passed with flying colours. Yet nowhere in my training did I learn how to drive in driving snow conditions, in torrential rain, in icy conditions, in thick fog, at night, or indeed in any combination. Too often I see drivers at night with either no lights on or full headlights coming straight at me. We need to have a proper training system put in place that teaches people how to drive in all weather conditions similar to what is done in Finland (where they have driving centres with roads that have simulated ice conditions, gravel tracks, etc.). “R” licences are a good idea too and certainly lower drink-driving limits, but not just applied to young people – they should be applied to everyone.
how can you have different punishments for the same crime?
A lot of the ideas and initiatives are extensions or modifications to plans that were already in place; I do agree blood alcohol levels should be zero no exceptions and match that with a VRT & Tax exemption on vehicles for pubs who provide local transport. More fundamentally we need to start teaching people to drive in schools as a formal subject with the objective that everyone leaves secondary school with their full license on an ‘R’ plate.
As part of the educational process young drivers need to learn about all aspects of driving from vehicle care & maintenance to driving in difficult conditions. Many young drivers dangerously modify vehicles which can affect the handling, stopping distance and safety features of a car and don’t understand the physics behind the changes or dangerous consequences as a result of poorly modified components.
Maybe then we will see a radical change in driver behaviour and reduced road deaths amongst the most vulnerable demographic in our community. The last element we need is high visibility enforcement; we don’t have it and it needs to be introduced; round the clock checkpoints, mandatory breath testing, and car seizures for non-compliance with road traffic legislation. If we are serious we can reduce road injury & death, lower insurance premiums and be less nervous as our kids head towards driving age.
If a tester believes a person has passed the exam and is capable of driving in an educated, safe and responsible manner there should be no need for extra punishments. I agree with the extra penalty points for learner drivers as I think far too many people get their learners permit and head onto the roads with no training and in many cases no full licence driver.
The thing is people generally don’t do their driving test drunk or pick up their mobile in the middle of it. It’s these kind of behaviours that need to be eradicated from the driving mindset, doing a great U point turn during your test doesn’t mean you wont run someone over while using your phone while driving.
So someone who has their licence for less than 2 years should be punished more severely for drink driving than someone who has theirs for ten?
Don’t see why they couldn’t just set the blood alcohol limit at 0mg/100ml, it’d be a lot simpler than creating three different classes of drivers and different laws for each. The clarity would have benefits in itself.
Because it would mean potentially failing a breath test after you used mouthwash in the morning!
In Finland you have to be tested on a skid pan. And you don’t get to drive on public roads until you have your full licence. The licence test itself takes about 1 year that’s if you pass all the tests, if you fail one you have to start again from the beginning.
Probably a little away from the topic but why not just make it a zero tolerance drink driving policy….it amazes me that all countries don’t have this?
The Road Safety Authority will be put in charge of the driving licence system and the testing of commercial vehicles for roadworthiness.
So what will the staff who currently issue licences do?
And we are still left with 2 vehicle testing organisations.
What a waste of money!
have your say