Reform of the Legal Services Sector

johnnyskeleton · 12-10-2011 11:36pm

Delancey wrote: »

Surely the ending of the Law Society's dual role as regulator and representative body for solicitors is to be applauded , imo the scope for conflict of interest is huge.
Far what I can see the public has little confidence in the Society as regulator and Solicitors ( well those from smaller practices at any rate ) don't think much of it as a representatative body.

Regulation could actually be worse. First, much of the disciplinary matters arise out of internal audits by the law society. That's how many of the big, multi client scams have been uncovered. There is some scope for this type of audit in the new bill, but it is a new process and there is no reason to believe it will be any better.

Further, the law society disciplinary committee have had to be like Caesars wife, beyond reproach. This new body will not have thr same incentive to be hard on solicitors.

So I can see it being a weaker form of regulation. Certainly, the only major difference is that the seven independent non lawyers will now be hand picked by the minister for justice. This is no improvement and potentially a step backwards.

But in a sense the people get what they want, not what they need, and if a weaker but notionally more independent body is what they want I'm sure solicitors are happy to accept. Perhaps the public will assist with some of the cost, or at least agree to keep the costs down.

blueythebear · 13-10-2011 12:21am

234 wrote: »

In terms of the cost of th levy; 10% of the costs of the regulator paid by the Bar Council, 10% by the Law Society and the remained allocated to either of the two bodies on a pro rata basis depending on the composition of the complaints generated as between barristers and solicitors. Hopefully this will lead to most of it being dumped on the Law Society (sorry solicitors ).

I'd have a huge problem with the division of the complaints. Most complaints will be against solicitors as solicitors deal with money and nothing generates complaints like disputes about fees. Is a client going to complain about COunsel's performance in COurt or in their drafting skills when most clients would not be in a position to comprehend the arguments being made in the first place?

Also, going to the composition of the Authority, they're all Government appointments so you can guarantee they'll be well paid so the fees are going to be pretty large with the Law Soc paying most of it on account of the above.

Basically, the cost of a practising certificate is going to go up despite recent increases in relation to the SMDF bailout.

234 wrote: »

The issue with independence is as bad as the media made out. All members appointed by the Minister. They report to the minister. He can set out terms of reference for reports that he requires, etc. He can essentially tell them what to do.

The independence issue is a joke. That is not an independent authority where the Government appoints every member and most of those are "laypeople". Laypeople is not defined so who gets the positions? These positions will be used as political currency for Political Parties to placate disgruntled members etc just like the other jobs in the various quangos.

Stating that the authority is "independent" in its' functions does not actually make it so.

FreudianSlippers · 13-10-2011 7:26pm

234 wrote: »

But how much do you think an insurance company would pay to have a skilled SC as "Head of Litigation", or some equivilent title. Also, if one of two start doing it then the rest will follow in a domino effect as they beceom scared that all the best talent is being snapped up and they will be left with the self-employed "duds". I'd image they would have the reserves to make some very attractive offers.

That's basically my point. Presumably most SCs wont want to go in-house if they're worth their weight (in money

).

It's the junior JCs that will see a starting salary as appealing, but will the companies want them? Probably not.

Also I don't think all self-employed people left at the bar would be "duds"; there would need to be a good pool of self-employed barristers to take cases for smaller firms that couldn't afford to hire a barrister to work in-house.

If someone offered me (be it a company or some sort of chambers) a salary to work as a barrister tomorrow morning, I don't think I could say I wouldn't take it. The work I do get is rewarding and good, but there are simply too many people at the bar with not enough work; it's very obvious to a lot of people.

johnnyskeleton · 13-10-2011 10:43pm

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

but there are simply too many people at the bar with not enough work; it's very obvious to a lot of people.

How do you measure this though? There is an argument that every industry should have people who operate at a loss for a few years in order to gain experience in it. Most resteraunts close within a year of opening. Does that mean that there are too many resteraunts with not enough mouths to feed?

I don't think it can be said that most barristers leave after a year, so while it is a comptitive industry, I don't think it can definitatively be said that there are too many barristers for not enough work.

andrewdeerpark · 13-10-2011 10:53pm

Just starting the ball rolling on the Prime Time program tonight

A couple of points:

Why are organisations such as the NRA and other public bodies not publically disclosing the amount of legal fees they pay? Either on specific cases of in general, protection of the high earners and the norm, that is the robbing legal profession?!

Where was Alan Shatter, plus why was it not mentioned his own firms's high fees that was in the spotlight recently:
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/shatter-firms-disputed-bill-tops-euro500000-2889153.html

Where did they get the weak sap that was sparring against the legal professions rep; he was useless?

Why the host did not pursue the secretive nature of legal fees in family law cases which is in the legal professions favour?

Overall a very poor panel discussion followed the excellent opening video

Delancey · 14-10-2011 12:44am

Agree that the panel were pure rubbish - waffled and not much else.

emick · 30-03-2012 6:38am

It is still difficult for people to change solicitors if they are unhappy with the services being provided by their current solicitor. The Legal Services Bill offers no reform in this area. A person's existing solicitor can make switching to a new solicitor a very difficult process by retaining their clients file and not releasing it until all bills are settled. The bill amount may be totally out of proportion with the services provided to the client but the client has little option but to pay in order to facilitate the return of his documents/file.

nuac · 30-03-2012 11:17am

Re File handover

The new solicitor may be able to undertake to pay the fees due.

If the amount is substantial a legal accountant can be asked to measure a fee.

emick · 30-03-2012 7:21pm

nuac wrote: »

Re File handover

The new solicitor may be able to undertake to pay the fees due.

If the amount is substantial a legal accountant can be asked to measure a fee.

Both solutions benefit the solicitor not the consumer. Solicitors should be subject to the same rules and regulations with regard to renumeration as every other profession. A solicitor should not be entitled to hold on to litigation documents or other files belonging to the client because his fee has not been paid. If the client is unhappy with the service from his existing solicitor then he should be allowed to switch to a new solicitor without hinderance.

nuac · 30-03-2012 8:43pm

If you have a builder employed on your premises, and disagree with him, you will find in 90% of cases that a second builder will not take over until the first builder is paid, or a procedure set up to ensure is payment e.g. agreement to have a QS adjudicate.

In the same way it is reasonable for your first solicitor to request payment before handing over the file. If cash is not available the usual procedure is for the second solicitor, on your authority, to undertake for payment of the fees. The amount due can either be agreed, or a mechanism set up such as reference to an independent legal accountant to settle amount,

People are entitled to change solicitors for all sorts of reasons, or indeed without giving any reason at all. Provision of legal services is a free market. There are about 7000 of us in the market. However no business could survive if clients could just change from one service provider to another without paying or providing for payment for the service rendered,

FreudianSlippers · 31-03-2012 10:25am

emick wrote: »

Solicitors should be subject to the same rules and regulations with regard to renumeration as every other profession.

What other profession that is not paid out of the public purse has regulations that set fees? Taxis might be about the only thing I can think of... still it's fairly ridiculous to say that the government should regulate the fees of private individuals; you don't like the fees, shop around.

johnnyskeleton · 01-04-2012 11:09am

emick wrote: »

It is still difficult for people to change solicitors if they are unhappy with the services being provided by their current solicitor. The Legal Services Bill offers no reform in this area. A person's existing solicitor can make switching to a new solicitor a very difficult process by retaining their clients file and not releasing it until all bills are settled. The bill amount may be totally out of proportion with the services provided to the client but the client has little option but to pay in order to facilitate the return of his documents/file.

My understanding, and I could be wrong because the law is somewhat unclear, is that you are entitled to have any original documents that you gave to your solicitor handed back. These are your property, and a solicitor has to right to them.

However, any work done on the file is the intellectual property of the solicitor and it represents all the work they've done for you. It only becomes "your file" in the truest sense when you have paid them for it and the intellectual property passes to you. It is absolutely no different to asking someone to design your website and them not handing over the files until you have paid them.

NoQuarter · 24-06-2013 11:28am

Committee Stage scheduled for 10th July. We have movement!

Cody Pomeray · 24-06-2013 5:20pm

Well good. I personally intend to write a strongly worded letter to the committee, advocating a specific ban on shawleys. Given some very interesting opinions expressed in the other thread, I'm sure everyone can agree the gown must remain 'on' or 'off'.

In all seriousness, the partnerships idea is the biggest provision here. I can see the logic behind it, but if I do have any sentimentality for the profession it must be in relation to the Law library and its unifying role amongst the profession. I would welcome anything that provides (especially young, talented) BLs with greater security in their working life. On the other hand, the fact that entry to the Bar is not subject to very onerous requirements of social contacts, combined with the cab rank rule have made the law library a surprisingly democratic institution. I would worry about the effects of partnerships on both access to justice, and on access to a successful career at the Bar.

NoQuarter · 24-06-2013 6:24pm

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

In all seriousness, the partnerships idea is the biggest provision here. I can see the logic behind it, but if I do have any sentimentality for the profession it must be in relation to the Law library and its unifying role amongst the profession. I would welcome anything that provides (especially young, talented) BLs with greater security in their working life. On the other hand, the fact that entry to the Bar is not subject to very onerous requirements of social contacts, combined with the cab rank rule have made the law library a surprisingly democratic institution. I would worry about the effects of partnerships on both access to justice, and on access to a successful career at the Bar.

I wonder would it have much of an effect at all. So people will partner up, all the big SC's are in chambers already more or less. The share offices and secretary and work no doubt gets passed around. s there any mention in the Bill to abolish the law library? If not, I would imagine that life will continue as normal at the bar and perhaps the only difference will be more desk space.

The one part of the bill I hope pulls through is allowing in-house Barristers to be able to represent their employer at the bar. Here's hoping.

Cody Pomeray · 24-06-2013 6:59pm

NoQuarter wrote: »

Is there any mention in the Bill to abolish the law library? If not, I would imagine that life will continue as normal at the bar and perhaps the only difference will be more desk space.

I don't think anybody can really believe that the only consequence will be more desk space.

The concentration of work amongst formal legal partnerships is inevitably going to create a two tiered (or a multi-tiered) system, with those BLs operating alone out of the law library pretty much at the bottom of the heap (and paying heavily for insurance, necessitated by cheaper litigation). The library will almost certainly shrink from relevance. For all of the benefits that increased competition, and increased stability will bring, there are also certain drawbacks both for the profession, and indeed for the public interest.

NoQuarter · 24-06-2013 7:13pm

There may well be more consequences. I, however, don't envision the apocalypse you do. Interesting to watch it unfold though. On my reading - from the inception of the Bill, there is 18 months in which the independent regulatory body for the Bar will need to be set up, I wonder will things on the ground change before then or wait for the regulator.

FreudianSlippers · 25-06-2013 1:06pm

I have firmly believed for some time that the bar council is a pyramid scheme in structure (not a scam, but the bottom subsidises the top significantly). I am hearing a lot of stories that disgust me in the way junior members are treated and find that the only people calling for the absolute protection of the status quo are the ones gaining significant monetary benefit from it.

I also believe the idea of multi-disciplinary partnerships (especially in-house barristers and barristers in solicitors firms) is vital to providing economic stability and a more cost-effective solution to many legal scenarios. I don't see it will damage the independence of the bar in any real way.

nuac · 25-06-2013 9:23pm

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I have firmly believed for some time that the bar council is a pyramid scheme in structure (not a scam, but the bottom subsidises the top significantly). I am hearing a lot of stories that disgust me in the way junior members are treated and find that the only people calling for the absolute protection of the status quo are the ones gaining significant monetary benefit from it.

I also believe the idea of multi-disciplinary partnerships (especially in-house barristers and barristers in solicitors firms) is vital to providing economic stability and a more cost-effective solution to many legal scenarios. I don't see it will damage the independence of the bar in any real way.

I think MDPs involving barristers will compromise the independence of the bar, and reduce the facility of every and any solicitor's practice being able to brief the barrister they want for the particular case.

The cab-rank principle is a good and valuable one

NoQuarter · 25-06-2013 9:35pm

nuac wrote: »

I think MDPs involving barristers will compromise the independence of the bar, and reduce the facility of every and any solicitor's practice being able to brief the barrister they want for the particular case.

The cab-rank principle is a good and valuable one

How do you suppose that will pan out? I've heard a number of people say this but I don't really see it. People are afraid that the cream of the crop Barristers will go in-house and be under contract so as to not be able to take on any outside cases. But I don't think solicitor's firms would be able to afford the cream of the crop and put them on retainer anyway. If the top SC did that they would be taking pay cuts I'd imagine.

How do you say it would work practically speaking?

valleyoftheunos · 26-06-2013 10:14am

My only concern in relation to the bar is that I won't be able to instruct the counsel I want to or that the pool of barristers available to me will be significantly reduced. I'm off two minds as to whether this is likely to happen, in one scenario I think it unlikely that counsel will flock to join MDPs or go in house, the independence of the job is one of the top reasons for most of the inhabitants in the Law Library being there in the first place.

On the other hand if it does prove that it is a better way for them to find consistent work many will do it which could result in restricted numbers and certain counsel being unavailable.

Tom Young · 26-06-2013 10:16am

Most of the reform proposals will ultimately ratchet up costs .... its as simple as that. Amercianising the system - hour defined billing is far better and (multiple times) more expensive that the Counsel briefing system. So, there you are. Expect more neat bills - costs will go up.

FreudianSlippers · 26-06-2013 1:24pm

nuac wrote: »

I think MDPs involving barristers will compromise the independence of the bar, and reduce the facility of every and any solicitor's practice being able to brief the barrister they want for the particular case.

The cab-rank principle is a good and valuable one

I just don't buy that. Specifically in corporate law, companies are 'briefing' one barrister for all cases as is. I use 'briefing' semi-sarcastically as most are ok retainer anyway. Some solicitors firms in certain matters are the same, using a handful of counsel

The only potential danger is in personal injury and negligence plaintiff action and family law; but I don't foresee the current system changing in these matters.

FreudianSlippers · 26-06-2013 1:26pm

Tom Young wrote: »

Most of the reform proposals will ultimately ratchet up costs .... its as simple as that. Amercianising the system - hour defined billing is far better and (multiple times) more expensive that the Counsel briefing system. So, there you are. Expect more neat bills - costs will go up.

Agreed, but people want a clear and competitive system. Just like in the US, if firm A charges €1000 and firm B charges €900, you have the option and a clear breakdown. At the moment, everyone is charging broadly the same amount and it is often pulled out of thin air.

johnnyskeleton · 26-06-2013 3:17pm

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Agreed, but people want a clear and competitive system. Just like in the US, if firm A charges €1000 and firm B charges €900, you have the option and a clear breakdown. At the moment, everyone is charging broadly the same amount and it is often pulled out of thin air.

I thought it was possible to make a counter offer to an Irish solicitor/barrister. As in firm A says we normally charge €1,000 but if I say I was thinking of going with firm B for €900 they can agree to do it for me at €900.

I sometimes think that most of the alleged anti-competitiveness in the legal sector is due to the inability or unwillingness of the clients themselves to strike a better deal.

NoQuarter · 26-06-2013 3:32pm

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I thought it was possible to make a counter offer to an Irish solicitor/barrister. As in firm A says we normally charge €1,000 but if I say I was thinking of going with firm B for €900 they can agree to do it for me at €900.

I sometimes think that most of the alleged anti-competitiveness in the legal sector is due to the inability or unwillingness of the clients themselves to strike a better deal.

In fact, setting out a detailed note of expenses may be worse for the client because what I see on an almost daily basis now is clients, after the case is concluded, seeking a reduction in the fees previously agreed. Which they inevitably get. That might not happen if there is a super structured breakdown of the fees charged.

nuac · 27-06-2013 6:55pm

NoQuarter wrote: »

How do you suppose that will pan out? I've heard a number of people say this but I don't really see it. People are afraid that the cream of the crop Barristers will go in-house and be under contract so as to not be able to take on any outside cases. But I don't think solicitor's firms would be able to afford the cream of the crop and put them on retainer anyway. If the top SC did that they would be taking pay cuts I'd imagine.

How do you say it would work practically speaking?

Sorry - don't know. Have spent my time ( 50 years ) on the solicitors side, working mainly with circuit going barristers, except for some cases requiring specialists.

would be concerned about anything that limits choice of barrister

Bluegrass1 · 27-06-2013 8:54pm

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Agreed, but people want a clear and competitive system. Just like in the US, if firm A charges €1000 and firm B charges €900, you have the option and a clear breakdown. At the moment, everyone is charging broadly the same amount and it is often pulled out of thin air.

What if firm A can do the job in 20 hours and firm B makes 30 hours out of it?

Grolschevik · 27-06-2013 9:03pm

Bluegrass1 wrote: »

What if firm A can do the job in 20 hours and firm B makes 30 hours out of it?

And to add to that, what if Firm A uses two fee-earners to complete it in the 20, while Firm B uses one for the 30?

NoQuarter · 27-06-2013 10:12pm

nuac wrote: »

Sorry - don't know. Have spent my time ( 50 years ) on the solicitors side, working mainly with circuit going barristers, except for some cases requiring specialists.

would be concerned about anything that limits choice of barrister

Yeah it is very difficult to gauge at the moment. I dont think it should be overstated so much though, Barristers do the job because of the independence it brings, if they wanted to join a law firm or go in-house they have that choice already and choose not to go so this Bill may not have a huge effect on taking away readily available Barristers and those that want to remain independent and want to give their practice the best chance of being successful would be unwise to contract with a big firm exclusively I think.

Reform of the Legal Services Sector

Comments