No, they will not. This is human nature and also implied in the social arrangements under which we live.

2. Will the Injuries Board ensure that my interests are fully looked after?

No, it will not. It has a limited focus. It only addresses one question; the level of compensation the injured person ought to get. It does little to ensure that you will actually get your compensation.

3.         How can that be?

An injured person will get nothing unless he/she can prove, if necessary, that some other person has been at fault and that the injury results from that fault. The Injuries Board expressly excludes consideration of fault.

4.         Surely that’s a good thing?

Yes, if the person who injured you expressly admits the fault.

5.         Will that happen in the Injuries Board system?

No, it never comes up for mention.

4.         Who will look after my interests, then?

You will.

5.         How do I do that?

By fully understanding what is implied in the Injuries Board system.

6.         What is implied in the Injuries Board system?

The Injuries Board system exists to ensure that any legal costs incurred by you as a result of your injury will be borne by you and not by the person who injured you.

7.         Is that true?

Not completely. That’s how the Injuries Board started out, but it has changed its mind. It now makes an effort to make your opponent pay for your legal representation, or some of it, if you, the injured person, are a vulnerable person.

8. I have been injured. Am I not vulnerable by that fact alone?

No, not in the view of the injuries board. In the view of the person from whom you are trying to extract compensation, or his/her insurance company, yes, you are vulnerable, but that is advantageous to them and they owe you no duty to reduce your vulnerability.

9.         I am inexperienced in these matters. Am I not vulnerable by that fact, then?

No, not in the view of the injuries board.

10.       What is a vulnerable person, in the view of the Injuries Board?

Someone who needs legal advice to make the application to the Injuries Board.

11.       But surely no such advice is necessary?

The Injuries Board thinks it is sometimes. If you are a vulnerable person.

a)              Remove solicitor strikers from the Legal Aid practitioners’ panel; and/or

b)             Refer solicitor strikers to the disciplinary processes of the Solicitors’ Disciplinary Tribunal;

(Barristers are chosen by solicitors; consequently they, to partake in the strike, need only have a private conversation with their solicitor benefactors advising them that they are not available for work. The Minister would have his work cut out for him to access the content of such conversations, if not their effect).

He will not choose b); the Tribunal has expressed disappointment that the Minister has tabled proposals to replace them when they have, to paraphrase it, an unblemished record of doing their work.

He may not react at all. His Press Office, HERE, expresses the peculiar language adopted for such happenings;

“The threatened withdrawal of services seems to apply only to defence lawyers operating under the criminal legal aid scheme…”

Well, yes.

They were the very people whose incomes were being cut by the Minister and who made the complaint to him. His response was to cut the incomes of other lawyers, as if the substance of the initial complaint was a demand for absolute fairness, even in misery.

Those other lawyers are barristers briefed by the State. No solicitor on the Legal Aid panel works for the State in prosecution work and vice versa. State prosecutions are taken by various solicitors appointed for that purpose in, effectively, County districts around the country. For good and obvious reasons they do not offer services to the general public for defence work.

The Minister says:

“The Minister has invited the Criminal Law Practitioners Organisation to furnish to him their proposals for reducing the cost of Criminal Legal Aid whilst continuing to ensure that the rights of alleged offenders are being protected.”

This is provocative. The Minister means by this:

“The Minister has invited the Criminal Law Practitioners Organisation to furnish to him their proposals for reducing the [fees paid to criminal law practitioners…]”

The Minister’s mode of expression is a “first strike” in a blame game where the Minister’s antagonists are weak and disparate and their work is obscure to most citizens.

So wrote John Kenneth Galbraith in 1958 when he coined the phrase “conventional wisdom”.

The idea is so good that he was not the first to recognize the truth in the phrase; that much of what passes for ideas is real only because it has been agreed to be so.

If that truth were to be again forgotten a criminal legal aid lawyer would be a prime candidate to re-discover its force. As a solicitor on the Legal Aid panel I feel the power of dislocation it engenders when I read HERE that some of my predecessors have had to represent pigs, goats, rats and other animals.

“All over Europe, throughout the middle-ages and right on into the 19th century, animals were, as it turns out, tried for human crimes. Dogs, pigs, cows, rats and even flies and caterpillars were arraigned in court on charges ranging from murder to obscenity. The trials were conducted with full ceremony: evidence was heard on both sides, witnesses were called, and in many cases the accused animal was granted a form of legal aid — a lawyer being appointed at the tax-payer’s expense to conduct the animal’s defence. …”

A lay person might (on reflection) wonder (or not, on reflection) how the lawyer is to take instructions from the client, a phrase and concept itself wonderfully conventional. We lawyers don’t need the client to tell us what we are to do; we tell the client what the client needs and proceed to do that. So, if a pig is facing a murder rap we undermine the evidence and so on, depending on the character of the charge, not the character of the accused.

Nobody knew this better than Socrates. He lived an unconventional life and the first charge against him read;

“Socrates does wrong and is too concerned with enquiring about what’s in the heavens and below the earth and to make the weaker argument appear the stronger and to teach these same things to others”

This was an accusation that he, Socrates, was a non-conformist, something he consciously sought to be. In effect, it accused him of being himself.

There are some charges you just can’t beat; being a pig must be one.

“Into the face of the young man who sat on the terrace of the Hotel Magnifique at Cannes there had crept a look of furtive shame, the shifty, hangdog look which announces that an Englishman is about to talk French.”

So starts “The Luck Of The Bodkins”, by P. G. Wodehouse. His triumph is to continue writing with the same skill, as in the first sentence, for the rest of the book. He does something else; he imparts meaning to the world.

Every litigant in court must do the same and invariably a litigant must convey that meaning in writing, either in pleadings or in affidavits or both. The premier mode of writing to convey meaning is narrative. It not only implies a point of view, it implies understanding. A litigant without understanding of his/her case will lose it.

This is what my computer dictionary/wikipedia has to say about third party narration, that is narration by “… an unspecified entity or uninvolved person…”.

“Traditionally, mainstream fiction with third person narration operates near the middle of the subjective/objective spectrum, alternating between objective and subjective reality and also offering alternating perspectives of the main characters. This allows the narrator to present both the objective reality and the subjective perspectives of the various characters on that reality. Given this information, the reader can then judge for themselves (without being told outright by the narrator) whether the character is a hero, fool, or other type based on the way they perceive and interact with the established reality.”

In “Law and Philosophy”[2007, Oxford University Press] one essay, with the title “Objectivity and Value: Legal Arguments and the Fallibility of Judges”, by Stephen Guest, runs for 27.5 pages and we need all of them. It is required of judges that they be objective, otherwise they cannot be wrong and the hierarchy of courts giving opportunities for appeals implies that judges can be wrong.

From the litigant’s standpoint, to expect him/her to relate “just the facts” is to ask him/her to abandon meaning. As my computer dictionary/Wikipedia puts it;

“Naturally, any being that is omniscient is supernatural, or God-like, and must hold back information due to the constraints of time and the potential to overwhelm the reader.”

We must be selective in the facts we choose to relate and, of course, nobody is omniscient. What is not obvious is that, in litigation, the applicable law determines what are the relevant facts. Unless you know the law you cannot know the facts.

So, that’s what we need lawyers for; to write the pleadings and affidavits of the litigants and to make sense of the world.

Bearing that in mind, see this newspaper article from the Sunday Business Post of last year. The subject is legal costs. This writer has much to say on the subject, which is not to say the writer is always right.

However, the writer is confident of this; there is a great deal of hoopla dished out on the subject. This post is a small attempt to look at some proposed nostrums and the cited Sunday Business Post article is useful for collecting them together in a “gentleman’s cabinet of curiosities”.

1.       Assess costs by reference to the work actually done. No reasonable person could dispute this. However, as Milton knew,

“They also serve who only stand and wait.”

Lawyers spend an inordinate amount of time standing and waiting, sometimes both. One solution to this aspect of things is that lawyers might charge by reference to time expended. In short, while they are waiting, “doing nothing”, they are entitled to be paid. Taxi drivers operate to some extent on this principle. So, what looked like a reasonable proposition needs refinement by the careful definition of what is meant by “work”. Then we need only make the “assessment” of value. The work of lawyers is not always equal or comparable. That is, some lawyers produce better work than others. (This can sometimes be explained by the role the lawyers are playing; in civil litigation, generally, a plaintiff’s barrister has a greater burden than a defendant’s barrister). One expression of this is to say that, not only do you need to know how to hit the nail on the head, you need to know which nail to hit and when to hit it.

2.       Assess costs by reference to the work appropriately done. Again, no reasonable person could dispute this but who is to decide what is appropriate? Generally speaking, following convention is a reasonable guide to doing appropriate work. (Another solution is that adopted by the Taxing masters of the High Court, who have assigned to barristers the job of defining what is appropriate work to bring an action on for trial. Of course, the Taxing masters are themselves an answer to the question.)

3.       Liberalise conveyancing services. This writer does not know what this phrase means.

4.       Allow clients to switch solicitors. Currently clients may have any number of solicitors they want. They may change their solicitor in any particular matter. What the proposal really means is this; that the client be permitted to change solicitor without reference to the fact that he or she owes the solicitor outstanding fees for work done in the matter. Currently, solicitors rely on a lien on papers to secure them their fees. (The client may withdraw instructions but will not get his or her documents or papers unless the outstanding fee is paid). If solicitors lose that lien they will, inevitably, require payment in advance for their services. That will have social consequences generally considered to be undesirable.

5.       Give the public direct access to barristers. Barristers, generally, do not want this and in due course, neither will a select group of the public – those members of the public who have accessed barristers directly. This last comment will be wrong, in time. That time will arrive when barristers have sufficiently changed to become very like solicitors. Then, they will take and manage client money; they will require larger premises and more staff and they will require to pay more for their professional indemnity insurance.

6.       Permit partnerships for barristers. Why not? Chambers of barristers in the UK very often deliver services as if the chambers were a partnership, but the Law Library in Dublin does the same. These are structures to pool resources and reduce costs. The missing element is the allocation of loss, due to wrongdoing or negligence, on a group rather than a sole practitioner. If barristers formed partnerships it would be for the presumed benefit, to them, of attracting more clients due to the extra security of the collective responsibility, but that is predicated on the supposed inadequacy of current professional indemnity insurance for barristers. If it is inadequate that problem should be addressed immediately.

7.       Increase the numbers of lawyers. Currently, as many as 1,300 solicitors are unemployed. Practising barristers are self employed. They are not so much unemployed as underemployed. Some are much more underemployed than others. Why generate more unemployment?

This subject of legal costs is reminiscent of the “discovery” of “Ida”, a 47 million year old fossil. The press release promised much as Time magazine remarked;

“All of which renders the press release touting a “revolutionary scientific find that will change everything” absolutely true — as long as by “everything,” you mean “whether the branch of the primate family that includes monkeys, apes and humans comes from the suborder strepsirrhinae or the suborder haplorrhinae,” according to the PLoS One paper. And by “change,” you mean “adds information that may or may not help settle the question, but whose implications won’t be known for a long time in any case.”

(See the New Scientist article on the topic HERE, paying close attention to the diagram HERE.)

“That [the members] approve[s] the recommendation of the Society’s Council to provide financial support to the Solicitors Mutual Defence Fund…”

Surprisingly for lawyers, the Council seems not to recognise that it carries a risk of non-persuasion. This is evidenced in its several failures to treat the members respectfully.

Why did the Council submit the proposal to the members, rather than adopt it at the Council? The Council elided the question, but the answer is very relevant. Many of the Council members are also members of the SMDF and would therefore, be conflicted. A vote by persons with a conflict of interest would be easily overturned in the appropriate forum. In short, the Council could not lawfully adopt the proposal.

The Council has not been restrained in its advocacy of the proposal. It has urged its adoption on the Law Society members. It is using the resources of the Law Society to procure its adoption. It is doing this without declaring the conflict of interest of the Council’s SMDF members. It is the fiduciary duty of corporate directors to avoid conflicts and they are further bound to disclose them.

The proposal is of doubtful legality. The SMDF, the Council of the Law Society says, is a private independent body, not controlled by the Law Society. The funding of the SMDF bailout will not be voluntary. It will be enforced by a planned refusal of the Law Society to make it a condition, of the receipt of an annual practicing certificate, that solicitors pay a levy for the bailout.

The Council has, it says, received legal advice from Counsel that the proposal is lawful. It has not disclosed that advice to the members, and clearly the Council has no intention of disclosing it now. It is not credible, without full disclosure, that the Council has such advice.

The claimed source of the law validating or empowering the proposal is Section 26 of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act 1994. A bailout of the SMDF was never in the contemplation of the Oireachtas in passing Section 26. None of the provisions of Section 26 authorise the Council’s proposal. Indeed, special mention, in Section 26, had to be made of SMDF because it does not fit with an essential ruling idea in the Section; that solicitors be indemnified. An indemnity, legally, implies a right to indemnity, usually in contract. It is generally admitted that the members of SMDF have, and had, no right to indemnity from SMDF; its benefits were available only at the discretion of the directors of SMDF.

There is something more immediate to throw the Council’s proposal into questionable light; is the SMDF insolvent?

The Council asserts it is, but there are reasons to doubt this. The Council itself discloses that the regulations governing SMDF preclude the SMDF directors from making any payment resulting in insolvency. In addition, the SMDF itself has not claimed it is insolvent. This is not surprising because there could be malign consequences for the directors of SMDF if that were the case. The issue is not a minor one; much of the Council’s case is predicated on the un-foreseeability of the actions of the inevitable liquidator of SMDF. But, if there is no insolvency, there is not likely to be a liquidator. (For lawyers, “insolvent” has a precise meaning; that the entity is unable to pay its debts when they fall due.) A letter from SMDF to some practitioners dated 27^th May 2011 is confirmation that SMDF is not insolvent; it says…

”It should be understood that the Fund has no immediate difficulties…”

If there is a problem in the SMDF, why do its members, including those on the Council of the Law Society, not solve their own private problem?

Even if the SMDF is not insolvent, it is possibly suggesting that it will not pay out on some at least of valid claims against solicitor members of the SMDF. Why do the members not top-up the “mutual fund” that is the SMDF, to meet those claims? On the figures provided by the SMDF, this would cost the members approximately €1000 per year. According to the Council of the Law Society, the prospects of them agreeing to this are “slim”, but they have not been tested.

Separately, the members of the SMDF could seek real professional indemnity insurance elsewhere. They will have to do this anyway at the end of the current year; the SMDF says it will not take on any business after this year; (we now see “business” here is a misnomer).

If SMDF members have poor claims histories they can apply to enter the “Assigned Risks Pool”, a device provided for in the Solicitors (Amendment) Act 1994. This allows solicitors with very poor claims records to continue in practise.

Consequently, there is no immediate problem. According to the SMDF, it has re-insured 100% of the risks for this year. In previous years it re-insured 90% of the risks. We do not, in the light of those facts, know why SMDF is taking the extreme step of ceasing “business” at the end of this year, but it is.

Here again, the Council of the Law Society has failed to properly inform the members as to what the problem is, and its implications.

The members of the Law Society should vote no to the Council’s proposal.

The Law Society of Ireland, however, is wasting energy on the SMDF. More importantly it appears to be ignoring the need to prepare for the IMF/EU issues.

What are they? Because the IMF is busy and not often in Ireland, it, of necessity, has to find available domestic criticism of solicitors as ammunition to fire off. They believe they have it in the report of the Competition Authority of December 2006 “Competition in Professional Services; Solicitors & Barristers”.

The good news for the Law Society is that the IMF/EU ammunition is, in every sense, shoddy. (“Shoddy” was a cloth material for army uniforms for the Union soldiers in the American civil war; think of the fluff from the filter of your tumble drier and make it on an industrial scale. Now shape it into a garment. Now, send its wearer into the rainy winter).

At paragraph 5.274 it states the following;

“In seeking to limit excessive and costly litigation in relation to personal injuries, the regulations carry the risk of overly restricting advertising for other legal services. Other measures have recently been introduced in relation to personal injury claims, such as the Personal Injuries Assessment Board (PIAB) and the Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004, both of which also seek to control unnecessary and costly litigation, and consequently there is less need to rely on advertising restrictions as a means to limit personal injury litigation.”

This farrago of bad ideas indicates this; we are likely going to find ourselves looking at solicitors’ advertisements on the backs of busses.

OK, so what? So this; the IMF/EU nostrums will carry an outrageous agenda, as expressed in paragraph 5.274, that victims of personal injury should be hindered in the search for justice (a policy already established).

That is the point of attack the Law Society should be focusing on. It is incapable of doing so.

(The Maya independently invented the wheel, but could find no use for it.)

The Law Society is entrenched in a conventional intellectual assumption that the Society is unlike other bodies and, at bottom, better. This view is, paradoxically, at odds with the fact that the Society has in the relatively recent past striven to grasp at manufactured heritage (the purchase of the Kings Hospital in Blackhall Place), a sure sign of insecurity.

A person of even moderate vision, not blinded by personal interest would see that the humiliation of an entire profession is against the real interests of that profession.

Consider; the Council shows no sign of devoting energy to meeting the challenge of the IMF/ECB bailout terms; instead it is navel gazing at a failed project of the past.

@Tupp_Ed it already has. S.26 of 1994 act gives power for levy. Specific legal advice from Bryan Murray s.c. C docs sent out with sgm notice

January 1, 1970 12:59 am via Twitter for iPhoneReplyRetweetFavorite

@DSBAPresident

Stuart Gilhooly

To find out what the Law Society may do in relation to PI insurance for solicitors, just read Section 26 of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act 1994;

Section 26 (1) authorises the Society to make regulations “making provision for indemnity” against losses…incurred by…solicitors…”. [A bailout of SMDF is not within this provision.]

Section 26 (2) lists some of the things the Society may provide for. [None of these things fall within the current bailout proposal.]

Section 26 (3) gives a general power to the Society to do things to facilitate the implementation of the other powers vested in the Society under the Section. (“…indemnity within the section…”). [It is not a free standing power to do what the Society wants; it must refer to some other power of the Society and facilitate the exercise of that power.] This is a typical example of what is commonly termed “sweeping up words” in legislation. Bennion on Statutory Interpretation [5th Ed., p. 255] says;

“A power to do something extends only to that thing. Its purported exercise extending to a different thing is to that extent not an exercise of the power at all: ‘the power exercised must be the power conferred’.

Section 26 (4) stipulates some of the conditions the Society may set, relating to the insurance indemnity of solicitors. [None of these things fall within the current bailout proposal.]

PS It is fully acknowledged by the Law Society that payments by SMDF to cover the liabilities of its members are discretionary. Consequently, “SMDF” and “indemnity” are mutually exclusive terms.

Think about it.

Now, re-read Section 26.

However, they decided they could compel members of the Law Society to do so. They have identified the pressure point on Law Society members as the annual practising certificate. Without the certificate a solicitor cannot practise. They propose to refuse a certificate unless the solicitor pays the bailout cost.

This assumes that the delivery of the certificate is a gift or a grant from the Law Society; it is not. The furnishing of the certificate is an act of the executive power of the State; the Law Society is simply an agent of the State in the transaction. It has no right to deny the certificate to a qualified solicitor. In furnishing the certificate it is following the provisions of legislation for the granting of certificates.

That legislation confers no power on the Law Society to extort its members to bailout a private, dodgy, financial services provider, the SMDF.

The Council of the Law Society is about to crash and burn, whatever the outcome of the postal poll.