Legislation to end "objectionable" advertising by a minority of solicitors would prove to be effective, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Mr O'Donoghue, told the House.
It was clear from the Law Society's experience, that the imposition of controls on advertising solely by way of regulation was not effective in controlling proper advertising, he added.
Stating it was unfortunate that some solicitors engaged in advertising which blatantly flouted the profession's rules, the Minister expressed his determination to put an end to objectionable and misleading forms of advertising, particularly in the area of personal injuries.
The Solicitors (Amendment) Bill, which passed Second Stage, was described by the Minister as a response to a growing concern about the advertising excesses indulged in by some solicitors.
He was referring to "in-your-face and personalised advertising and ambulance chasing that should have no place in the legal profession".
The Bill specified what was allowable and it required the society to make the necessary regulations. Contravention of the code was to be treated as misconduct for the purpose of the Solicitors Acts, and the society was being enabled to obtain High Court injunctions prohibiting contraventions of the Acts in regard to advertising and other matters concerning the conduct of solicitors.
The Bill provided that an advertisement must not include more than the name, address (including electronic address), telephone and fax number and place or places of business of the solicitor, particulars of the academic and professional qualifications and legal experience of the solicitor, factual information on the legal services provided by the solicitor and any areas of law to which those services related, particulars of any charge or fee payable to the solicitor and any other information specified in the regulations made by the society.
The Leas Cathaoirleach, Mr Liam Cosgrave (FG), said his party supported the measure. However, it was important that a balanced view be maintained in the debate. They were trying to address the actions of a few solicitors, though not an insignificant number given the amount of money involved.
Mr Cosgrave said insurance companies were sometimes too willing and quick to settle claims. Some of these companies must put greater effort into research and investigation. The cost of civil liability insurance was killing many organisations because they were afraid to hold small charity events, shows or gymkhanas owing to the risk of crippling costs.
The legislation was partly a knee-jerk reaction to the Defence Forces deafness claims which had not been handled well. Members who had genuinely suffered deserved to be compensated, but there were obviously others who had gone to law simply to afford a new conservatory or to furnish a new kitchen.
Mr John Connor (FG) said the huge increase in the number of personal injury claims, including Army deafness cases, had undoubtedly been driven by the greedy, aggressive and unprofessional advertising of a small section of the legal profession.
Mr Liam Fitzgerald (FF) said it was widely accepted that ambulance chasing-type advertising was bringing the legal profession into disrepute.
It was a gross deception to advertise that first consultations were free. "We always understood that when we go to a solicitor for the first time it is basically to state our case and that is not really for a consultation or to get legal advice."
This blatant example of touting was unacceptable.
Dr Mary Henry (Ind) noted there had been a dramatic increase in the number of medical negligence cases over the past 10 years during which advertising for personal injury cases had been allowed. It cost the Department of Health £20 million a year for medical indemnities for the doctors it employed. Five per cent of the running costs of hospitals could be attributed to insurance costs.
Ms Mairin Quill (PD) expressed the hope that the new regulations to be brought in under the Bill would be strong enough to curb the problem with which they were endeavouring to grapple.
It was galling and stomach-churning to see so much of taxpayers' money going to people who were clever enough to exploit a number of situations and who were filling their pockets by way of fraudulent claims. Local authorities were seen as soft targets. There seemed to be a belief, even among the judiciary, that if the local authority was the defendant then it was no-one's money.
"This is not the case - it is everyone's money."