AFTER OBJECTIONS from the representative bodies for solicitors and barristers, Minister for Justice Alan Shatter yesterday indicated a willingness to consider constructive suggestions for improving the proposed new regulatory framework for the legal profession.
There is no “hidden agenda” in relation to ministerial functions or appointments in the Legal Services Regulation Bill, Mr Shatter told the Dáil yesterday in proposing the second stage of the Bill.
He said he would be proposing removing the requirement of ministerial consent for any code of practice for lawyers the new regulatory authority would draw up.
He strongly rejected suggestions made by the two lawyers’ representative bodies, the Law Society and the Bar Council, and international legal organisations, that the model for regulation would lead to government control over the legal profession.
“The independence of the new legal services regulatory Authority will be assured by the provisions made in the Bill with the authority itself being democratically accountable – including, in its own right, to the Houses and committees of the Oireachtas,” he said.
Mr Shatter did not address the issue of his nomination of the majority of the members of both the regulatory authority and the new disciplinary tribunal, which has been widely criticised.
However, a briefing document on the Bill, prepared for members of the Oireachtas, which has been seen by The Irish Times, acknowledges: “The formal role of the Minister for Justice under the Bill is broad . . . It is this question mark over potential levels of intervention from government that is the focal point of independence fears, as reflected in reactions to the Bill.”
Mr Shatter told the Dáil: “There is nothing contained in the Bill which enables any minister for justice or the government of the day to improperly intervene in legal proceedings nor which enables the legal services regulatory Authority to do so.
“It is unfortunate that both the Law Society and the Bar Council are using the Trojan Horse of a bogus threat to the independence of the professions to oppose self-regulation being replaced by independent regulation and to raise false fears of State oppression.”
Mr Shatter said the proposed measures on legal costs would bring transparency and accountability to them and lead to a reduction in costs.
He said there would be public access to decisions of the new legal costs adjudicator, and this would include access to adjudications involving lawyers in disputes about family law costs, though the anonymity of the parties would be preserved.
The new regime would be funded by the diversion of some of the existing levies paid by members of both professions, he said.
This was expected to cover much of the cost of the new system and the details of this would be worked out in consultation with the professions. He said he did not expect it to be unduly expensive.
He said he had received submissions from the Law Society and the Bar Council which he would consider carefully.