TheJournal.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more »
Dublin: 15 °C Sunday 19 May, 2013

Former attorney general raises fears over Shatter’s legal reform

Dermot Gleeson has said he shares the concerns that have been raised by barristers and solicitors – including fears over independence and increased legal costs.

Minister for Justice Alan Shatter
Minister for Justice Alan Shatter
Image: Eamonn Farrell/Photocall Ireland

A FORMER ATTORNEY general has raised concerns over proposed reforms to the legal profession – which it’s been suggested could compromise independence and result in some increases to legal costs.

Dermot Gleeson, who was Attorney General in John Bruton’s ‘Rainbow Coalition’ government between 1994 and 1997 and is now one of Ireland’s top barristers, told TheJournal.ie he was worried by aspects of the reforms.

While Bar Council member David Barniville has warned that the Bill as it stands would “fundamentally change the legal profession, in a way that will fundamentally damage people’s access to justice.”

The Legal Services Regulation Bill, which will be debated by in the Dáil today, proposes a new regulatory authority to oversee the profession. But its proposed structure has caused controversy, with barristers arguing that it would give the Government undue political influence over legal practice.

“We fully accept that there is a need for independent regulation,” Barniville told TheJournal.ie. “But the bill provides for the Government to appoint members of the regulatory authority, with no basis for where these people are to come from or what qualifications they should have.”

He said such influence would affect Ireland’s image internationally.

Barniville also said that the reforms – which were agreed in principle as part of the EU/IMF/ECB bailout, partly with the aim of cutting legal expenses – could result in increased costs to clients.

Increased costs

“You’ve up to 43 appointed members, plus their staff, who are going to have to be paid, pensioned and accommodated,” he said, adding that this would mean increased professional fees for lawyers. “It’s hard to see how that cost can avoid being passed on to clients.”

The Bar Council has proposed an ‘oversight’ rather than a direct form of regulation, which it says would involve a much smaller staff and lower overheads.

Gleeson said he was troubled by the proposed measures. “I share the concerns that have been expressed by the leaderships of both the solicitors and barristers profession on this bill,” he said.

The Department of Justice declined to comment. However, speaking recently Minister Shatter said there was “no reason for concern” over the bill and rejected suggestions of undue Government influence.

“The legislation sets out quite clearly that the authority is independent of the minister,” he said.

More: Shatter says there’s ‘no reason for concern’ over legal reforms>

Read next:

Comments (45 Comments)

  • Shatter is looking more and more like Columbo in every picture.

    Reply
  • Dermot Gleeson of AIB? Yeap he’s credible alright!

    Reply
  • Hmmm now it sounds like the government are trying to get there paws in the legal system..They must be worried about there future’s and past bad or suspicious decisions being brought to the legal arena.. The government MUST NOT have any part to play in our legal system..Or any monitoring agency either…

    Reply
  • Glleeson is probably better known to the readers, and to Irish taxpayers, as a former chairman of AIB. Given what happened to AIB when he chaired it, one might question his judgment.
    In any event, we need legal regulation. Lawyers impose huge costs on everyone else by charging insane fees for routine work. Solicitors are poorly regulated, and barristers hardly at all by their own professions. Shatters ideas might work, and this is why the lawyers are opposing them so hard.

    Reply
    • I agree, Shatters reforms certainly can not affect the quality of the judicial system here. Anything that forces Solicitors to charge rates more in line with the real economy and to perform to higher standards is welcome. The legal system here has changed little in 150 years.

      Reply
    • @ Anthony Staines

      “Lawyers” do not charge insane fees for routine work. The Bar needs to be overhauled certainly and serious competition needs to be fostered but Shatter is the last person on Earth who should be allowed do this. He was one of the highest charging scolicitors around when he practised and has an active vendetta against the Bar.

      Reply
  • Another Quango.Nothing will be achieved.Yet guaranteed big pensions at the end of the enquiry.

    Reply
  • Jobs for the boys again, same old bullshit just different methods. Don’t worry Senators if the senate is abolished we have an even easier number with even more money for you less regulation and more difficult to trace croynism……we do look after our own don’t we?

    Reply
  • Anthony, I advise you to attend the High Court and see whether you are correct in stating that “Irish judges are no longer addresses as “your Lordship”. They are, and the two instances I witnessed in the last week did not provoke any response indicating that they have no difficulty in being so addressed

    Reply
    • High Court judges are addressed by Counsel several hundred times a day.

      You hear TWO instances of “My Lord” out of the hundred of references and thats what you carp about? Ridiculous.

      I also have to appreciate the balanced approach you took – totally failing the many many many times you must have heard the court referred to as “Judge”.

      Reply
    • Even if it is only twice a week (and as you well know it isn’t), it is an affront to democracy, that an adjudicator of law and fact in the designated forum for the resolution of civil disputes in a modern republic should be referred to in such a manner. “My Lord” emanates from a feudal system that has no relevance and it is embarrassing that a Lawyer in Ireland needs to defend such colonial hokum, did you “keep commons” or is that unnecessary now as well?

      Reply
    • Ridiculous. “An affront to democracy”??? There are far greater afronts to democracy alive and well in this jurisdiction then a barrister referring to a Judge as “My Lord”.

      Its a traditional reference which has now been removed as the formal addres. What more do you want? No one is insisting that YOU do it. Judge is perfectly apporpriate. No offence to democracy there.

      It is of no particular relevance where it emanated from or how.

      A far more worrying affront to democracy was Shatters last referendum on (allegedly) Judges Pay. Now let me guess which way you voted on that?

      Reply
  • Apologies “indicating that they have any difficulty in being so addressed, confirm it for yourself.

    Reply
  • The Irish legal profession charges excessive fees in comparison to the relative (non)complexity of the work they do and the price of similar services in other developed nations. The Bar acts to ensure an ease of access to socially and politically connected entrants at the expense of an equal opportunity to compete on merit for those without such connections. An independent study examining all of this ought to be done, as any practicing barrister or solicitor (you will note it is mostly barristers opposing this) can not make objective assertions. This is not just an issue for the profession every citizen pays a price when they live in a country with a deliberately protected and manipulated market for legal services, whether they seek to acquire such services for their own representation or in the higher fees they must pay for Insurance and Utilities as a result of the higher fees paid by the providers of same. Apart from the economic argument, any person defending the retention of practices lavished with the cultural and symbolism of a colonial past, utterly irrelevant to the supply of professional services in a 21st Century Republic can only really be acting on self interest alone. How can anyone defend the use of “My Lordship” in a court of law in Ireland today, apart from amusement it is a term in stark contrast to the alleged Ideals of this State and again has no place in the sophisticated resolution of criminal charges or civil disputes in a modern democracy. At least in the UK it is a genuine part of their heritage and a homogeneous culture that the majority of British citizens respect and identify with. Sooner or later the indefensible reality of the market manipulation and non market based fee structure will be exposed by fact and the non disclosed use of a a disproportionate political influence to defend such organised largess for a select few at the expense of the citizens of this state will finally be ended, but on this occasion there should be no surprises if the bill doesn’t make it. On the issue of the oversight it would be very easy for the Minister to organise independent regulation protected from over influence of the office of the Minister, if that really is the only concern of the bar.

    Reply
    • Irish judges are no longer addresses as ‘your lordship’ I have no idea what the state of play is in the UK. In fairness to them the judges have done a lot more reform than either professional group.

      Reply
    • Whilst it is no longer required, the judges are still referred to as “lordship” at Circuit Court and higher, but this is usually said in order to gain “brownie points”. District Court judges are simply referred to as “Judge”

      Reply
    • @ Economicopoly
      Firstly and most importantly Sir – paragraphs are your friend.

      Secondly the legal profession does not in its entirety charge excessive fees. & more would be done for lowering fees if the public would shop around rather than accept whomever they walk into first.

      As a barrister in his 6 years of practice I can tell you theBar most certainly does not act as a conduit to connected persons. That is nonsense.

      “My Lord” is no longer required by the Courts and actively discouraged by many of the most Senior Judges. The Supreme Court have rebuked some SC for using it. “My Lord” is still occasionally used – normally by senior practitioners who do it out of habit more than anything. Yes it can be used occasionaly as a tactic but more often than not its just habit.

      I would also point out that someone commenting on the practices of the legal profession and their alleged corruption and high prices would do well to actually inform themselves about what those practices actually are.

      Reply
    • Felix

      Sir is of no relevance here, this is not a formal legal correspondence and while you correctly identified issues with my formatting, these are comments on a webpage, again not formal legal correspondence. I would advise you to inform yourself of all and any independent objective reports on legal fees in Ireland and legal fees across Europe including Ireland, such independent international and objective findings are clear for all to see. It is some what unfair to suggest that I inform myself when the facts as asserted by such independent international findings are in contrast to your subjective position.

      Reply
    • “sir” is a perfectly acceptable and frankly polite way of addressing people for a start – legal documentation has nothing to do with it.

      Paragraphs are also an essential tool of writing whether it be on a message board or in a courtroom. Legal documents have no relevance to the point.

      As for independent reports – no report anywhere suggests that all legal fees charged in Ireland are excessive. I’m quite certain your unaware of that as I have little doubt that you’ve never read a single one of those reports.

      Criminal legal aid for example is extremely poorly paid and the state gets remarkable value for money.

      I also advised you to inform yourself as to the practices of legal practitioners, by which I meant the use of My Lord. Biased and self serving analysis.

      Reply
  • This seems to be turning into another story designed trying to present a balanced view of law in Ireland.

    Mr Gleeson and Mr Shatter have always known how their bread is buttered on both sides. They also know that the system of law in Ireland is rotten and we don’t need reform we need a new system.

    Successive so called governments since 1922 have been using opinions in law. They know that opinions provide great opportunity for those employed in law never to be challenged. Opinions being the best way to hide details. The only people who need to hide details in law are those who are up to no good.

    The end result has always been the rule books of Ireland have been falsified, but the system does not allow the people of Ireland to judge the judge. Until we get a court system that works reform are worthless, but at least Mr Shatter can get a pay packet pretending he is doing something useful.

    Reply
    • @Loyal

      Lunatic – completely unbalanced paranoid conspiracy theorist.

      “Opinions” in law!!!! You dont even know what an opinion is.

      Reply
    • @Felix Causidy: You always seem to judge by calling people lunatics and yet you don’t have the skills to be an actual judge.

      Do you not think that psychiatry would be a better profession for your distinct behaviour.

      Reply
    • @Felix Causidy: So you admit that you do not have the skills to be a judge. I can deduce from this that you are unskilled in many areas of society. Medicine, Psychiatry, Physics, Biology, Computers, Maths etc.

      If you have no skills in the subject then in part you cannot have opinions, opinions do not exist. If opinions do not exist then what have you be doing with opinions in law over 8000 times since 1922?

      You must use opinions to hide your own ignorance and yet you could still charge a fee. If you refuse to acknowledge your own lack of opinions you can pervert the course of justice, which is a crime.

      People can go to a solicitor for an opinion and pay them to commit a crime, against themselves. That’s a very masochistic approach to law.

      Reply
    • @Felix Causidy: If judges have no experience of life outside of the courts how do they have legal opinions? You have to participate in the world you live in to have opinions.

      You may go to this website which I have told you about before and look for yourself. http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/home.html

      The figure currently being displayed is :- 8437.

      As i do not run the site i would expect the Attorney Generals staff to have enough expertise and if you do not believe me you can take it up with the so called government.

      Reply
  • Medicine, Psychiatry, Physics, Biology, Computers, Maths etc.

    Do I accept that Judges have skills in these areas? Many may well have competence in Maths/Computers. Medicine Psychiatry and Physics? Youre out of your mind Loyal. Theyre lawyers.

    An interest or basic knowledge of those areas some may have. But “skills”? As in the ability to diagnose illness? Conduct experiments? Dissect cadavers or lecture on the human reproductive system? Eh no – I dont accept that many Judges would have “skills” in those areas. Their expertise, their “skills” are in law for the most part. There may well be one or two who came from alternative backgrounds prior to becoming lawyers but for the most part – they are lawyers.

    Im not going to even discuss your insane ramblings about opinions Loyal. You dont know what they are, you cant prove its happening, you cant answer a simple question, you refer to non existant phenomena such as “Opinions” and the “rule books of Ireland” and you allege all sorts of corruption, bias, illegality without a shred of evidence or justification.

    When challenged on it – you just ramble on to another area.

    As I have said many times before – you have no idea what youre talking about.

    Now its Friday evening – and Im off out. If youd like to know, I intend to tell my colleagues whom I will be in the pub with about you and we will all have a jolly good laugh.

    Reply
    • @Felix Causidy: I find it surprising that when making decisions/judgements on a subject that involves people in society you are now admitting that those employed in law do not have the skills to have opinions. You are quite adamant that you have no opinions.

      You have introduced opinions into law 8437 since at least 1922 and now admit you do not have any.

      I wonder what the Garda have been looking for for the last 90 years. The Garda must turn up and just collect the salary.

      This outcome would explain how Mr Shatter wants to make reforms, where I think it should be shut down.

      Reply
  • Oh and I never said Judges have no skills. Thats an absurd distortion of my comment based on an entirely ludicrous sugegstion from youself. As usual.

    Reply
    • @Felix Causidy:

      Your quote :- “You think every Judge out there has skills in all the areas youve just mentioned? Do you think ANY Judge does?”

      I would expect that some judges do have skills in the areas I mentioned. Just because you do not read all the books in Ireland you cannot assume that judges do not have other interests.

      If you introduce opinions over 8000 times into the rule books of Ireland then somebody had better have skills to understand what opinions are. You take the money, do the job. Taking the money without doing the job can be fraud.

      Reply
  • Yes I am absolutely adamant that your “opinions” do not exist. They dont.

    I have no idea what has been “introduced into law” 8437 times since 1922 – if you had provided a link to that I might be some the wiser, but instead you keep referencing it – I am however CERTAIN that whatever has been introduced into law 8437 times it is not your “opinions”.

    “Admit” I dont have any? I have been absolutely clear from the beginning that your “opinions” do not exist.

    The Gardai have, for the last 90 years, been endeavouring to protect the State. I very much doubt they have spent so much as a nanosecond looking for you “opinions”. They might as well spend their time looking for the crock of gold at the end of the rainbow or the philosophers stone.

    As for you thinking it should be “shutdown” – no one cares. You do realise that I hope? No one cares about your views.

    Reply
    • @Felix Causidy: Concerning the introduction of opinion into law 8437 times since 1922 I have provided the link above and on previous topics on this site that you have expressed views. I will however provide the link again. http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/home.html

      It is also surprising that you charge a fee for your opinions and yet to have opinions you should have read the rule books. How many other so called professions charge a fee for nothing?

      With regards of the Garda you are demonstrating that using opinions in law will incapacitate the Garda, which means they cannot protect the people of Ireland by law. Your reference to a crock of gold is an admission they do not look for evidence. Is that to your advantage that the Garda cannot police you or a corrupt court system?

      Reply
  • I actually looked and would you believe it I found what you’re talking about!

    The word “opinion” – as in the common english word as understood according to its regular dictionary meaning – appears 8437 times in Irish legislation as published on the Irish Statute Book website which publishes Irish legislation.

    In other words Loyal your definition of “opinion” is irrelevant.

    There is no legislation, anywhere in the world, nor has there ever been which criminalised the use of the word “opinion” in legislation. It is not illegal to use that word in legislation Loyal and never has been.

    I’m glad we were able to clear that up.

    Reply
  • So far as I am aware, I cannot remove my own posts.

    There is no such thing as an opinion – according to your definition of an opinion.

    I am familiar with the Irish constitution – far more than you I daresay. I am after all a qualifed practitioner in good standing whereas you have no experience or knowledge the legal system whatsoever.

    You will never get a legal system which suits you. Ever. Such a system does not exist.

    I will never EVER be in any trouble as a result of my practice. I daily give my clients my educated opinion and advise them accordingly. I act in their best interests at all times. As do the majority of my colleagues. I will never be taken to account for this nor face any legal challenge as a result. Ever. Much less a charge of Treason!!!!! Hilarious.

    I really have to wonder where people like you get these notions from. Its quite extraordinary. Not a shred of evidence or justification just page after page of nonsense. Unsupportable, unjustified gibberish.

    The one saving grace is that you are, by far, in the minority and nothing will ever come from your deeply misguided views. An internet forum is the only chance you will ever have to air these views as no one, anywhere, will listen to you outside of that.

    Reply
  • Theres nothing there about 8437 – I want a specific link to the 8437 Loyal. Not a link the statute book homepage. Show me 8437 opinions. Not Irish Statute Book.

    As for the “rule books” – Im not sure what they are. I charge a fee to advice people on the law. They come to me with a legal problem and I advise them. Im not sure how many professions charge a fee for nothing. I just know that my colleagues and I dont do it.

    Im not sure how I am demonstrating that using opinions will incapacitate the Gardai – as Ive already told you “Opinions” as you call them do no exist. If they were to investigate them it might incapacitate them, seeing as theyre fictional and it would be a waste of time.

    Gardai look for evidence all the time. Looking for your “opinions” on the other hand is a total waste of time as they dont exist.

    Reply
  • Im afraid that that website doesnt show anything of relevance to your argument.

    Reply
    • @Felix Causidy: Have you been deleting your comments Felix? The E-Mail Provider gave me a copy so it has not been destroyed, just removed from this site.

      You must be very good speed reader to read several thousand Statutory Instruments and Acts of Parliament.

      I think I must be wearing you down. In another two weeks I might just persuade you to come over to my side.

      Reply
  • I don’t have to read the, all. I know for a fact that there is nothing there to support your argument. How do I know this? Your argument is ridiculous, paranoid nonsense.

    If there’s a shred of proof to support your argument, produce it.

    The legal profession in this country will continue to use opinions to advise clients forever. Forever Loyal. It will never change. Nor should it.

    As for “wearing me down”….dear God.

    Loyal, I’ll ignore you from now on because frankly I’m the bigger fool for even entertaining this nonsense.

    Reply
  • @Felix Causidy: Your actions are the key to understanding the problem Why did you delete one of your comments?

    In your comment you quite literally revealed that Judges have no experience and skills to have opinions. If they or you have no opinions then you can commit crime and call it an opinion. You can pervert the course of justice and your clients will eventually find out.

    Eventually under Article 9.3 of the Irish Constitution your use of opinions to commit crimes will come to an end and then you will pay.

    People who have a plausible argument do not delete comments.

    Reply
    • I didn’t delete any comments.

      There is no Article 9.3 of the constitution.

      Reply
    • At least not one that has anything in it to support your nonsense.

      Reply
    • @Felix Causidy: You are quite right i misread the layout. It does not change the fact as an act of loyalty the use of opinions will be rejected in favour of the evidence and skills and the details of your crimes can be exposed. My comment should read 9.2.3 of the Irish Constitution. If i get a court system that works you are in trouble.

      Article 9

      1. 1 On the coming into operation of this Constitution any person who was a citizen of Saorstát Éireann immediately before the coming into operation of this Constitution shall become and be a citizen of Ireland.

      2 The future acquisition and loss of Irish nationality and citizenship shall be determined in accordance with
      law.

      3° No person may be excluded from Irish nationality and citizenship by reason of the sex of such person.

      2. 1 Notwithstanding any other provision of this Constitution, a person born in the island of Ireland, which includes its islands and seas, who does not have, at the time of the birth of that person, at least one parent who is an Irish citizen or entitled to be an Irish citizen is not entitled to Irish citizenship or nationality, unless provided for by law.

      2 This section shall not apply to persons born before the date of the enactment of this section.

      3 Fidelity to the nation and loyalty to the State are fundamental political duties of all citizens.

      With regards of your comment that disappeared I do not consider that the Journal removed it because their is nothing offensive in the comment. Just your references to judges who have no skills, which I do not think they would take kindly too. Your references to judges is motivation enough for you to remove the comment.

      Reply
  • Ridiculous stuff. Just ridiculous. I really have to laugh at you. Hysterical.

    Where do you get these ideas from?

    Did you go to school? University? Have you any idea what actually goes on in the world?

    Oh deary deary me. What happened to you in your life Loyal? How did you become this person?

    Rule Books of Ireland!!! Hahaha. What the hell are the rule books of Ireland? And where are these “opinions” in them? Oh dear. Im genuinely, actually, laughing at you.

    Maybe we should get you to tell us all what Opinions are Loyal. Saturday tomorrow. The pubs will be busy. Go into town, stand on Grafton Street for a few hours and talk about this. Stand on a soapbox and tell the People about the Opinions and corruption. Go pub to pub during the 6 nations championship and speak to people about all this. Tell the world. Get off the net and tell the world.

    The world is waiting. The People are crying out for leadership. Youre the man. Tell them about “Opinions”!!!!

    Reply
    • @Felix Causidy: Do you not accept that some judges would have skills outside of law in the areas that i mentioned? You are making them look like complete dimwits.

      There is very little point in you ranting and raving on here. If you want to do something useful you could explain how Civil Servants without legal knowledge are applying opinions in Social Welfare Offices around the country to steal from the sick, the handicapped, the unemployed and old age pensioners.

      You could explain what the Garda should be doing about it?

      Reply

Add New Comment