The Law Society of Ireland has been permitted by the High Court to make submissions in a forthcoming challenge to the policy of the Personal Injuries Assessment Board (PIAB) to deal directly with clients rather than solely through their solicitors.
The society claims the issue of the board's entitlement to disregard written authorisations of claimants directing the board to communicate solely with the claimants' solicitors goes to the heart of the solicitor/client relationship and the ability of solicitors to represent their clients.
The society sought and yesterday secured leave from the president of the High Court, Mr Justice Finnegan, to make submissions in the hearing of a challenge to the board's procedures which has been taken by Mr Declan O'Brien, of Summer Road, Tullamore, Co Offaly.
Mr O'Brien has brought an action for damages arising from injuries which he allegedly sustained when a meat carcass fell on his back while he was deboning meat.
He claims his constitutional right to be represented by a solicitor is being breached by the actions of the PIAB in that it is seeking to deal directly with him rather than conduct dealings through his authorised solicitor, Mr Denis Boland.
Mr O'Brien's action has been fixed for December 12th.
In his decision yesterday, Mr Justice Finnegan said the outcome of Mr O'Brien's proceedings against the PIAB might affect a great number of persons who proposed making claims for personal injury.
The judge noted that each year in the High Court almost 12,000 personal injuries summonses were issued.
He said an appreciable number of claims to the board might require that persons communicate with their solicitors.
It might well be that through inexperience, limitation in education, illness, absence abroad or other causes that it would be desirable there should be communication with a solicitor.
In Mr O'Brien's case it appeared important to him, having regard to the particular difficulties which he claimed to have in relation to the statute of limitations (the legal period in which a person can bring a claim), that he consult a solicitor. Had he not done so there appeared to be a risk he might be statute barred.
Mr Justice Finnegan said there were 9,000 solicitors with practising certificates who might be affected by the manner in which they attended to clients' affairs.
The issue which arose for the first time in this case was one that should be examined broadly, and not just in the light of Mr O'Brien's case, so that the PIAB, solicitors and claimants would be certain of the procedures which were appropriate.
The judge said the Law Society should be joined in the proceedings because of its interests in law reform and in the operation of the legal system. Having regard to the society's history, it would be quite wrong to regard it as a "meddlesome busybody". However, it could not introduce new issues in the proceedings.
On the question of whether there was a public law dimension to the proceedings, he was satisfied society had not just a sectional interest - that of solicitors - but a general interest.
Mr David Barniville, for the PIAB, said his client disputed Mr O'Brien's claim that he was told by a member of the board it was not necessary for him to avail of the solicitor's services. The board would also claim, in relation to the issue of the statute of limitations, that all attempts were made to ensure Mr O'Brien's position.