The Minister for Justice is considering amendments to the Legal Services Regulation Bill to put the regulatory system beyond ministerial or government interference.
In an address to the annual conference of the Law Society in Co Cork, Alan Shatter delivered a wide-ranging defence of his Bill, which has been criticised by the society.
Responding to the charge that the appointment of the majority of the members of the proposed new regulatory authority, complaints committee and disciplinary tribunal by the government undermined the independence of the legal profession, Mr Shatter said he was considering various models for appointments.
“One of these is the possibility of advertising through the Public Appointments Service for expressions of interest and another, with which I would have a personal affinity, relates to the option of drawing from a pool of nominating bodies,” he said.
Mr Shatter said he would also bring forward an amendment at committee stage allowing for the staggering of the appointment of members of the new authority, in order to ensure continuity and not allow a removal of its entire membership at one sweep.
Mr Shatter said he was also revisiting the complaints procedure to provide greater clarity about the independent appointment of members of the new complaints committee and the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal.
Mr Shatter said he saw merit in increasing the role of the new authority in settling complaints, especially less serious complaints, by agreement between the parties or by mediation, before they got to the complaints committee or the tribunal.
However, he rejected a plea from the society that the staff involved in dealing with complaints for the society be transferred to the new complaints body.
He acknowledged the transition to a new and independent complaints body would have an “undesirable impact” on some Law Society staff, but said they could apply for positions with the new authority.
“If there was a simple transfer of staff the public perception of the body as independent would be undermined,” he said, adding that direct ministerial appointment of the staff would similarly undermine the perception of its independence.
He disagreed with critics who argued that the new regulatory regime would be more costly than the existing system and promised to publish a Regulatory Impact Analysis of the new structures before the Committee Stage of the Bill. He said he would also provide an overview of the new regulatory architecture.
He added that the emphasis in the Bill on compliance-based regulation should ultimately reduce the cost incurred by consumer complaints and allegations of misconduct, and there should eventually be a year-on-year reduction in such complaints.
Mr Shatter said the proposals in the Bill for new business structures would create new opportunities for young unemployed solicitors and barristers. Such new structures would include barrister partnerships, barrister/solicitor partnerships and multi-disciplinary practices.
These would follow a period of public consultations which would address key issues, including also direct access to barristers on contentious business, the possible unification of the two legal professions and the education and training of legal practitioners.
Mr Shatter stressed that change was inevitable and throughout the world new business structures and new regulatory models for the legal profession were being developed in many jurisdictions.
He cited the example of New South Wales, where he said the introduction of a Legal Services Commissioner and new business models, including multi-disciplinary practices, had not led to the dilution of ethical standards.
Successive attempts to reform legal services in Ireland had “withered on the legislative vine” up to now, and he appealed to the legal professions to embrace the Bill, support its development and open the way to modernisation and reform.