MORE THAN 800 law students and graduates in the State who want to become solicitors were given leave in the High Court yesterday to challenge a change in the Law Society's regulations which means they now have to sit the entrance examination.
Mr Justice Morris gave leave for the students to challenge, by way of judicial review, the change in the regulations. The action is against the Law Society of Ireland and the Attorney General.
Previously, the Law Society regulations waived the need for law graduates of UCC, UCD, TCD, UCG and UL, to take the entrance examination. The change followed a case taken last year by law graduates from Queen's University Belfast, who had to take the entrance examination and claimed discrimination. The High Court ruled the regulation concerning this was invalid.
Yesterday, Dr Michael Forde SC, for the students, said there were 800 applicants and many more with an interest who were abroad and from whom permission to join them in the proceedings had not yet been sought.
He read an affidavit by law students Mr Thomas Coughlan, Ms Marsha Coghlan, and Mr John Meade on behalf of all the applicants.
The affidavit stated that in 1989 the Law Society amended its regulations for law graduates in the State so that they did not have to sit the entrance examination. The applicants were all law students who were pursuing courses for primary law degrees in the five universities.
Some of the applicants were given express assurances by, or on behalf of, the Law Society that they would not be required to pass the entrance examination. They stated that they were significantly influenced in their choice of study by the expectation that they would be admitted directly to the society's course.
They and their families had incurred expenses which, in many instances, had involved personal sacrifices. If there had been no direct access for law graduates to the course, quite a number of the applicants would have studied other law subjects or have something other than a law degree course.
The case taken by Queen's graduates was tried for 14 days by Miss Justice Laffoy, who last September held and ordered that the regulation exempting law graduates in the State, but not at Queen's, from taking the entrance examination was invalid because of alleged indirect discrimination on the grounds of nationality.
The applicants were taken by surprise by the declaration and were extremely disappointed by it. What especially concerned them was that they believed the society would raise the standards in its entrance examination over time, the reason being to restrict the numbers entering the profession.
The case was appealed to the Supreme Court, but when counsel acting for over 500 applicants applied to intervene in the appeal, it was refused.
The affidavit stated that the appeal went ahead to their astonishment the Law Society chose not to argue the main issue as to whether the regulation was invalid. It concentrated entirely on the issue of costs.
They believed the society acted entirely improperly in not pressing on with its appeal on the central discrimination point. They were now in the most unhappy position that a part of the regulation which was adopted for their benefit was the subject of invalidation proceedings without any proper notice being furnished to them.
Apparently neither the Law Society nor the Attorney General used their very best endeavours to see that the regulation would be upheld, although it would seem that both had a duty to the applicants to do so.