The credibility of a new regime to oversee barristers and solicitors has been called into question in stark terms by Isolde Goggin, chairman of the Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (CCPC). After centuries of self-regulation, the aim was to establish independent regulation of the professions and curb excessive legal costs.
But Ms Goggin has cast serious doubt over the prospect of lower costs, saying last-minute changes to long-delayed legislation gave priority to lawyers’ entrenched interests over those of the consumer.
The Legal Services Regulation Act was signed into law in December, the final scheme being more favourable to lawyers than the original proposed in 2011 by then justice minister Alan Shatter. Important regulatory powers were preserved for the Bar Council, the barristers’ organisation, and the Law Society, which represents solicitors.
Concerns about high costs had been expressed by public bodies as diverse as the Health Service Executive and the Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement.
Freedom of Information disclosures revealed a relentless lobbying campaign to impose the will of the legal professions on government. Direct entreaties were made to Taoiseach Enda Kenny; and sustained “confidential” efforts were made behind the scenes to prevail on the Department of Justice to blunt the original proposal.
The professional bodies, whose prime allegiance is to their members , were afforded special privileges in private engagements with public authorities. They had continual access to high-level officials and were informed of key Government decisions before publication. In one instance the Bar Council was given sensitive draft amendments to the legislation before they were even presented to Cabinet. The council’s flat rejection of such amendments, and its audacious assertion that they should not be taken by Cabinet, was emblematic of the whole process.
All of that stands in marked contrast to the dismissive treatment of the CCPC, a body with statutory obligations to uphold consumer rights and fair competition in markets. When Mr Shatter’s successor Frances Fitzgerald produced final amendments, the CCPC was given “less than 24 hours” to consider major policy changes. As Ms Goggin pointed out, its ability to engage with the development of the Bill paled into insignificance when compared with the access afforded to the entities it was intended to regulate.
The primary concern here surrounds costs. The National Competitiveness Council has found legal service prices were almost six per cent higher in 2015 than in 2010. But there is more. The affair raises questions over public trust in the legislative process. Submission and deference by a government to private professional bodies does not inspire confidence. And the public pays the price.