Robert Dowds (Dublin Mid West, Labour)

In my earlier remarks I stated that while many aspects of it are good I am concerned that it could lead to decreased competition and increased costs. One of the issues I addressed in my previous contribution was the provision of legal services to NAMA, tenders for which precluded firms with a turnover below €25 million, which, in effect, restricts to a few the number of firms eligible. This issue is not addressed in the Bill. This measure undermines the fundamental principle under which barristers operate. In other words, their first duty is to the court. Currently, barristers work for a wide range of solicitors firms and are not normally dependant on any one employer. Under the new regime, where a conflict arises, the barrister must weigh up his or her concern for his or her job, duty towards employer and duty to the court. A number of barristers do pro bono work, which as self employed practitioners, they are free to do. An example is the work done by President Mary Robinson who, when acting as a barrister, took a case to the European Court of Human Rights on behalf of a separated woman denied a legal separation because she could not afford access to the courts.

It is worrying that in the aftermath of the Enron scandal and the United States in particular shying away from multidisciplinary practices and the conflicts of interests they inevitably generate, we are rushing into establishing such practices. The Bill proposes to split the Bar, which will inevitably increase costs, particularly for younger members. Currently, junior members pay reduced but considerable fees to the Bar Council for access to the facilities of the Law Library. If more senior barristers leave to form partnerships, join multidisciplinary practices or firms in-house, this will inevitably result in increases in fees for junior members who remain practising at the Law Library.

Access to the Bar was for many years a closed shop. However, this changed considerably during the past decades, with people from every walk of life now practising at the Bar. This legislation may result in access to the profession once again becoming the preserve of the elite. The reality for anyone wishing to work as a barrister is four or five years in college, a year studying at the King's Inns and a minimum of one-year unpaid pupilage. Young barristers are lucky to earn even the minimum wage in the first five years of practise. Given the current economic climate, many will struggle to make a living long after that. The introduction of partnerships may result in a reduction in the number of pupilages available. For example, of the 1,850 people in the UK who qualified as barristers in 2011 only 460 obtained pupilages which allowed them to practise.

The Bill proposes to introduce five new regulatory bodies which will have to be paid for by the profession, three of which, the legal services regulatory authority, the complaints committee and legal practitioners disciplinary tribunal will consist of 43 appointed members, with the regulatory authority having a chief executive and a substantial staff to perform its functions. Barristers will be levied to pay for the new bodies, which will add another layer of costs, thus forcing many younger members out of the profession. New entrants will have to be from a well heeled background if they are to survive long enough to establish a practice. This problem also occurs in other areas of life, including working with NGOs.

The number of complaints against barristers as compared with solicitors is small, in the main because barristers do not handle clients' money. There are usually between 30 and 40 complaints per year against barristers. Approximately one in four complaints are from colleagues at the Bar. I am not against independent regulation. However, the structure proposed in the Bill appears unnecessarily bureaucratic and costly. The Competition Authority recommended independent oversight regulation. Is there any reason this cannot be tried first? The Bill has created uncertainty at the Bar and among those considering joining the profession. Neither the Competition Authority nor the troika have recommended the changes to the profession outlined in the Bill. In those circumstances, would it not be worthwhile carrying out an independent analysis of the implications of this Bill for the profession and the general public before proceeding further?

I would appreciate if some of the points raised in my contribution can be considered in terms of improving the Bill.

See this speech in context