Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 160:

In page 67, between lines 22 and 23 but in Part 7, to insert the following:
“Partners in multi-disciplinary practice
76. (1) Each partner in a multi-disciplinary practice shall be jointly and severally liable in respect of his or her acts or omissions, those of the other partners and those of the employees of the partnership.
(2) A partner in a multi-disciplinary practice may share with another partner in that multidisciplinary practice fees or other income arising from the provision of services by the practice, regardless of whether—(a) either or both partners are legal practitioners, or
(b) the services concerned are legal services or services other than legal services.(3) Subject to subsection (4), a person may be a partner in a multi-disciplinary practice notwithstanding that he or she does not provide legal services or services other than legal services.
(4) The following shall not be a partner in a multi-disciplinary practice:(a) a person in respect of whom the High Court has made an order under section 63(3)(b)(iii) that he or she be prohibited from providing legal services otherwise than as an employee;
(b) for the period specified in the order, a person in respect of whom the High Court has made an order under section 63(3)(b)(iv) that he or she be suspended from practice as a legal practitioner unless, in the case of a person who at the time the order was made was a partner in a multi-disciplinary practice, the order expressly permits him or her to continue to be a partner of that multi-disciplinary practice;
(c) a person in respect of whom the High Court has made an order under subparagraph (v) or (vi) of section 63(3)(b) that his or her name be struck off the roll of practising barristers or the roll of solicitors.”.

Government amendments Nos. 160 to 166, inclusive, form another cluster of amendments which provide a series of regulatory safeguards with regard to how legal services will be protected in MDPs, how consumers will be protected.
Amendment No. 160 relates to partners in multidisciplinary practices.

Section 76(1) provides that each partner in an MDP is jointly and severally liable in respect of his or her acts or omissions, those of the other partners and those of the employees of the partnership. Section 76(2) provides that a partner of a multidisciplinary practice may share with another partner in the MDP fees or income arising from the provision of services by the practice.

Section 76(3) is an important subsection which provides that a person may be a partner in a multidisciplinary practice notwithstanding that he or she does not provide legal services or services other than legal services. Essentially, this permits a partner in an MDP to provide investment to the practice. Section 76(4) provides for the prohibition of certain legal practitioners from being a partner in an MDP, for example, where he or she is subject to an order of the High Court, suspension or striking off.

I am giving ongoing consideration to matters such as who can be a partner in an MDP, how best to provide for possible conflicts of interest and the delineation of who can provide legal services or be designated as a managing legal practitioner in an MDP, and I expect to return to these matters further Report Stage.

With reference to amendment No. 161, managing legal practitioner, many of the provisions contained in section 77 were previously contained in section 74 of the Bill as published. Section 77 provides that an MDP must have a managing legal practitioner who is responsible for the management and supervision of the provision of legal services by the practice. The managing legal practitioner is given specific statutory obligations to ensure that the multidisciplinary practice is managed to ensure that the provision of legal services by the practice complies with the Act and the stated professional principles. These obligations relate to the professional independence and integrity of legal practitioners acting in the best interests of clients, maintaining proper standards of work, compliance with duties owed to the court and the confidentiality of client affairs.

We have further developed the role of the managing legal practitioner based on the New South Wales legislative model. Section 77 will also now provide that an MDP must inform the authority where it does not have a managing legal practitioner in place for seven days or longer. The MDP cannot provide legal services until a managing legal practitioner is in place. Under section 77(4), the managing legal practitioner will be required, where he or she has reason to believe there is non-compliance, to take necessary steps to ensure compliance and to remedy any defaults.

I would point out that the Legal Service Regulatory Authority will not be regulating the activities of participants in an MDP who are providing services other than legal services. Where accountants, architects or other providers operate in an MDP, they will be subject to their own regulatory or professional supervisory bodies. Of course, lawyers in these entities will also be governed by the enhanced conduct, disciplinary and legal cost provisions of the Bill.

With reference to amendment No. 162, section 78 provides that nothing in this Part prevents an act or omission by a legal practitioner who is a partner in or an employee of a multidisciplinary practice that is in contravention of this Part from being found to amount to misconduct under section 45.

Amendment No. 163 deals with the operation of multidisciplinary practice. Section 79 requires the MDP to have written procedures binding on all partners and employees within the practice to ensure compliance with the requirements of the Act and adherence to the professional principles set out in section 9(5) of the Bill. This includes an obligation on all to comply with the directions of the managing legal practitioner and any procedures that are set out in regulations governing the operation and management of the MDP.

Returning to my conversation with Deputy Mac Lochlainn at the start of this, these are the crucial and important provisions to ensure proper regulatory oversight and to ensure that the concerns that he raised with regard to MDPs are appropriately and comprehensively addressed.