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

I thank the Chairman and I am sorry for delaying everyone. I shall move on to the prohibition on inducement, which is section 79(3) in the amendments that we are discussing. Section 79(3) has a requirement prohibiting anyone from inducing or causing a lawyer in a multi-disciplinary practice from acting in a non-compliant manner. Section 79 (4) requires that accounting, receipts and fees records for legal services and other services be kept separate.

Next we have a non-disclosure provision. Section 79(5) has a non-disclosure provision where a lawyer cannot disclose the affairs of a client to another person in an MDP, without the express consent of the client concerned. I wish to say something about the matter. I think I am right to attributing this to at least one of the submissions from the Law Society that logically pointed out that if one is running an MDP as a one-stop-shop then clearly the person who is the lawyer would need to be able to communicate with other professionals in the MDP with regard to the issue under discussion.

The intent of the section, as drafted, is clear. One may go into an MDP and one may only want the services of the lawyer. One may not want the services of the other professionals, one will want to be able to consult that lawyer and one may not want one's business discussed with other professionals. On the other hand, if one is using what I describe as the one-stop-shop and one expect one's lawyer and accountant in the MDP to consult together there will be a simple signing of the written consent and those consultations would take place. It allows a lawyer operating with an MDP to provide traditional legal services while other professionals they are working with would not have access to confidential information. Where one is using it as the one-stop-shop, because one is dealing with a number of professionals, that would be explained, and one would sign a consent and there would be no question of information being dealt with within the firm in a manner that the client was unhappy with.

We will have a further look at the way this is framed. In the context of concerns that people have expressed about MDPs and how they might operate, in a sense we are being quite conservative in the manner in which we are dealing with the matter to ensure that all of the multiple protections are in place and that people are fully informed, in the context of their consulting with the practice and that, I suppose, a formal consent is provided to the sharing of information with regard to an individual's circumstances, within the practice, between a legal professional and others operating in other areas to which the practice is engaged. As I say, we are working through this but that is the intent of the amendment, as prescribed.

I shall move on to the issue of inspection. The entitlement of a person to inspect an MDP or obtain information from a partner or employee in an MDP regarding the provision of services other than legal services under an enactment or rule of law is upheld under section 79(6). For example, a regulator, a professional body or a public body may have a right to inspect the premises in which a particular person or member of a particular profession carries out their business. The Legal Service Regulator Authority will have its own, separate powers of inspection under the Bill to which I shall be returning on Report Stage.

I shall now turn to Government amendments Nos. 164, 165 and 166 that deal with the letter of engagement, professional indemnity insurance and the saver for compensation fund. Section 80 is again based on a provision in the legislation on MDPs in New South Wales.

I should point out, in referencing the New South Wales legislation, that the enormous benefit is that MDPs have been operating there for some years. They have teased out initial teething problems and have addressed matters by way of legislation in a manner that is practical to ensure that MDPs can fully and properly work and that there is appropriate oversight. There is a very useful touchstone of expertise with regard to the workings of MDPs and when I visited Australia some time ago I had very detailed conversations in that regard with the relevant authorities there.

Section 80 provides for client protection at the point of engagement through the provision of a letter of engagement which specifies what services are being provided, including which of the services being provided by a legal practitioner are legal or non-legal. Again, I am conscious that there are law firms which provide services that could be regarded as legal services or as financial services and there may be a grey area in that context. However, if one has a detailed letter of engagement detailing services then it is quite clear what are regarded as legal services within the MDP and what are regarded as non-legal services. The letter of engagement also has to specify which of the services are to be covered by the compensation fund. I know that the Law Society was concerned that a myriad of inappropriate claims might be made against the compensation fund in circumstances in which it was alleged that something was a legal service when it was not. All of these matters can be adequately and properly dealt with through the regulatory structure. The legal services regulatory authority itself, in the context of regulations it will inevitably make following the consultation process, may address these issues further. The letter of engagement serves as an indicator of our awareness of this issue and of the need for clarity and agreement at the starting point for both client and legal practitioner - that is, agreement between a client and a solicitor or a client and the MDP as to what services are legal and what services are to be otherwise designated.

Section 81 provides that professional indemnity insurance must be held by an MDP to cover all of its services. In a saving provision, section 82 provides that nothing in this part of the Bill shall be construed as extending the obligations of the Law Society in relation to dishonesty arising in an MDP on the part of a legal practitioner who is not a practising solicitor.

In concluding my introduction to the proposed amendments to part 7 of the Bill, I am happy to acknowledge the views and concerns that have been conveyed to me by the Law Society on an ongoing basis with regard to certain of its provisions. These and other aspects of the Bill in relation to which views have been similarly received will be taken into consideration as part of the preparatory process for the Bill’s forthcoming Report Stage. However, the provision being made in this part of the Bill for the regulated introduction of legal partnerships and multidisciplinary practices remain fundamental to the Bill’s delivery of alternative legal business structures in support of greater competition in the provision of legal services in the State to the benefit of legal practitioners and the consumers of their services alike. Some have made submissions suggesting that we should remove from the Bill the provisions concerning legal partnerships - for example, between barristers and barristers or MDPs - but if we were to do that, we would be fundamentally changing the Bill in the area of seeking to ensure a multiplicity of optional business structures through which legal services can be provided.