Gerard Murphy (Cork North West, Fine Gael)

They are servants of the community and their businesses must be geared towards a demanding public that regards customer care and transparency as the norm. It is no longer enough to have a good solicitor who knows his or her law well. The solicitor's knowledge must be transferred efficiently and quickly to the matter being dealt with, not left gathering dust on shelves until clients demand action. There is more to running a solicitor's business than the law element. Perhaps it should be a requirement that each solicitor's practice has a person who has the ability and qualifications to ensure that the administration of the office is effectively carried out.

In 2005, the Competition Authority called for an ombudsman. Its primary report highlighted the conflict of interest facing representatives of bodies of the legal profession in representing their members and the public's interest. The authority also emphasised that the current complex and opaque set of rules in the legal profession must be replaced by an independent, transparent and accountable system. Last year, only one complaint against a barrister was upheld by the Bar Council's disciplinary body and only two of the five solicitors referred to the High Court were struck off the roll of solicitors, while two people were ordered not to practice as sole solicitors.

No solicitor should be allowed to act in a solitary capacity unless he or she has the services of a professionally qualified administrator to deal with office administration. Many problems arise from the ineffective passing of advice through the administrative system rather than the advice of solicitors itself.

The whole affair is a joke as far as the public is concerned. Delays, mistakes and inefficiencies that cause clients strain and trauma and cost a great deal of money are only punishable by fines of between €250 and €5,000. Last year, the total amount paid by negligent solicitors was €22,600. I or any economist analysing the situation would be able to show that the inefficiencies in the legal system have cost individuals and the business community tens of millions of euro in that period.

A central demand of the Victims of the Legal Profession, an organisation formed in 2001, was the establishment of an ombudsman. The organisation helped to highlight the appalling levels of distress arising from unprofessional and, in certain cases, unethical conduct in the legal profession. The main complaints were about the processing of wills and property, which could be delayed by years. However, it is important to remember that the proposed ombudsman will only supervise bodies that examine their own members.

In this context, the English position is interesting. The Legal Services Ombudsman is independent of the legal profession and investigates the handling of complaints by the professional bodies. Recently, the English ombudsman spoke on this issue. While welcoming of the UK Government's White Paper on the Future of Legal Services: Putting the Customer First, the ombudsman declared her dissatisfaction with the fact that only 33% of the Law Society cases received by her and 12% of Bar Council cases were adequately dealt with in a way that would restore consumer confidence and relieve any perceived public concern about lawyers investigating complaints about fellow lawyers. Thus, there remains the possibility that, in Ireland as in England, an ombudsman alone might not suffice in resolving the major issue we are facing. Further reform will be required to remove complaints handling from the remit of the professional bodies.

It remains to be seen what effect the ombudsman's establishment will have, but it is only the beginning. If the law profession does not heed the wake-up call, more reforms must be urgently introduced. We cannot allow one profession to stifle progress. It must realise that the days of its privileged position are coming to an end. Its operations must become efficient and transparent, but it is obvious to the rest of the community that the profession has a long way to go to achieve this end. Its past dominance of this country's political life has allowed it to slow the reform process, but those days are gone. Politicians must respond to the consumer, who is demanding action. If the legal profession does not voluntarily respond, the Oireachtas must force it to reform in a consumer friendly way.

The central part of the Bill is the most important, but it does not go far enough. In general, law professionals do not realise how far behind they are and how the public regards them, namely, as problems and obstructions to people trying to do their daily business. Unless this situation changes, urgent action must be taken.

The Bill addresses other matters. Part 3 deals with courts and court officers, including a welcome amendment to section 65 of the Courts of Justice Act 1936 in respect of the setting of fees. Part 4 and its provision regarding the Solicitors Act 1954 is particularly welcome because it will allow lay people to get involved in the Law Society of Ireland. While a solicitor must be the chairperson of a committee, the Bill will abolish the requirement for two thirds of that committee to be composed of solicitors.

The portion of the Bill pertaining to gaming and lotteries is no longer contentious. Having seen the opposition to the issues tabled by the Tánaiste for public consideration, he has withdrawn the controversial aspects. From the Opposition's point of view, the other parts of the Bill are generally acceptable, but while the establishment of the ombudsman will be welcome, it will not do the job required of it.

See this speech in context