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

I previously addressed this matter in my written reply to Question No. 450 of 16 October 2012 which I will, therefore, substantially revisit on this occasion.

As the Deputy will be aware, the matters raised relate to the conveyancing conflicts of interest regulation which was adopted by the council of the Law Society of Ireland on 7 September 2012 with a view to its coming into effect on 1 January 2013. The Law Society of Ireland is the independent statutory body for the regulation of the solicitor profession in the State. Section 5 of the Solicitors Act 1954 provides for the society to make regulations that are necessary for the carrying out of its functions and requires that such regulations be laid by the society before each House of the Oireachtas, such as occurred with the regulation raised by the Deputy on 2 October under statutory instrument No. 375 of 2012. The new regulation, which prohibits the same solicitor from acting for both vendor and purchaser in conveyancing transactions, was made by the Law Society of Ireland on foot of the recommendations contained in the Conveyancing Conflicts Task Force Report published by the society in July last. The task force was specifically established to look at the existing guidelines and regulations relating to solicitors acting for both parties in such transactions. The report, publicly available on the website of the Law Society of Ireland, details the arguments put forward in favour of and against the introduction of this regulation and explains the reasons behind the decision to propose its adoption. It sets out how the task force undertook extensive consultations with members of the solicitor profession and other relevant interested parties and stakeholders and took account, inter alia, of the joint HSE and UCD report Abuse and Neglect of Older People in Ireland, published in November 2010. The task force also researched and reviewed the regulatory regimes in other jurisdictions and analysed judicial and academic commentary relevant to all issues considered.

I am aware that, while the focus of the Law Society of Ireland task force was centred upon preserving the probity and integrity of the conveyancing regime, the task force gave some consideration to the issue of costs and the perception that a package-deal approach to family group conveyancing represents an opportunity for savings to be made. This perspective has been reflected to some degree by Deputy Collins in his question. However, while there may be some substance to this perception, I expect, on the basis that legal fees should arise only in respect of the actual work done by any solicitor involved, that the relevant costs would even out across the parties.

Additional information not given on the floor of the House.

More fundamentally, any savings made should be weighed up against the avoidance of a conflict of interest, the duty upon solicitors to refer additional clients in voluntary transfers for independent legal advice and the security and protection of one's own interests and title to property that derive from separate legal representation. None the less, I am happy to see the costs aspect of the implementation of the new regulation monitored in real time, including in the context of the new and more transparent legal costs regime to be introduced under the Legal Services Regulation Bill 2011.

We should acknowledge the lessons of previous litigation in this area and of our erstwhile property boom, which point to the fundamental need to avoid conflicts of interest in the conduct of conveyancing transactions, whether on the part of solicitors or on the part of their clients, and including cases in which multiple family members or elderly or otherwise vulnerable family members may be concerned. While it would be better if such protections were not necessary, there can be no doubt that the new regulation affords better protection to solicitors and to their respective clients from any claims, now or in the future, that the issue of undue influence arises in respect of any conveyancing transaction. Similarly, in non-family conveyancing transactions, the interests of seller and purchaser seem to be better represented and protected in their own right under the new regulation. On balance, and notwithstanding the inconvenience and possible additional cost that may arise from individual legal representation in family group conveyances, it is difficult to argue that the quality and efficacy of a conveyance transaction is not better assured in the longer term by that means.

See this speech in context