Lisa McDonald (Fianna Fail)

There is. Many complaints are made on that website. Without knowing the ins and outs of the cases involved, and all cases turn on their own facts, as we know, many complaints are bogus and stem from a person either losing a case or just not being satisfied with his or her lot in life. Given that clients will be paying for this, it is something we need to avoid.

All legal professionals must recognise the need to demystify our language. Lawyers love each other when they are not facing each other in court, and they like to speak an impenetrable language. Outside of that magic circle, however, people often do not know what lawyers are talking about. I am not talking about judicial decisions but simply about lawyer speak, as it has come to be known. All lawyers need to strive to ensure they are understood by their client, the consumer. This is one area where, if people fully understand from the outset where they are going with a case or an action, it could prevent them feeling they were misled. While the language is not misleading in itself, it is just that it is not understood.

I welcome the fact the person who gets this job will not be a practising member of the legal profession as such a person could be seen as too close to the profession and it could be a distortion of justice if an Irish legal practitioner were appointed to that job. The office holder may have staff who are legal persons but the legal ombudsman should not be too close to the profession because, irrespective of how hard he or she tries, it would lead to a form of self-regulation, which is what we have at present. A legal academic or foreign legal expert would be more acceptable from the point of view of independence and accountability. The core of this argument is that self-regulation may not work because under such a system the profession judges its own members.

We need to ensure the ombudsman does not lead up blind alleyways with regard to reports which may waste the time of practitioners and complainants. There needs to be some sort of prima facie way of dealing with cases through legal people in the office of the ombudsman liaising with practitioners and complainants to ensure this does not happen.

The Bill also provides that various periodic reports are made by the legal services ombudsman to the Oireachtas. I am not sure how this procedure will work but I acknowledge that frivolous complaints will arise and it is important such cases are filtered out. I hope this will not distort any periodic report made to the Minister and the Oireachtas.

The system should be ruthless in blocking frivolous complaints at the point of entry. Otherwise, we will see a system where, believe it or not, people who deserve legal assistance will not be able to get that from the private industry because, unfortunately, people in the profession will take a look at a person and no matter how good that person's case is, they will say they cannot represent the person. This could be the unfortunate result if we do not nip this issue in the bud.

The Garda Síochána Ombudsman also receives frivolous complaints. Where a claimant goes through the process and the only option left to that claimant is to go to the courts, has the Minister executive powers to decide on a case? If a case proceeds to court, will the office of the legal services ombudsman pay the legal fees for the claimant? While perhaps the Minister of State referred to this issue in his speech, it will be appreciated that such proceedings would be beyond the financial capabilities of some people.

I welcome some of the other contents of the Bill. I welcome that the letter of engagement between a client and his or her solicitor is to be in plain language. I understand the need for plain language not only in that it is what we all understand, but as a politician I have learned how to communicate complex information to individuals every day whereas I do not remember receiving that training in the Law Society. All professions have words which ordinary people do not understand and use terminology which is obtuse and does not work to the benefit of the consumer. This can lead to misunderstanding which, in turn, can lead to people believing they did not get a good service.

The term "letter of engagement" is a good one. The client engages with his or her legal representative. It is provided that the letter of engagement should be in the plain language we hear in the local pub, shop and post office or on the street as we go about our business. The other side of this issue is that we also have the bar stool lawyer who seems to know more than the lawyer. The ordinary person needs to guard against listening to such a person in making a complaint which may run into the sand.

We have a duty to the people we represent to ensure the legislation we introduce reflects their point of view and how they feel they have been treated or mistreated by the legal profession. I fully acknowledge there have been incidences of late in the legal profession which have led to this step being taken. Fair dues to anyone who brings a complaint to the ombudsman and I hope if that person requires it, he or she will get redress through this system.

The proposed ombudsman will only serve the public well if it is not another overhead for solicitors during a slump period, which would ensure job losses or extra charges to clients. We have had high profile cases of late which have raised questions regarding self-regulation of both the Law Society and Bar Council. Hard cases make bad law, however. The ombudsman will work if it is for the benefit of ordinary people who will be able to say they went to this office, the steps to be taken were laid out for them and they knew where they were going. While this case may work out in favour of the person concerned, it may not and potential claimants need to be informed of this.

I wish the Bill every success as to its intentions. I hope it will work for the benefit of the public and enhance the relationship that exists between the legal profession and the public.