Dan Boyle (Green Party)

Sadly we now live in a society where the phrase "a person's word is their bond" has less currency than it once did. Many who held exalted positions in our society by reason of their profession must, justifiably, earn such respect because of society's breakdown and the controversies that have reduced the effectiveness and reliability of such professions. One reason for this is that the type of gentleman's agreement, or self-regulation, that existed in many professions has been abused, albeit by a minority, to the extent that it can no longer be successful.

This Bill is welcome because it introduces a degree of oversight that is lacking in legal services. It is a first step towards bringing about a fully-fledged system of regulation rather than the half-way house of marrying the existing systems of the Law Society and the Bar Council and a degree of State involvement. It is best to bring about such change incrementally.

We have seen examples of rogue solicitors and it is disturbing to hear some individuals defend themselves and seek to be excused on the grounds that others in professions such as banking and the construction industry were guilty of the same type of excesses. The legal profession has recently accepted other practices, for example, many young people buying houses have found until recently that they had to take out large bridging finance before their houses were fully conveyanced while several solicitors' firms held their deposits on account. This was then seen to be a valid part of the remuneration process. Not only have individuals been guilty of rogue practices but in the past the profession has accepted systemic practices. The need for a legal ombudsman is particularly acute in such cases, not only to challenge the individual abuses but to ensure widespread abuses do not occur.

Senators McDonald and Bacik mentioned that it is difficult for a client to get a solicitor to take on a case against a solicitor whom the client believes has behaved illegally. That is in part due to the cliquishness of the profession and in part to geographical factors because no solicitor wants to challenge another who is known in his or her court setting. That is why we need a separate independent effective ombudsman structure that is seen to enact the regulation that cannot be, or is not, enacted by the traditional methods.

The legal ombudsman should have significant early success in identifying early breaches of the code of conduct and how the public should get redress. We have learned from the financial regulatory system that is not enough to have an infrastructure in place to make us feel better about ourselves. We can only inspire public confidence when a system is up and running and is seen to be working. Until people can see a significant difference between the voluntary self-regulation system that has not operated very effectively, and the new system to be introduced on foot of this Bill, they will not have confidence in the legal profession's capacity to operate to the highest standards at all times.

I do not fully agree with Senator Bacik about the right of appeal process. It is important there is a clear and usable process. We must avoid the possibility, particularly in the legal profession, of a tribunal process that is strategically prolonged to avoid anyone having to answer for a wrongdoing. Appeals should be dealt with as quickly as possible. There is a danger in an appeal process that ties itself up in legal knots that the benefit of a legal ombudsman will be compromised by the nefarious actions of those he is trying to regulate. If that can be avoided the ombudsman will be an effective position and people will feel better for the establishment of such an office.