Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)

I concur with Senator Buttimer that a six-year term is lengthy. Our experience of the ombudsman system, while relatively recent, has been a major success. As a practising lawyer and paid up member of the Law Society, I believe the establishment of a legal services ombudsman must be broadly welcomed as an extremely positive development. The role will be one of overseer and the ombudsman will operate in conjunction with the systems in place in the Law Society and Bar Council for dealing with complaints, practice and procedure.

As one who has practised law for more years than I care to remember, I believe the Law Society has by and large dealt with complaints exceptionally well. Every organisation can make mistakes and I accept in principle the reason people ask who guards the guardians and why the legal profession should engage in self-regulation. The Law Society complaints' board consists of laypersons and has an input from the High Court. When serious matters arise, as in a number of recent cases, the society can take serious steps.

I welcome the concept of establishing a legal services ombudsman. Senator Buttimer raised the possibility that an appointee to this position could serve for 12 years. Obviously, the person appointed, whether a man or woman, must be carefully chosen and must not have a connection with the profession. The example of a retired judge springs to mind. We must find the right person, one who will do the job successfully and, critically, one who will enjoy public confidence, without which any ombudsman will fail.

Unfortunately, I did not speak on Second Stage. The Bill is well founded and not before time and will restore, in a belt and braces fashion, public confidence in lawyers and barristers. The number of practising solicitors currently exceeds 8,000. Unfortunately, due to the recession hundreds of partially and fully qualified solicitors do not have a job. I have received many requests from young people who have completed their degree and done the examinations in Blackhall Place, having probably spent six or seven years studying law, who are not in a position to qualify.

I presume the ombudsman will not have a role in determining numbers in the profession. While competition is good, one does not want to bury a profession by having too many people qualify. Since I received my parchment in 1978 the number of solicitors has quadrupled from 2,000 to 8,000. We also have a vast number of barristers. While we always hear about barristers and, in some cases, solicitors who do extremely well, have acquired considerable wealth and have high earning capacity, many practising solicitors are in financial difficulty. Some have been unable to secure employment, while others have been made redundant.

In the 1980s, not long after I qualified, I emigrated because work was scarce. One firm in Cork, which will remain nameless, laid off ten conveyancing solicitors at that time. We have entered a similar period. While I welcome the decision to establish a legal services ombudsman and accept the importance of restoring public confidence in the legal profession, it is important to have some sympathy. As is the case with politicians, the media, whether in print or broadcasting, tend to tar lawyers with one brush and give an impression that all lawyers are milking the system. While this may apply in the case of a small element in the profession, there are many decent lawyers and barristers.

I fear for the future of many young people in the legal profession who will not be able to emigrate in the next four to five years. In my mid to late 20s, I had no such problems. While I could have gone to America, I chose to spend two years in England. This option is not open to young people in the profession. We need to spare a thought for recently qualified young lawyers as well as those about to sit the Bar or law exams who do not see any light at the end of the tunnel.