Frances Fitzgerald (Dublin Mid West, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

These are mainly refinements to the new section 51 inserted on Committee Stage to deal with the informal resolution of inadequate services. The substantive amendment in this group provides that an appeal of the outcome of a complaint of inadequate services or excessive costs shall be via a review committee to the High Court.

Amendment No. 88 replaces subsection (1). The intention is that the authority will, in every case where the matter at hand relates to inadequate services or where the review committee has remitted a complaint to the authority, invite the parties to seek to resolve the matter by informal means. The subsection removes the requirement that the authority should form an opinion as to whether the matter is suitable for resolution by informal means, which it was felt was too subjective. Amendments Nos. 90 to 101 and 113 to 118 relate to the resolution and review of the complaints sections. The intention behind the amendments now being proposed is to make clear how procedures regarding the resolution of complaints will operate and to better define the role of the review committee. Amendment No. 90 makes a change to one of the options available to the new review committee to be established under section 53 of the Bill, as inserted by amendment No. 63 of the Committee Stage amendments. The option that the review committee had - that is, to find that a complaint was not well founded - is being replaced by an option to remit the complaint to the committee with such direction as the review committee considers appropriate. It provides that a remittance can be for a complaint against either inadequate service or excessive costs.

Amendment No. 92 inserts an important new section into the Bill which will enable a party to appeal to the High Court against a decision of the review committee. Subsection 1 provides that the party, within 21 days of a notification from the review committee, may appeal to the High Court for an order to rescind or vary the determination of the review committee. Subsection 2 makes it clear, however, that if no such appeal is made within the 21 days, the determination of the review committee is absolutely binding on the parties. Subsection 3 gives the authority the right to have an appeal dismissed if it considers that the appeal has only been made to delay the conclusion of the complaint. Subsection 4 provides that a failure by a legal practitioner to comply with the determination of the review committee will constitute an offence under the Act.

Amendment No. 93 proposes a new subsection which makes it clear that where there is an admissible complaint which, if proven, would constitute misconduct, the authority should invite the complainant and legal practitioner to make efforts to resolve the matter promptly and in line with guidelines published by the authority.

Amendment No. 94 proposes to replace section 56, which was inserted on Committee Stage, with a different wording, although the thrust of the section remains the same - that agreement by a legal practitioner to participate in attempts to resolve an issue is not an admission of liability. We had some discussion on this on Committee Stage and I think these amendments were welcomed.

Amendment No. 101 relates to the procedures that the authority must carry out in dealing with complaints. I have decided that there needs to be a clear statement that a complaint about an act or omission which could constitute misconduct, if not resolved by informal means, will be passed to the complaints committee for consideration.

Amendment No. 113 involves the deletion of subsection 14. This is about improving the case management of complaints. Under subsection 14, the divisional committee could refer a case back to the authority to see if it could be resolved by informal means. Having looked at it again, we believe that cases that reach the divisional committee have already been through the process, so we are not referring them back to the authority.

Amendment No. 118 makes it clear that an appeal by a legal practitioner against a determination of a divisional committee will be to the High Court and not to the disciplinary tribunal. The disciplinary tribunal will have a specific function to investigate certain complaints involving alleged misconduct on the part of legal practitioners. I am providing that an appeal by a legal practitioner against a determination made or a direction issued by a divisional committee will be by way of application to the High Court.

We also have a subsection that states that in certain circumstances the authority may also appeal to the High Court against determinations or directions of the divisional committee. The authority may also appeal against a decision by the divisional committee not to refer a complaint to the disciplinary tribunal. Subsections 3 outlines the orders that the High Court may make on receipt of an appeal under this section. Effectively, these are refinements to the resolution of inadequate services. The substantive amendment in this group provides that an appeal on the outcome of a complaint about inadequate services or excessive costs shall be by way of the review committee to the High Court. It outlines the various stages that complaints of inadequate service or excessive costs go through within the body and how the authority becomes involved.