Denis Naughten (Longford-Roscommon, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 655: To ask the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform if he will report on the complaints procedure in place to deal with grievances with solicitors; his plans to reform this process; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [29123/05]

Paul McGrath (Westmeath, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 663: To ask the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform if his attention has been drawn to allegations (details supplied) that some solicitors representing clients who had received payments from the Residential Institutions Redress Board deducted fees from those payments in view of the fact that they were fully paid for their work by the redress board; if these allegations will be investigated; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [29199/05]

Michael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I propose to take Questions Nos. 655 and 663 together.

As regards allegations that some solicitors have double charged in respect of applications to the Residential Institutions Redress Board, I wish to put on record my abhorrence of any such double charging. I understand that the Law Society has put in place special additional measures, including a helpline, to facilitate the making of complaints in these cases. The solicitors' profession is regulated by the Solicitors Acts 1954 to 2002 and there are a number of measures in place to deal with these complaints and complaints generally against solicitors. There are two committees which consider complaints against solicitors, the complaints and client relations committee, formerly known as the registrar's committee, of the Law Society of Ireland and the disciplinary tribunal which is appointed by the President of the High Court under section 16 of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act 1994. The tribunal examines allegations of misconduct by solicitors and reports to the High Court. The complaints and client relations committee, which includes lay members, may itself determine complaints lodged directly to it by members of the public.

The disciplinary regime for solicitors was strengthened in a number of respects by the Solicitors (Amendment) Act 2002. The Act doubled the size of the tribunal to cater for an increased workload and the speedier processing of cases; required the tribunal to make a separate finding on each ground of alleged misconduct and have regard to previous findings of misconduct by a solicitor when imposing a sanction in a current case; increased from £5,000 to £15,000 the maximum amount which a solicitor, in respect of whom there has been a finding of misconduct, may be ordered to pay to an aggrieved party or to the Law Society's compensation fund; provided a right of appeal to the High Court on all aspects of the tribunal's work; and provided for remedies against solicitors who fail to co-operate with investigations. In addition, the circumstances in which the Law Society may refuse to issue a practising certificate or impose conditions on a certificate are spelt out in more detail and the circumstances in which it can send an investigator to inspect documents at a solicitor's office are extended.

A member of the public who is dissatisfied with how the Law Society handles a complaint made to it may refer the matter to the adjudicator appointed under the Solicitors (Adjudicator) Regulations 1997. The adjudicator can require the production of documents and make conclusions of fact and recommendations. She or he may direct the society to re-examine or re-investigate the related complaint made to it about a solicitor where she or he is not satisfied that the society has investigated the complaint adequately. She or he may also direct the society to make an application to the disciplinary tribunal for an inquiry into the conduct of the solicitor on the ground of alleged misconduct. The current independent adjudicator is Ms Leore Mrkwicka and her address for correspondence is 26-27, Upper Pembroke Street, Dublin 2.

A barrier to the investigation of complaints against solicitors in cases where the in camera rule applied has been addressed by section 40 of the Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004. The prohibition on furnishing documents, information and evidence to bodies, including the Law Society, when they are conducting inquiries etc., has been lifted, subject to certain safeguards. The bodies concerned will have to conduct their hearings otherwise than in public and no document, information or evidence shall be published. Section 40, in so far as it relates to investigations by the Law Society of complaints against solicitors, came into operation in July 2004 and it also applies to proceedings prior to that date.

With a view to further strengthening the mechanisms for dealing with complaint against the legal profession and to having a system in place which is both independent and seen to be independent, I am in the course of devising proposals for submission to Government to set up on a statutory basis a legal services ombudsman to oversee the handling of complaints against both solicitors and barristers. The details are being worked out at present and it is intended that provision for the legal services ombudsman will be made in a Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill which is in the course of being drafted for publication as early as possible next year.

I am also making provision in the Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill for implementation of recommendations, made in a report last year by the regulatory review task force of the Law Society which require amendment of existing statutory provisions. I am providing for the amendment of section 8 of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act 1994 to allow the award to a complainant of compensation of up to €3,000, with indexation, in restitution for losses suffered as a consequence of inadequate services by a solicitor. Such payment will be without prejudice to the legal right of the client and will be in addition to the existing power whereby a solicitor can be directed to refund wholly or in part costs already paid by the client or to waive costs or to take other rectification measures. I am also providing for the repeal, in the case of the Law Society's regulatory committees, of the statutory requirement that at least two-thirds of the membership of these committees and of any quorum of such committees should be members of the council. This will facilitate an increase in the number of lay members and contribute to the separation of the regulatory function form the representational function of the Law Society. The changes are in addition to those recommendations of its regulatory review task force which do not require primary legislation, which the Law Society proposes to implement.

A group which I set up last year to identify ways of reducing legal costs in civil litigation is due to report to me very shortly. While the recommendations of the group cannot be anticipated, it is very likely that its recommendations will have relevance in addressing issues such as the alleged overcharging by solicitors.