No "spinning" by the Law Society can disguise the "systemic failure" of self-regulation of solicitors and what is needed now is "a robust agency" to deal with rogue solicitors, the master of the High Court said yesterday.
Edmund Honohan SC, who deals with pre-trial matters in High Court cases and costs issues, said most solicitors must now realise they have been let down, not just by a few rogue negligent solicitors but by the Law Society itself.
He said a robust agency was necessary to sanction and prosecute solicitors who abused their privilege through seeking to overcharge and negligently cause loss.
In a lecture delivered to law students in University College Cork yesterday, Mr Honohan said they should always remember that being called to the Bar, and, in solicitors' cases, becoming an officer of the court, was a privilege and not an entitlement.
"It is the status of the solicitor as officer of the court that makes the solicitor's undertaking the gold standard of contractual obligations," he said. "When an officer of the court undertakes, he puts his official status on the line. A solicitor who defaults on an undertaking damages the entire profession. . ."
The master also described as "surely an abuse of privilege" the use by lawyers of "mumbo jumbo" of the "it's the law, you wouldn't understand" variety to keep a client at bay or to seek to over-complicate issues "perhaps to justify a heftier fee".
There had been "disinfestation" of that sort recently from the Law Society in its references to the role of the president of the High Court in the regulation of solicitors, he said. There was "just enough legal content" in the comments of the society "to make them look plausible", Mr Honohan added. However, he said, the president only acted in cases that the society brought to his attention. To suggest otherwise was "a blatant attempt to deflect criticism".
In cases not involving clear instances of avoidable delay or overcharging, it was understandably difficult to explain the complexities of the law, which sometimes caused the client problems, he said. However, the society did not appear to regard this aspect of the complaints procedures as important. The idea that a solicitor's client bill could be fairly checked by the taxing masters of the courts was not quite accurate, he added.
This was because there was a specified presumption in favour of the solicitor, no objective information on competitive market prices and the taxing master could not adjudicate on any claim by the client that the solicitor had been negligent.
He said the court itself might summarily dock a solicitor for negligently wasted costs in litigation. However, this could be only if the negligence was "gross negligence", which was not the same as ordinary negligence.
When contacted the Law Society declined to comment.
