Law Society should have a better system for dealing with complaints

AS someone who felt compelled to make two complaints to the Law Society in the past six years, I found the feature article by Eamon Murray, president of the Southern Law Association, a bit unreal (‘Legal profession deserves respect’, January 8).

Mr Murray claims in his penultimate paragraph that “the vast majority of complaints are rectified by a telephone call”.

Sadly, this was not my experience.

Both of my complaints were concerned with getting very essential work completed, for which I had paid handsome fees.

My complaints took two years to resolve.

Mr Murray claims that “as much or more integrity reposes in the solicitors’ profession than any other”.

Apart from my own profession (translator) I regularly deal with others — doctor, dentist, opticians, auctioneers, gardaí.

I have never witnessed or experienced much dissatisfaction with the services they provide. Occasionally I hear minor complaints about accountants. But whenever I talk to people who had any substantial dealing with the courts — for example, family law, estates — I invariably get adverse comment about the performance of their solicitors.

The general type of complaints against solicitors — which the Law Society seems to regard as trivial — are incompetence — eg, not able to fill out memorabilia correctly, making more work than is necessary, charging fees for work not done and not completing court directions or orders (hoping the bewildered client won’t find out).

I make this conclusion as to triviality from my own experience and from Mr Murray’s extraordinary description of a “prima facie genuine complaint.”

His description of self-regulation is quite at variance with what the Law Society publishes on its website.

For the majority of complaints the first and only contact with the Law Society is with the complaints and clients relations section (CCRS) within the society.

This is staffed entirely by solicitors. Mr Murray is wrong in saying that if a genuine complaint is made, the solicitor is called before the CCRS committee or the regulation of practice committee.

The Law Society decides which cases go before committees and I have been informed by reliable sources that only exceptional cases are so dealt with — for example, those the media have got wind of, or where the Law Society has to pay compensation.

I am encouraged by the fact that Mr Murray states that all processes by the disciplinary tribunal are transparent and that all sanctions against solicitors are published. But this is only for a small minority of cases.

My suggestion is that a similar transparent system should apply to all complaints made to the Law Society. Should not the society publish annually the details of financial penalties it has imposed on its defaulting members.

A threshold of €10,000 could be used to avoid shaming minor offenders. The present system fails mainly because the body that represents solicitors in Ireland is also the body that is expected to regulate itself. A complaint to the Law Society does not intimidate a solicitor to any extent because the solicitor knows that he/she can go through the motions, maybe frustrate the complainant and at the end of it all, there is really no financial loss to the solicitor.

I regret this system is not in the long term interest of the legal profession and unless the Law Society takes a much tougher stance with members, disgraceful behaviour will continue and solicitors will be the losers in the long term.

No doubt there are many solicitors who act with great integrity and competence and these deserve respect, but when they are competing for business with a sizeable number of sharp practitioners, it is time for the Law Society to take a more effective stance on regulation.

Seán Ó Mathúna

Killester Park

Dublin 5