One question I have is whether law reform bodies would benefit from broadening their disciplinary expertise in the social sciences in order to enhance their capacity for such matters as analysis of the operation of the legal system and policy problems (for example through statistical analysis) and the unintended effects of past and proposed reforms. Some law reform bodies (for example Canada, and New South Wales) have even appointed commissioners from social science disciplines (eg sociology, psychology). There is a very substantial social science expertise in the operation of all aspects of the legal system internationally (with empirical research published in journals such as Law & Society Review, Law and Social Inquiry, and Law and Policy). Many legal academics do bring substantial interdisciplinary expertise, of course, and that may be sufficient, particularly where social science expertise can be brought in on an ad hoc basis for particular reports.

Further to my earlier post I notice that the Canadian government ceased funding the federal Law Commission in 2006, without technically abolishing it. I hope and trust that political support was not undermined by the routine practice of maintaining one social scientist amongst the commissioners.

The 6 reports where part of a new Programme of Law reform which will run till 2014. Areas Included are juries, sexual offences, ADR, Victims and criminal law etc etc

Bertie ahern spent over 1m on personal consultants. And the same figure is probably spent on all party commitees discussing a single section of ONE piece of legislation

THe law Reform commission is the right structure and is full of practising members of the law profession. Suggesting that law lecturers and students could do better is disingenuous and mildly insulting

Again I can’t see why university law faculties couldn’t do such work with the right structures in place. There’s no reason why a university team should be unable to carry out a consultation phase similar to that of the Commission.

Also when would the new LRC meet when a law creates an issue that the government wants changed or when a controversy occurs. Both would be inadvisable

Law Reform Commission: In other countries this function is left to academia. I would suggest the LRC be subsumed into a university law faculty. A voluntary (unpaid) board of solicitors, barristers, judges and academics could review papers submitted by members of the profession, and doctoral/masters students. The best or suitable ones could be then published. These review boards are very common is the states and less so here. Students and practitioners are always carrying out excellent research and a proper forum for publishing it would be welcome and the prestige of being published would suffice for payment.

* The abolition of the Law Reform Commission is proposed. It is suggested it should notbe a permanent body and temporary groups can be set up to investigate specific areas.

* The merger of the Labour Relations Commission with the Labour Court is proposed.

* It is proposed that Ordnance Survey Ireland, The Valuations Office and the Property Registration Authority should be merged. (This makes great sense.)

* A merger of Comreg and the Broadcasting Authority is proposed. The PRA is not included in this. The error in the first post should be corrected if possible.

As a small employer, I had reasonably good experience of the LRC recently. An ex employee made a claim and we reached agreement under their guidance or mediation. Sure it could be better and quicker, but it was a lot faster than the courts. (Amount: €3,000)

As a consumer, I had a great experience with the Financial Services Ombudsman. Processed the complaint very quickly. Listened to both sides and made a decision. (Amount: €100k)

I have no direct experience of the Small Claims Court, but those who have used it, praise it.

Both of the above were done without any money spent on the legal profession.

By comparison, I have spent around 18 months pursuing a business debtor through the courts for a sum of €9,000 and there is probably another 12 months to go. There are solicitors and barristers involved on both sides.

I would welcome an informal system where I make my claim, I represent myself and I pay my own costs. This would dramatically reduce costs to businesses; it would reduce the number of people who abuse the court system to avoid paying creditors and it would remove a lot of time consuming cases and paperwork from the courts system.

Mulligan

If McCarthy thought about saving money on a cost benefit analysis, which is I thought the bread and butter of economics, then surely cutting what are almost essential needs of any society is highly dubious

If it was just about saving money why not close the prisons or all the District Courts? He must have thought these ideas laughable but to cut the cogs essential to the smooth running of the justice system is equally dubious

At first glance abolition of junior / senior counsel distinction sounds like a good idea but I suspect parties would still end up paying same amount in many cases.

Re abolition of solicitor/barrister distinction I suspect they didn’t propose that as Competition Authority has considered it and rejected it.
Reminder of other Competition Authority proposals:
http://tinyurl.com/law490

Insofar as the removal of the distinction will make it a meritocracy and will lessen the requirement for the State to engage senior counsels for High Court and Supreme Court cases where the complexity does not require a senior, it is welcome.

It will also allow junior barristers to charge senior counsel rates for certain types of cases. This is to be welcomed as many juniors are as good or better than seniors but don’t want to cut out a chunk of their practice by being elevated to a higher fee level. (One could say that any senior counsel can charge what he or she wants but the Law Library is a small place physically and in terms of numbers and structures are in place to maintain a highly “collegiate” Bar).

My brother-in-law is a barrister so don’t get me started. A specialist in nothing but has an opinion on everything - actually, he does specialise in collecting properties from distressed families for his ‘portfolio’. The whole system could do with reforming - it is archaic.

I agree with you on getting Civil Servants to listen to advice though. Litigating against some of the local authorities is not like litigating against a rational person. Sometimes, the people making the decisions do not seem to be concerned about the cost to the state or the huge costs to other people who are entitled to expec tthe state to act lawfully. For a party of resources to keep upping the ante in terms of legal costs is offensive enough when that party is a private entity acting rationally. It is even more offensive when it is a public body acting irrationally!

I don’t know what kind of tipstaffs you have come across but I have never seen one performing any useful function.

County Registrars are the heros of the Courts systems. Cutting them does not make sense to me unless you are going to have more junior people doing the same work for less pay. I certainly do not think County Registrars are underworked/

Property Registration Authority

I would be sorry to see the Property Registration being merged. It has done huge work over the last number of years and has huge projects on the horizon. The Authority has shown a flair for IT projects that puts other bodies in the ha’penny place. One would fear for a dilution of the body. Perhaps shared resources should be put in place rather than mergers?

Law Reform Commission

Law Reform is a crucial part of making ourselves competitive and of reducing transaction costs. I would be interested to know who will perform these functions in the future. Given the strategic importance of law reform it seems folly to get rid of the law reform commission.

For instance, our employment and labour legislation needs to be radically overhauled and simplified. Who will do that?

Giving more power to NERA

I cry at the thought of it.

Duplication of Advice

This is an excellent point. At the moment we have a situation of one law for Kerry and another law for Donegal in the case of statutes where the competent authority is the Local Authorty or a branch of the HSE. The application of law should be uniform and the expertise should be share. I suggest that there is huge scope for a Web 2.0 took to help solicitors for local authorities and the health boards share counsels’ opinions and legal research. The State has paid for these opinions and research so the results should be shared amongst all providing services to the state.

Private Residential Tenancies Board / Employment Appeals Tribunal

I think the members of the PRTB and the EAT are not working as hard as they should be. I think there needs to be an examination of the throughput, hearing hours and expenses. The EAT secretariat is fine body and the EAT itself does push case loads but they start late and finish early.

If the PRTB is merged with the PRSA then I hope the PRSA people are put in charge.

List generally

I suggest that there should be a costs penalty for any case which settles on the steps of the Court, EAT, PRTB etc. I think who should pay such cost should be a point of negotiation between the parties. Obviously the party in the wrong will be under more pressure. This should help courts and other bodies reduce lists.

I suggest that there should be WIFI in all courts and facility for Gardai to be working on their paper while there. I also think there should be a mechanism for Garda evidence to be given on affidavit by consent in the case of a plea. It is worth considering Garda evidence being given by video from some of the larger Garda Stations.

It irks me that there is no mention of the wastage of time and resources caused to citizens and legal practitioners by inefficiencies in the Courts. A Garda not turning up can cost two or three days work for a minor offence. A judge turning up late and lists not being divided into different time slots can wast a few month’s work if you add up the man hours. On the WIFI - I think this should be extended to all courts and legal representatives and witnesses should be encouraged to avail of it.

Even in unified professions, the distinction rapidly reasserts itself between trial practitioners and office practitioners. After all, solicitors have full rights of audience in every court, and can run any case they want to. If you’re the client, you can ask for that. Just as in medicine, if you want a referral to a specialist, then it’s up to you.

Reducing the number of County Registrars means the work will be done slower, meaning more costs and delay, which easily outweighs the costs associated with the County Registrar, as well as undermining the other aims. Bad idea.

The judges already have research assistants. Courts are already used for more than one case a day, if possible. Judges already do CPD, including as chairs of CPD events. One would wonder who was advising them on this aspect…

If you get rid of the long vacation, no-one will be able to get things sorted out - when in Court, it’s dead time for all other aspects. Judgements, etc, will be late, again leading to delay and costs. Bad idea. After all, time the courts are out but are ticking off the judgements and filing is time not costing the State money. Monday sittings, however, I’m fine with (albeit the superior Court already sit on Mondays for motions and lists).

Stopping independent arms of the State litigating against each other is a tiny bit problematic, when one considers the role of people like the Human Rights Commission.

Abolishing the LRC, while tempting given the shambles it’s become, isn’t a good idea either, if you want to save money into the future.

Getting rid of the distinction between juniors and silks ignores the fact that other professions do have such grades - ask a consultant if she’s an SHO - and also ignores the fact that almost no other Common Law jurisdiction does function without that distinction. Also, abolishing everything across a legal system to save the State money isn’t really on.

If they really want to save money, make the various departments settle earlier, and make them listen to the advice they’re given instead of the Civil Servants insisting that they’re right no matter what.

Rationalise the industrial relations institutions (Labour Court, LRC, EAT, etc.). The Board notes that the very complex structure for industrial relations institutions has to be simplified and streamlined. The rationalisation should include:
• the merger of the Labour Court and the Labour Relations Commission;
• the transfer of activities such as the administration for Joint Labour Committees and the Rights Commissioners to the National Employment Rights Authority;
• consideration of the merits of merging the Equality Tribunal into the rationalised IR structure, given that many of its cases occur in the workplace; and
• discontinuing functions such as the Industrial Relations Advisory Service, the Workplace Mediation Service, industrial relations research, public relations, etc.

Merge the Health & Safety Authority and the National Employment Rights Authority into a single Work Place Inspectorate.