The Law Society’s council’s move to publicly endorse a ‘Yes’ vote in the upcoming referendums has sparked a heated debate. Solicitor Gareth Noble, a renowned practitioner in the fields of family and child law, has opted to quit the society’s family and child law committee due to the stance of the council. Concurrently, Solicitor Jennifer O’Riada expressed her dissatisfaction to The Irish Times over the council’s position, accusing it of stepping beyond its boundaries and powers.
Noticeable objections were raised on social media by several lawyers, arguing that the society’s 11,500 members weren’t included in the discussion prior to the council’s 39-member panel releasing its statement. In response to the critique, the Law Society, in a recent statement, highlighted that it officially took similar stances in three other referendums – after thorough deliberation and subsequent decision-making. These included the Divorce Referendum in 2019, Marriage Referendum in 2015, and the Children’s Referendum in 2012.
The council, described as “the representative and governing body” of the society, chooses its position on the referendums based on bylaws approved during the Annual General Meeting of the Law Society by its members. It is believed that the decision was arrived at following the recommendation from the society’s family and child law committee. All 39 council members were then emailed for their opinions on the stance that should be adopted for each referendum.
The majority of the council members who responded, which constituted just more than half, were in favour of a ‘Yes’ vote in both referendums, each of which contains two proposals. The first proposal, the ‘family’ amendment, aims to widen the constitutional protection for families beyond those based on marriage to include “other durable relationships”. The second, the care amendment, suggests the replacement of Article 41.2, which currently obligates the State to “endeavour” to support woman’s work at home, with a new Article 42B, committing the State to “strive” to aid family members who care for one another.
Mr Noble expressed his concerns regarding the public endorsement made by the council in favour of a Yes vote in both referendums, stating that this decision was made without proper consultations conducted with Society members. He personally supports the family amendment with a Yes vote but opposes the care amendment with a No vote. He explained that his assessment of the care amendment is that it provides no binding rights to carers, those needing care and those needing empowerment.
He criticised the Law Society for not mirroring this view correctly. Mr Noble bemoaned that in a time of widespread misinformation, the Law Society, which the public rely on for legitimate information, choosing to take sides in the referendums instead of providing balanced arguments for both sides.
Ms O’Riada, a practicing solicitor of more than four decades, expressed immense respect for the work of the society but disagreed with the council taking a public stance on both referendums. She believes it overstepped its purview by promoting a specific position.
Ms O’Riada disagrees with the council’s referendum stance personally and takes issue with the Law Society due to its advocacy. With no polling conducted among its 11,500 members, she finds issue with the Society’s promoting of one stance.
She voiced her concerns to a council member, only to learn that legal measures such as a High Court injunction initiating the withdrawal of the council’s statement were too late and too prohibitive in cost.
She decided to reach out to The Irish Times after Taoiseach Leo Varadkar referenced the Law Society’s position while promoting a double Yes vote, which was the final straw for her.