A former judge has suggested that a previous comment made by ex-High Court president, Justice Peter Kelly, needs to be reassessed. Justice Kelly had previously noted that court litigation was financially viable only for the “paupers and millionaires.” However, according to the retired judge, this should now be reconsidered to “multimillionaires.”
Justice Deirdre Murphy has pointed out that the current legal system does not provide adequate access for most citizens. In her opinion, it is reasonably debatable whether the state has a constitutional responsibility to offer all citizens appropriate access to the law and assert their rights.
In his remarks from 2018, Justice Kelly indicated that due to litigation costs, only “paupers”, given it’s impractical to demand any legal expenses, or individuals of significant wealth, are capable of pursuing litigation in the High Court.
At a gathering hosted by Solicitors Growth in Naas, County Kildare, which was attended by a sizeable crowd of solicitors, Justice Murphy expressed that changes in state policies over the past decade or two have had a profound effect on the legal field. These changes have left smaller firms endangered.
The prohibition by the Competition Authority on limitations for entering the Bar have led to an oversupply of around 2,500 barristers without sufficient workload. Murphy claims that in a fight for survival, the chase for justice and fairness can often become secondary.
She also emphasises the growing trend of law turning into a commercialised and corporatised sector. This shift has transformed law from a profession into a “business” that operates on the principle of “billable hours”. The onus to meet these hourly billing targets has taken a toll on young practitioners in larger firms, who feel compelled to remain in their offices until they’ve fulfilled their hourly quota.
She questioned why the government doesn’t assess the work done by large companies, set a price for it, and open it up for bid. Small businesses are finding it increasingly difficult to secure government contracts, thereby affecting their survival rate. These are the firms that most commonly interact with residents.
One illustration of this is when a €11 million insurance requirement was made mandatory for businesses bidding on projects from the National Asset Management Agency. This severely restricted smaller firms from participating.
The Solicitors Growth group should stand up against the government’s policy to ensure a fairer allocation of work. Should smaller firms and independent attorneys vanish, there would be no one left to represent cases that challenge the state’s authority as substantial corporate businesses lack interest in such cases.
She also referred to the Ireland for Law initiative which positions Ireland as a prominent hub for global legal services. This venture is supported by the State, the Industrial Development Authority, and large firms and has incentivised numerous international law firms to establish their presence in Ireland, driving mergers with local small to medium-sized firms.
This international expansion, she claimed, doesn’t offer any advantage to the average Irish citizen, but instead only benefits a small group of highly paid lawyers.
She argues that the Government and the Industrial Development Authority need to clarify the plans to manage this influx of international business, and if it will impact the High Court’s ability to uphold its main responsibility of ensuring the law and defending citizens’ rights.