Lawyers look in a mirror—and all is not lovely

Press, 9 November 1978, Page 17

Lawyers look in a mirror—and all is not lovely

According to a nationwide random survey conducted in December, 1977, for the CBA-Marac poll, lawyers believed that the public thought they were more tricky, sharp, and overpaid than their clients actually perceived them. They also believed that the public saw them as wealthier, more conservative, superior, and unapproachable than the public did. These findings were reported in the “Conference Courier” which covered the events of the 1978 New Zealand Law Society Conference in Auckland.

“However on the negative side, the public is more likely to see lawyers as being wealthy people who earn a lot of money, as being somewhat tricky and sharp, as being somewhat flashy and trendy, as

being overpaid for the work they do, and as having too much influence in the community,” said the report.

Paradoxically, the public also saw lawyers as being more highly qualified and professional than lawyers regarded themselves. They were more likely to regard lawyers as being more intelligent, more honest and trustworthy, more competent at the job they did, and more concerned about the needs of the community for legal services. Those questioned in the survey were also more likely to see lawyers as people who acted in the clients best interests. “The public sees the job that lawyers do more as having a lot of prestige, as being complex and difficult, as rewarding and satisfying, and as being a

necessary one,” said the “Conference Courier.”

Practitioners sampled in the same poll were also asked why there were so many complaints about lawyers. Generally, they thought that the public had become more demanding (71 per cent); that there was a lack of communication between lawyers and the public (74 per cent); and of lawyers not providing a high enough standard of services (49 per cent). Specific factors contributing to the number of complaints included: lawyers not keeping clients sufficiently informed (89 per cent); being too busy or overworked (84 per cent); having inefficient office procedures (51 per cent); over-charging (47 per cent); and paying inadequate care or attention to work (45 per cent).

Law, like other professions and trades, has its share of rotten apples, says Mr R. L. Kerr, president of the Canterbury District Law Society. However, all complaints received by the society about malpractice in the legal field are thoroughly investigated. He denies that standards of conduct among lawyers have slipped. Last year there were 121 complaints against lawyers in Canterbury. So far this year there have been 87. (In comparison, the local Divisional Medical Practitioners Disciplinary Committee has received 18 complaints about its members so far this year, says the committee chairman, Mr J. W. Ardagh.)

One of the reasons for the slight reduction in the number of complaints against solicitors is probably because the work

load has fallen off and the lawyer is able to deal with his tasks more speedily, says Mr Kerr. Three practitioners were called before the Canterbury District Law Society Council last year to answer complaints against them. Two were fined and censured, and no case was found against the third. In the last five years, about 10 practitioners had been summoned before the council to answer complaints. Last year, another lawyer was also referred to the New Zealand District Law Society Disciplinary Committee, which struck him off the Law Practitioners’ Register. (The lawyer, Ewan Melton Johnstone, aged 49, was jailed for two years and a half in February this year on a charge of theft by misappropriation of $93,106. Most complaints against

lawyers involve a break’ down of communication or delays. Some are queries about legal costs and a small percentage relate to negligence and loss of

money as a result. “These people are the most sensitive about the inactivity of law society councils,” Mr Kerr says. Of those who complained, some were “obsessed,” more than 70 per cent had no justification, and about 10 per cent had been ’justified in complaining but necessary action had been taken by the pracititioner so that no further action was necessary by the council. Mr Kerr does not know why lawyers are criticised so vehemently about discipline of their fellow members; other trades and professions are responsible for their own discipline. Nor does he understand why lawyers are frequently accused of cov-

ering up in order to keep the profession’s image unsullied. “This is not true,” he says.

The public, Mr Kerr adds, could be ignorant of the disciplinary measures which were taken against some lawyers. Thej’ might also be suspicious about a profession which produced judges and magistrates who administered the law. Or else they think that lawyers exercise an extraordinary amount of clout? Mr Kerr promptly laughed at ‘he idea. He admits that dis-

cipline procedures are often carried out quietly and without publicity. Nevertheless, the effect of a practitioner having to explain himsel before his peers, and perhaps face their censure, is itself a salutory lesson — without publishing the lawyer’s name.

“Lawyers, being human, feel that publicity would not really do much in the public interest and would simply be a more serious penalty than was justified.”

The legal profession is often criticised, with some justification, as an elitist group which shuts itself away from public inspection. JENNIE HAMILTON looks at the way lawyers discipline erring members, and how they view themselves.