COMMENT/Ken Murphy: There are few restrictions of any real significance on competition in the profession.

Just one of the 52 paragraphs in the Taoiseach's speech to delegates at the IMI conference in Killarney last weekend referred to the Competition Authority's "recent study of the professions in Ireland". Yet, on the day that US forces broke through to Baghdad, the biggest Irish story on RTÉ television news was a single vague allegation of "profiteering" by unspecified professions for which the Taoiseach seemed to claim the Competition Authority as his source.

The solicitors' profession was just one of eight professions that were the subject of a study by consultancy firm Indecon, which was retained by the authority. The other professions concerned can speak for themselves but, to whatever extent the Taoiseach intended to refer to the solicitors' profession, I would point out that no allegation of "profiteering" is in fact made by the Indecon report. Nor would one be justified.

In reality, although this may not suit the preconceived notions and agendas of some media commentators, Indecon found few restrictions of any real significance on competition in the solicitors' profession in Ireland. Indeed, many of their recommendations for change are welcomed by the Law Society or, if implemented, would be likely to prove very minor in their effects or impractical.

The society has long been on record as welcoming the authority's decision to study the provision of certain professional services.

It is in the public interest that such services be reviewed from time to time to ensure that any inherent restrictions in competition result in consumer benefits and are proportionate to such benefits.

There is much in the Indecon report with which the society would wholeheartedly agree - not least the extremely positive assessment made by Indecon of the society's regulatory and education systems.

The solicitors' profession believes in competition. It also believes in protecting the public. Getting the balance right between competition and protecting the public is very important.

The society is pleased to note the assurance of the Competition Authority that the report represents the views of Indecon and not the views of the authority, because there are some areas where we believe the consultants have got the balance wrong.

The society welcomes the finding by Indecon that "apart from the restriction on other institutions providing the professional education and training of solicitors, we believe the current educational and training requirements are not disproportionate to achieving their intended goals of ensuring minimum standards of competence and professionalism among newly qualified solicitors. Nor do we have any evidence that the educational and training requirements are used to restrict or damage competition on the market."

However, the society doubts that it would be practical to seek to supply its professional training course at venues outside of Dublin as Indecon recommends. It seems unlikely that the annual requirement of more than 500 solicitors to teach the course could be met outside of Dublin in as small a jurisdiction as Ireland.

The solicitors' profession here is open to automatic transfer from more than 100,000 solicitors qualified in England and Wales, together with a further 2,000 in Northern Ireland. A three-year period of restriction on such solicitors who originally qualified in third countries, such as Singapore, is identified as problematic in the Indecon report.

However, the number of individuals in this category who have approached the society, of the order of just four per annum, is insignificant in a profession that grew by a record 474 new solicitors in the past year under review.

On advertising, Indecon questions the restrictions preventing solicitors from highlighting superior specialist knowledge or making unsolicited approaches to clients or members of the general public. In respect of "superior specialist knowledge", the risk is of potential clients being misled by baseless claims. In relation to unsolicited approaches, one can imagine the public outcry if it became possible, for example, for a solicitor to "cold call" the bereaved offering probate services having seen a death notice in a newspaper.

Indecon recommends the introduction of "licensed conveyancers". In Ireland we can learn from the experience of the introduction of licensed conveyancers in the 1980s in England, Wales and Scotland, where they may reasonably be viewed as a damp squib. The market share of licensed conveyancers in England and Wales is about 3 per cent and in Scotland, which is more comparable to Ireland in terms of population and number of solicitors, the number of licensed conveyancers - who are regulated by a system that cost £1.5 million sterling (€2.2 million) to establish - is currently two.

The reason why they have not succeeded is that they could not establish in business successfully in the highly competitive and low-profit conveyancing market. We believe the same would apply here.

The society welcomes the Indecon recommendation that the ban on solicitors forming limited liability businesses is no longer necessary. Indecon also recommends deletion of the statutory prohibition on solicitors forming multidisciplinary practices. However, in its judgment last year in the Nova case, the European Court of Justice, the ultimate authority on interpretation of the principles of EU competition law (the same principles on which Irish competition law is based) held that a prohibition on lawyers entering into partnerships with non-lawyers was justified even though it was anti-competitive.

The society looks forward to the next stage of this study. Solicitors welcome competition and have nothing to hide on this issue or on any other.

Ken Murphy is the director general of the Law Society