The chairman of the Advocates’ Disciplinary Tribunal says he has ’no objections in principle’ to holding its hearings in public.

Currently, the ADT’s hearings into allegations of professional misconduct made against island lawyers are held behind closed doors - and only its findings are made public.

But giving evidence to the Tynwald constitutional, legal affairs and justice committee, ADT chairman Peter Scott was asked by Chris Robertshaw MHK whether it was ’right and proper’ that hearings are in private, in contrast to other jurisdictions.

Mr Scott replied: ’We have no objection in principle to the matters being held in public except where children are involved or the usual exceptions. We have no objection to moving to a public hearing.’

Committee chairman Jane Poole-Wilson MLC said: ’You’ve said you would be comfortable with hearings in public in future with obvious exceptions to that.

’That would of course enable everyone, the wider public to understand what sort of cases you’re hearing, what the sort of issues are, perhaps themes, trends that come up. At the moment we just see the published findings.’

ADT advocate member Jeremy Callin said he didn’t think there was anyone on the tribunal who ’isn’t totally in favour of matters being as open as appropriate’.

He added: ’There are some situations where we would have to be conscious of matters being in private.

’A number of complaints that come before the tribunal do relate sadly to matrimonial situations where there would be confidential issues and issues involving children.’

complaints

The committee was told that about a third of complaints would not go forward for investigation. Fewer than 10%of cases result in a finding against an advocate.

A standard evidence test is used with an allegation having to be proved beyond reasonable doubt, a high threshold, the committee heard.

With cases that don’t go through, it is usually ’almost immediately apparent’ fromthe basic application that it’s never going to overcome that hurdle, Mr Scott said.

He said: ’You can see right away that it’s flawed. If there is the slightest doubts in our minds we ask the advocate to produce an answer to the allegations.’

Mr Callin said that a number of complaints that come before the tribunal are seen as being malicious or spurious but if they satisfy the test of being potentional misconduct ’we feel duty bound to consider them and have a response from the advocate and then do look at them’.

Tribunal member Peter Wood said there were cases that didn’t pass the hurdle but where it was felt ’something has gone wrong’ and word was passed back to the Law Society.

He said some cases last longer than five years.

Mr Wood said: ’It’s not a delay, it’s just repetition of events.

’How do I explain this nicely? - adjourning of events that go on and on. We are just one of the forums in which this occurs.

’It would perhaps go to the Chancery court, it would come back and the next thing it would go to the Advocates’ Disciplinary and go from the Advocates’ Disciplinary to a petition of doleance and back again.

’It just goes on. We try to get things through as speedily as we can.’

case

Mr Wood said the average case would take six to nine months.

Mr Callin said the tribunal did not believe it should be given the power to award compensation to a complainant. ’It’s not really seen as part of our jurisdiction or role to be determining the question of negligence,’ he told the committee.