The Gazette 1972

It would appear to have made it highly unlikely that there will be any such transfer. After all you don't pass a law one week and then take it off the statute books the next. The Westminster Government had a perfect opportunity in this situation to make clear where the power and control over security lies but in fact by the Northern Ireland Act, 1972, they have given Stormont more power. It Would be unlikely that they would do this today and take away all security power tomorrow. All the objectives of protecting and empowering the Army could have been achieved by an act validating the existing regulations under the Civil Authorities (Special Powers) Act and action thereunder. In addition the regulations could have been validated for a future limited period of time, say for one year. This time period would then have necessitated proper consid- eration by Parliament at Westminster of the question as to which Parliament should control, co-ordinate and authorise security and law and order powers. Now what has been substituted is a major constitutional amend- ment in the form of the Northern Ireland Act 1972 and a projected Parliamentary debate on security powers. The Irish Times (25th February 1972) Note —This article was written before the British Government introduced the Northern Ireland (Conse- quential Provisions) Bill 1972 on March 28th.

It will mean, depending on the terms of the Indem- nity Act, that, for example, the case of Moore, the former detainee who was awarded the maximum dam- ages by Judge Gonaghan at Lurgan last week, could, if the Government here so wished, be appealed and under the terms of the new Act, with everything retrospec- tively "legalised", he would perhaps lose his case. Again of course it means that there is no point in anyone trying, on the strength of our High Court decision, to bring any action against troops for, say, arrest, for detention or internment, for the treatment meted out which the Gompton Report verified, for anything, in other words, that soldiers have done that might have been dubious under the law and open to challenge. To your knowledge is there such an Indemnity Act in preparation? As far as I know there has been one on the stocks for several months. Ever since the introduction of intern- ment and the possibility raised by it that some time— normally this is used when disturbances have ended— an indemnity process might be needed. But if the indemnity process were introduced now it could have the effect of giving a freer hand than would be under any circumstances desirable, to soldiers. The whole thing is disturbing for many reasons. Finally, Dr. Palley, do you think this has affected in any way the current speculation and demands about the transfer of security control to Westminster?

Should Builders' and Developers' Solicitors act (or Purchasers?

for builders and developers from acting for prospective purchasers from their own clients. The Council referred to the Solicitors (Professional Practice Conduct and Discipline) (Amendment) Regula- tions 1971 (S.I. No. 344 of 1971) made by the Council on 16th December 1971 substituting a new paragraph five of the principal regulations as follows. "(5) A solicitor shall not obtain or attempt to obtain professional business by directly or indirectly without reasonable justification inviting instructions for such business or doing or permitting to be done without reasonable justification anything which by its manner, frequency or otherwise advertises his practice as a soli- citor or doing or permitting to be done anything which may reasonably be regarded as touting and it shall be the duty of a solicitor to make reasonable enquiry before accepting instructions for the purpose of ascertaining whether the acceptance of such instructions would involve a breach of this regulation." In the opinion of the Council the practice indicated by member would be in contravention of this regulation and it was decided that this matter should be brought to the attention of members of the Society. 78

A member wrote to the Society referring to the situation in Dublin and other parts of the country whereby builders and developers of housing estates recommended to a prospective purchaser of a new house that they should use the builders' or developers' solicitors who would act for them at a fee well below the scale under the Solicitors Remuneration General Orders. Member says that he knows from his personal knowledge and has been informed by a number of colleagues that this practice is widespread and that solicitors for builders and developers accept these prospective purchasers as their clients and charge fees which are a great deal less than the statutory scale fee. In the present example he cites a case in which a client asked him to state hi« charge for the purchase of a house for £6,000. He informed the client of the fee recommended in the March/April edition of the Society's Gazette, £90 for property without a mortgage and £120 for a property with a mortgage. The client said that the transaction would be done by the builder's solicitor for £50 and that the builder had asked him to go to his own solicitor which he subsequently did. Member suggests that the Council should make a regulation forbidding solicitors