102 / 110
114
The Gazette ol the Incorporated Law Society of Ireland.
[APRIL, 1913
his connection with the Association was un
professional, at once severed his connection
with it, it was sufficient to order him to pay
the costs of the proceedings.
The Committee of the Law Society found
that the respondent Solicitor was cognisant
of and party to the formation in November,
1908, of the Manchester Property Association,
in which he became, in February, 1910. and
remained until November, 1911, a partner;
that from
its formation he financed the
association, and during his partnership partly
controlled its affairs ; and that he acted thus
with a view to the employment by him of the
association as an adjunct to his business as
a Solicitor:
that by the agency of the
association
the
respondent systematically
solicited debt-collecting and business transfer
work, and that in certain cases he did so
without disclosing his connection with the
association and with a view to procuring for
himself the litigious business in connection
with such work ;
that the terms upon which
the
respondent, by
the agency of
the
association,
solicited
debt-collecting
and
business transfer work, and upon which he
conducted the several proceedings and the
several actions mentioned in the committee's
report were champertous and improper.
Upon these findings, and upon the facts
stated by them, the Committee reported that
the respondent had been guilty of professional
misconduct within
the meaning of
the
Solicitors Act, 1888.
Mr. Justice Channell, in delivering judg
ment, said that the statutory committee had
found that the respondent had been guilty
of professional misconduct within the meaning
of the Solicitors Act.
It had been said in
several cases that upon such matters the
Court would almost invariably act upon the
opinion of the gentlemen who formed the
Committee of
the Law Society.
These
gentlemen were the most competent to decide
upon professional matters of this kind, and
the analogy drawn in
In re a Solicitor
(28
The Times
L. R. 50) from the medical pro
fession was, he thought, a good analogy.
This Court, although it would in a proper
case differ from the Law Society, did not
lightly do so in cases of that nature.
In this
case the Court agreed with the judgment, if
he might so call it, of the Committee to the
effect that the respondent had been guilty of
professional misconduct. The question then
was, what order the Court ought to make, it
being a case brought within the disciplinary
jurisdiction of the Court.
The facts were
rather special. The respondent was connected
for some time in business with the associa
tion ; he was party to its formation.
It was
an association which contemplated a mode
of remuneration of the respondent which was
of a champertous character, namely, a share
by way of percentage of
the property
recovered. At the same time it had not been
decided by the Court, when the particular
association was formed, that it was improper
for a Solicitor to be connected in that way
with a debt-collecting business.
The res
pondent was not guilty of any fraud or mis
appropriation ;
there was nothing of that
kind ;
he was simply a party to that un
professional arrangement. As soon as the
case of
In re a Solicitor (supra)
was decided
he at once altered his position in reference to
the association, and that was the strongest
circumstance in his favour which induced the
Court'to take a lenient view of his position.
The respondent's conduct was clearly not so
bad as was that of the Solicitor in
In re a
Solicitor- (supra),
in which case the Solicitor
was suspended for twelve months ;
so it was
obvious that if the present respondent were
to be suspended he ought not to be suspended
for so long a period as twelve months.
It
was not very useful to suspend a man if they
did not see their way to suspend him for a
substantial period.
In the circumstances the
Court came to the conclusion that it would be
sufficient to order the respondent to pay the
costs of the proceedings.
Mr. Justice Bray and Mr. Justice Coleridge
concurred.
(Reported 29
The Times Law Reports,
354.)
GALWAY PETTY SESSIONS.
THE
INCORPORATED LAW SOCIETY o?
IRELAND,
Complainants ;
TIMOTHY NAUGHTON, of 35 Shop Street,
Galway. Publican and Farmer,
Defendant.
March 10, 1913.—
Wrongfully acting as a
Solicitor
—
Using false description.
THIS was a summons at the suit of the
Incorporated Law Society of Ireland, under