47 / 462
GAZETTE
JANUARY/FEBRUARY 1992
was no suggestion of anything
which might tend to rebut that
presumption.
Those three all watched scenes
from Hillsborough on television, but
none of those depicted suffering of
recognisable individuals, such
being excluded by the broadcasting
code of ethics, a position known to
the defendant.
Lord Keith stated that the viewing
of those scenes could not be
equated with the viewer being
within sight or hearing of the event
or of its immediate aftermath, to
use the words of Lord Wilberforce,
nor could the scenes reasonably be
regarded as giving rise to shock, in
the sense of a sudden assault on
the nervous system.
They were capable of giving rise to
anxiety for the safety of relatives
known or believed to be present in
the area affected by the crush, and
undoubtedly did so, but Lord Keith
said that was very different from
seeing the fate of the relative or his
condition shortly after the event.
The viewing of the television
scenes did not create the
necessary degree of proximity.
Lord Ackner, Lord Oliver and
Lord Jauncey delivered concurr-
ing opinions and Lord Lowry
agreed.
Facts Faxed Too Fast
The advent of electronic trans-
mission of information has enabled
us to communicate expediently and
efficiently. Unfortunately, occasion-
ally speedy replies are accidently
sent to the wrong person or party.
In response to this possibility, many
lawyers include a disclaimer on
each
electronic
document
transmission.
The disclaimer
(1) states that the communication
may con t a in con f i den t i al
information which is intended
only for the individual or entity
named on the cover sheet.
( 2 ) prohibits the recipient from
reading, disseminating, copy-
ing or d i s t r i bu t i ng
the
information unless the reci-
pient is the intended recipient,
or the agent or employee of
the intended recipient, who is
responsible for delivering the
message to the intended
recipient.
( 3) requests the recipient to notify
immediately the sender of the
document that it was trans-
mitted in error and
( 4 ) requests the recipient to
immediately return all originals
wh i ch were
t r ansmi t t ed
erroneously.
Keeping Client Files
Lawyers often ask " how long do
we need to keep our clients' files"?
Some recommend that all files be
kept for a minimum of ten years
before they are destroyed. Each file
should be reviewed to determine if
the file should be kept longer. Files
should be kept more than ten years
if (1) the case involves a minor who
is still a minor at the end of the ten
years; (2) the file contains estate
planning information of a client
who is still alive ten years after the
work is performed; (3) the file
pertains to a contract or other
agreement which is still being paid
off at the end of ten years; or (4)
the file includes a judgment which
needs to be renewed.
The above notes entitled "Facts
Faxed Too Fast" and "Keeping
Client Files" were published in the
Newsletter of the Oregon State Bar
Professional Liability Fund
for May
1991 and August 1991 respectively.
Lawbrief
is grateful to James J
Ivers, Executive Director of the
Solicitors' Mutual Defence Fund
Ltd., in drawing the matters to our
attention, and to the Newsletter for
kind permission to reproduce.
•
Eamonn G Hall
Annual Review of
Irish Law 1990
RAYMOND BYRNE & WILLIAM BINCHY
The
Annual Review of Irish Law
in a single volume
each year provides the essential conspectus of cur-
rent developments in our law. No practitioner should
be without it'
The Hon. Mr Justice Brian Walsh.
The
Annual Review
provides a rich analysis on a
wide spectrum of law and should be a treasured part
of every lawyer's library'
Eamonn Hall, Solicitor.
This is a comprehensive review of exceptional
quality which is well written. This book, together with
its predecessors, is an invluable
vademecum
for all
modern practitioners'
Gerard Hogan, Barrister-at-
Law.
ISBN 0791-1084 £65.00
(Volumes for the years 1987 through 1989, each
£65.00).
THE ROUND HALL PRESS
Kill Lane, Blackrock, Co. Dublin, Ireland
Tel: (01) 2892922; Fax: (01) 2893072
28