The Gazette 1996

the respondent solicitor and they have

not made and do not intend to make an

Order under section 7 (9) of the 1960

Act as substituted by section 17 of the

1994 Act they shall make a report to the

High Court.

The High Court after consideration of

the Tribunal Report may make an order

to do one or more other things specified

in section 8 (1) of the 1960 Act as

substituted by section 18 of the 1994 Act

which include

inter alia

orders

striking the name of the respondent

solicitor off the Roll of Solicitors, or

suspending the respondent solicitor

from practice.

A respondent solicitor in respect of

whom an order has been made by the

Tribunal may, within a period of 21 days

from the date of service of the said

order, appeal to the High Court to

rescind or vary the order in whole or in

part and the High Court on hearing such

appeal may:

(1) confirm the sanction imposed by

the Tribunal on the respondent

solicitor or

(2) in relation to the respondent solicitor,

do one or more other things specified

in section 8 (1) of the 1960 Act as

amended by section 18 of the 1994

Act which include

inter alia

orders

striking the name of the respondent

solicitor off the Roll of Solicitors or

suspending the solicitor from

practice.

The respondent solicitor may appeal to

the High Court against a finding of

misconduct on his part by the Tribunal

and the court shall determine such

appeal when it considers the Report of

the Tribunal or as part of its

determination of any appeal to rescind or

vary an order made in whole or in part

by the Tribunal.

Where a respondent solicitor refuses,

neglects or otherwise fails to comply

with an order made by the Tribunal to

the extent it has not been rescinded or

varied by the High Court consequent on

an appeal to the High Court, the Society

or any aggrieved party to whom a sum

by way of restitution or part restitution

has been ordered may recover that sum

as a liquidated debt.

One of the most important distinctions

between the Disciplinary Committee and

the Disciplinary Tribunal is that, under

the 1994 Act, the Tribunal for the

purposes of an inquiry held by them

have the powers, rights and privileges

vested in the High Court or a judge

thereof on the hearing of an action in

respect of:

(a) The enforcement of the attendance of

witnesses and their examination on

oath or otherwise

(b) The compelling of the production of

documents, and

under oath of documents.

Meetings of the Tribunal are open to

such persons, in addition to the

parties summoned to attend and any

necessary witnesses, as the Tribunal

shall permit.

While the period under review has been

extended for this report, a substantial

number of applications have been

received by the Tribunal, particularly

from members of the public. This may

be a result of the initial publicity given

to the Tribunal rather than any growth in

public dissatisfaction with solicitors or

with the way the Law Society deals with

complaints.

A number of applications received by

the Tribunal were directed against

solicitors who were not acting for the

applicants. The Tribunal can very

seldom investigate such "third party"

complaints because the action

complained of may well have been taken

precisely on the instructions of the

solicitor's client. Consequently the

solicitor would be obliged to carry out

his instructions unless they were clearly

improper. Some of the complaints

concerned the manner in which

solicitors were conducting civil

proceedings on the clients' behalf

against the applicants. In such cases

the allegations made were obviously

matters for the courts and the

applicants' own solicitors rather than

the Tribunal.

The Tribunal expects that allegations of

complaint should be clearly identified. It

should not be expected to peruse

correspondence in order to ascertain the

nature of the complaint and what matters

are outstanding. In this regard

correspondence between the parties

should disclose with clarity the basis of

the complaint and what remains

unresolved.

Delays and lack of communication

continue to be a well justified cause of

complaint and would appear to emanate

from inefficient procedures in solicitors'

offices and from inadequate resources to

deal with all matters properly. Failure to

keep a client adequately informed of the

progress of the client's business often

leads to the client assuming that nothing

is happening and he blames the solicitor.

Consequently the image of the

profession suffers. While solicitors are

often the purveyors of unpalatable

advice and engaged in contentious

business they are nevertheless

responsible for enhancing the image of

the profession.

The Tribunal also had to consider cases

which involved serious breaches of

the

Solicitors Accounts Regulations

such as allowing deficits to arise on

client accounts and misappropriation

of clients funds. Such cases are often

very stressful for all concerned and

usually lead to the name of the

solicitor being struck off the Roll

of Solicitors.

Solicitors wishing to be called to the

Bar must have their names removed, at

their own request, from the Roll

of Solicitors. The Tribunal made three

such orders during the period

under review.

I would like to conclude by recording

my thanks to the members of the

Tribunal for their co-operation and hard

work and look forward to working with

them during the coming years. Mary

Lynch, Clerk to the Disciplinary

Tribunal, has contributed greatly to the

efficient working of the Tribunal and the

implementation of the provisions of the

1994 Act. A special word of thanks is

due to her.

Dated 22 November 1996.

Walter Beatty,

Chairman