170 / 736
to give his professional opinion. The view of the
I MA is that he can do this more objectively when
his fee
is not subject to the outcome of lita-
gation.
Yours sincerely,
NOEL REILLY,
Secretary.
Probate Office
23rd July, 1968
The Probate Officer,
Four Courts,
DUBLIN 7.
Dear Sir,
I shall be obliged if you will let me know the
present position under
the
rules as
to com
munication between solicitors and the Probate
Office through the Post Office. Is it possible at
present
to bespeak
by post
copies
of wills,
grants, etc. with notification of fees payable sent
to
the solicitors by post to avoid unnecessary
journies from his office. Most of the other public
offices such as the Estate Duty Office and the
Land Commission are encouraging and in some
cases
insisting on communications
through the
Post Office rather than personal attendance. The
matter is becoming more urgent for solicitors
having regard to the time involved in travelling
and
queing
for
attention
in
various
public
offices around the city. Information on this point
would be of great assistance to my Council.
Yours faithfully,
ERIC A. PLUNKETT,
Secretary.
The following reply was received on 25th July,
1968:
Dear Sir,
I have to say in answer to the first proposi
tion
in your letter of the 23rd inst.
that the
position remains unchanged, that is, that appli
cations for Grants of Probate or Letters of Ad
ministration are still governed by Order 79, Rule
3
(1962 Rules), which disallows applications by
letter, where the Probate Office is concerned.
The Second issue raised by you, that is, re
quisition
to Probate Office,
through
the post,
for
copies
of Wills, Grants and other documents,
is neither mentioned in, nor proscribed by the
Rules of Court.
In
these circumstances,
this
facility for bespeaking
copies
through the post
will be granted
to Solicitors who require
it.
Where however the practitioner cannot supply
the date of the relevant Grant, a Search by an
Official of the Probate Office would be necessary
to ascertain it, and this would entail an addi
tional expense factor.
I
trust the foregoing is
the information you
desire.
•
i
Yours faithfully,
PROBATE OFFICER.
CASES OF THE MONTH
National Insurance; Solicitor's Articled Clerks
By agreement between the fathers of two articled
clerks in a firm of solicitors it was agreed that
the clerks should be articled, and that although
the articles would not contain a provision for
payment to the clerks they would be paid from
the day they started the actual cost of travel
between the house and the office and of lunches
on days of attendance at the office. No pay
ments were made on days of non-attendance at
the office. The question arose as to whether the
firm was liable to pay National Insurance con
tributions and this question turned on whether
or not the clerks being in receipt of the cost of
their lunches and travel were "gainfully occupied"
within the meaning of the National Insurance
Acts.
Cooke, J. said that the payments were made
solely as a result of the articled clerks' employ
ment and in his opinion they were thus gainfully
employed under the contract of service. What was
gained was free
travel and free lunches. The
fact that there was no profit
to
the articled
clerks themselves did not nulify the actual gain.
Solicitor, Professional Negligence, Complaint by
Law Society.
The Council of the Law Society of Scotland made
a complaint against a solicitor in respect of an
alleged breach of the Solicitors'
(Scotland) Ac
counts Rules 1952, as amended, whereby as at
31st May 1966
the total sums due
to clients
exceeded the amount in the client bank account
by £15,646. After a hearing the Discipline Com
mittee found him guilty of professional miscon
duct and fined him £25. The deficiency was
cleared by
the
solicitor before
the Council's
complaint was heard by
the Discipline Com
mittee. The Council appealed to the Court of
Session under Section 7 of the Solicitors' (Scot
land) Act 1958 which provides inter alia that
any person aggrieved by
the Discipline Com
mittee may within 21 days appeal against the
decision to the Court of Session and crave that
the Court should substitute a further censure
and fine a graver punishment. It was contended