386 / 736
Professional Negligence Indemnity Insurance
There was a general discussion on the subject
of two schemes received by the Society. The matter
was referred to a special committee for considera
tion and early report back to the Council.
Change of solicitor — costs
A client who owed his solicitor a substantial
sum for costs transferred his retainer to another
office with instructions to sell his business premises
and to discharge his liabilities out of the proceeds.
The only secured creditor was a bank and the
proceeds of the sale would barely cover the
amount due to the bank. The bank would not
permit the second solicitors to pay the costs due
to the solicitors originally acting and the last
mentioned solicitors suggested that the second
solicitors should not act further unless they had
authority to pay the costs. A committee of the
Council which considered the matter in their
report referred to opinion DR 22 of the Council
which states that there is no general or universal
rule whereby a solicitor should not act for a client
in business where the client is being represented
by another solicitor unless provision is being made
by the client for payment of the other solicitor's
costs.
In the circumstances the Council did not issue
any direction in the matter being of the opinion
that each case must depend upon its own facts
and that it would be inappropriate to issue any
direction without a complete investigation inclu
ding the client's reason for wishing to change his
solicitor.
the purchaser's solicitor should advise the client
not to buy where no such warranty or indemnity
is available. If the client decides to proceed with
the transaction after advice to the contrary it is
his own responsibility. It is pointed out that the
Society's standard conditions by public auction
and private contract leave scope for amendments
and additional matter in the schedules and in
negotiation between the parties and their solicitors.
Sale by way of transfer of shares
Members who are engaged in purchasing a
company by way of transfer of shares, the prin
cipal asset being leasehold property valued at
about two thirds of the total assets, ask for
guidance as to the appropriate method of charging
their costs. The committee referred to Opinion C
26 of the Council which stated that in such a case
the solicitor would be entitled to charge the com
mission scale fee on the value of the freehold or
leasehold property provided that,
1. Title is deduced and investigated pursuant
to a contract for sale.
2. There is a price on which the commission
scale fee can be calculated.
3. There is an assurance of the property, the
subject of the contract duly completed and
registered.
The report of the committee on the present case
stated that where the work envisaged by the scale
fee is substantially done even though no assurance
of the property is necessary then the appropriate
scale fee might be taken as a guide, although not
as a rule, in assessing the Schedule 2 charge.
Society's standard conditions of sale
A member wrote to the Society stating that as
they understood the position it turned out after
the exchange of the contracts that roads and other
services were not in charge and that a suitable
indemnity is not available the purchaser can do
nothing about it, this not being the question of
title. The member suggested that Counsel for the
Society should be asked to advise on this matter
in connection with the standard conditions of sale.
The matter was referred to Counsel who replied
that it would be an intolerable burden for the
vendors to take on as a matter of course a war
ranty that roads had been taken over when in
most cases of building estates they have not been
and he suggested that the simple answer is that
CURRENT LAW
DIGEST
SELECTED
In reading
this
digest regard should be had to
differences between Irish and English statute law.
Administration
A former clerk of a council whose employment ceased
when areas were altered by government order succeeded
in his claim that an industrial tribunal was wrong in law
when deciding that they could net consider afresh his
claim for resettlement and long-term compensation. The
.compensation had been assessed by the council on the
basis of emoluments he had expected to receive, but, as a
partner in a firm of solicitors, he had received much less.
Myrddin-Baker v. Teeside Corporation.
Q.B.D. 28/1/70.
[Judgment delivered January 26]
100