78 / 736
Appeal by Solicitor Fails
An action by a solicitor for an injunction, inter
alia, restraining officials of the Law Society from
requiring him to disclose certain confidential infor
mation in respect of clients' affairs was "obviously
misconstrued", said Mr. Justice Diplock.
The Court dismissed the appeal of Mr. A. G.
Parry-Jones a Barry solicitor, against an order of
Mr. Justice Buckley striking out the endorsement
on the writ in an action brought by him against
the Law Society and certain of its officials, as dis
closing no cause of action. The solicitor argued
that the society could not require him to produce
under rule 11 of the Solicitors' Accounts Rules,
1945, information which was subject to an obliga
tion of confidence between solicitor and client.
The Master of the Rolls, giving judgement, said
that section 29 of the Solicitors Act 1957 stated
that the council of the Law Society "shall make
rules" with regard to the keeping of accounts by
solicitors. Necessarily the statute imported that
the rules could trespass upon the confidential ob
ligations between solicitor and client if it was
necessary in order to comply with the rules. It
seems that rule 11 of the Solicitors' Accounts
Rules (which requires a solicitor to produce docu
ments for the inspection of any person appointed
by the council) was a valid rule under the statute
which overrode any confidence or privilege which
might exist 'between solicitor and client.
The duty of confidence between solicitor and
client was subject to and overridden by the duty
of any party to the confidence to comply with the
law of the land and if it was the duty of such a
party, whether under common law or statute, to
disclose, in defined circumstances, confidential
information, then we had to do so.
Mr. Justice Salmon agreed with both 'the judge
ments of Denning M. R. and Lord Justice Diplock
(Parry-Jones v Law Society, Times, November
16th 1967).
Continuous Practice, as Solicitor
Section 29 (2) of The Solicitors' Act 1954 pro
vides that a solicitor who has not at some time
been in continuous practice as a solicitor for a
period of seven years, cannot without special leave
of the Society take an apprentice. It has been held
by the English Chancery Division that a Solicitor
who in four out of five years had been late in
Obtaining a practising certificate could not claim
to have been continuously in practice for that
period although he 'had in fact been practising
during the whole period.
The pupose of the application to the Court was
to establish whether or not he was entitled to
take an apprentice. Pennycuick J. in delivering
judgement stated that the applicant's first prac
tising certificate had been taken out on 7th March
1960, and since then he had been continuously in
practice, at first as an assistant to another soli
citor, and later on his own account. The word
"continuously" needed qualification because on
four occasions had not taken out a practising
certificate until after the end of the month's period
of grace allowed by the Act. It was inescapable
that during a relatively short period in each of the
four years, the applicant although in fact prac
tising as a solicitor, was not doing so lawfully, and
it was impossible to say as a matter of construction
that he was in practice during those periods within
the meaning of Section 41 of The Solicitors' Act
1957 (ADLAM v. Law Society, Times Newspaper,
9th November, 1967).
Delay — A Disgrace to Profession
Criticism of court procedure was voiced by Mr.
Justice Phillimore when giving judgement in a
case which arose out of a road accident 10 years
ago. He blamed the plaintiff's solicitors for the
delay and added: 'It is indeed a shocking story
and a disgrace to the legal profession'.
The plaintiff was 20 when injured, when being
driven home by Mr. Donal Wales, now her hus
band after a party. His car and a car driven by
Mr. Stanley Charles Fitt, formerly of Stepney,
whose whereabouts had not been traced, collided
at a light-controlled crossing.
Mrs. Wales sued her husband and Mr. Fitt. The
sole issue of liability depended on whether the
lights were in favour of Mr. Wales or Mr. Fitt.
Judgement was entered for £3,200 damages and
costs against Mr. Fitt.
Referring to court procedure his Lordship
stated: 'I question whether this case does not
involve some criticism of present procedure. Our
system is to leave the conduct of litigation in the
hands of the litigants. The plaintiff has the prin
cipal conduct of the case, but if he does not get
on with it it is open to the defendant to apply to
dismiss the case for want of prosecution.
70