100 / 328
Bar Association supported the proposed rule by a majority
of one.
MR. J. N. BRENNAN (Wexford) stated that his association
hadreceived counsel's opinion that the rulewould
beultravires
and they were acting responsibly in stating that they would
not obey it. It would militate against old established firms
and he stated that his firm had been following the present
practice for over 100 years without any difficulties of the
kind suggested. Mr. Comyn was the only speaker who had
produced arguments or evidence but he was not convinced
by them. The motion was illogical. The society should go
the whole way or do nothing. It was either right or wrong
to act for both parties and he could see no sense or purpose
in a limited rule, but he did not agree with any rule of the
kind suggested.
MR. J .B.MAcGARRY (Dublin) stated that present practice had
existed in the past many years and he could not see any
undesirable consequences from it. Every solicitor realises
that he must avoid the conflict of interests. What was the
purpose of the new rule, was it to protect the public from
the profession or to protect the profession from the public
or to protect members of the profession from one another ?
A closed shop should be avoided and he was opposed to
trade union methods in dealing with the public. He thought
that the clients right of free choice must be upheld; if therewas
any malpractice the Bar Association's Rules coulddealwithit.
The public are always anxious to get cheap law and the side
effects of the rule might be worse than the present system
as it would result in hole and corner methods such as solici
tors lending their names in conveyancing transactions. The
proposal was inconsistent. If the society is sincere an un
qualified rule should be introduced. In conclusion he asked
whether the rule is necessary and enforceable. If the answer
to both questions is in the affirmative then bring in the rule.
MR. WILLIAM DILLON-LEETCH (Mayo) stated that he
supported the rule but not the limited rule on the agenda.
His firm was established in 1889 and he had many clients
who would seek to retain him for vendor and purchaser in
the same sale. He felt he could not do justice to both. He
mentioned the difficulty about a reserve price on an auction
and the possibility of disclosure or the fact that a client might
think the reserve price had been disclosed where the solicitor
acted for both sides. He referred to a case in which he acted
for a client who had lost money due to defalcation by a
member ofthe profession and had a claim on the Compensation
Fund. The solicitor had acted for both parties but fortunately
had elected to take the money as agent for the vendor but
the position might have been otherwise. He did not believe
that the full scale fees were charged where a solicitor acts
for both parties and he had seen bills which were evidence
to the contrary. He also thought that an analysis of losses
from solicitors' defalcations would show that a dispropor
tionate number of them arose in cases where you had one
solicitor acting for vendor and purchaser.
MR. J. A. CULLEN (Dublin) chairman of theDublin Solicitors'
Bar Association stated that the matter had been considered
by the Association and that owing to a divergence of views
they were not able to express any representative viewpoint.
MR. S. A. SIEV (Dublin) stated that there were abuses such
as price cutting but questioned whether such a rule would
stop it. There had been regulations prohibiting this practice
since 1955. Shortly after the regulations were introduced he
was asked by a prospective client to quote a fee which he
refused to do and was informed by the client that another
solicitor was prepared to do the work for less than the
commission scale fee. The name of the solicitor in question
was given by the party. He questioned the use of regulations
when such things could happen.
MR. N. S. GAFPNEY (Limerick) stated that the Limerick
Bar Association which had a membership of forty supported
the rule. The Association had made rules of the kind men
tioned which were effective and he knew of only one instance
where they had been broken since 1925. The member in
question had been fined. He supported the rule because it
was to the advantage of the public and the profession—
especially the younger members and he thought that the rule
should apply to private sales as well as auctions.
MR. JOHN KELLY (Roscommon) stated that his Bar Associa
tion unanimously opposed the rule. He blamed the solicitors
for vendors for allowing auctioneers to divert purchasers to
them. He thought the rule if made would be evaded by
dishonest and observed by the reputable members of the
profession.
MR. SEAMUS MAHON (Mullingar) for the Midland Bar
Association stated that his association unanimously supported
the rule. He advocated a postal ballot and said that a rule
should be made applying to all sales.
MR. JOHN LOUTH (Arklow) stated that the Wicklow Bar
Association opposed the rule unanimously. There would
be friction if the rule were passed and auctioneers would still
continue to divert clients even in the face of a rule.
MR.JAMES CODY (Bagenalstown) stated that he was personally
opposed to the rule but thought that a postal ballot should be
held and that a rule should be made if supported by 75 % of
the members.
MR. W. B. FAWSITT (Dublin) opposed the rule. He stated
that he had acted for vendor and purchaser in many cases and
experienced no difficulty. In cases of difficulty counsel
could be instructed to draw requisitions on title and protect
the purchaser's interests. In his experience the full commission
scale fees were charged where solicitors acted for both parties.
He thought that the rule would be unconstitutional and an
undue interference in solicitors' private affairs.
MR. D. H. KEARNS (Portumna) opposed the rule. He
stated that a resolution in favour of it had been passed at a
meeting of the Galway Bar Association with an attendance of
only eleven and by a majority of one vote. There were fifty
four solicitors in the county. He opposed the rule because
it would reduce his earnings. In most transactions the title
must pass the solicitor for a Bank or Building Society which
would be a sufficient safeguard. He suggested that a rule
might be made providing that equities must be discharged in
a case where one solicitor acted for both parties or that counsel
must be retained on behalf of one party. He was a member
of both the Tipperary and Galway Bar Associations and he
had lost several clients in Co. Tipperary where such a rule was
in operation.
MR. JAMES GLYNN (Tuam) chairman of the Galway Bar
Association suggested that a postal ballot should be taken and
that the Society should follow the result of the ballot.
MR. GERARD MAcGowAN (Balbriggan) stated that he is
the only resident solicitor in that town. In 90% of the sales
he acted for both parties and had found that where he acted
for both parties he could complete the transaction in about
one fifth of the time. He thought that expeditious service
was for the good of the profession. He did not accept the
insurance premium argument. The fees on one good sale
would pay the fees on a professional indemnity policy.
MR. JAMES H. MACKEY (Dublin) supported the rule and
stated that he had instances of cases in which acting for both
parties caused damage particularly in the granting of leases
of new houses. He read a clause in a contract which he had
received from a solicitor for a builder which provided that in
the event of the purchaser's engaging the builder's solicitor
his costs would be paid by the builder.
MR. CECIL VANCE (Bailieborough) opposed the rule and
stated that he considered there was no necessity for it.
MR. M. P. KEANE (Carrick-on-Shannon) opposed the rule
and stated that there would be no guarantee that the second
solicitor would be more competent than the first if the latter