The Gazette 1961

declined to act for both parties. He also thought that the

rule would not remedy the abuse of fee cutting as a solicitor

who obtained a new client as the result of the rule would ba

more tempted to reduce fees in order to retain the client.

MR. W. A. OSBORNE (JAthy) stated that the Kildare Bar

Association were opposed to the rule.

MR. RAYMOND C. MEREDITH (Dublin) stated that his firm

would never act for both parties where there is a conflict.

He opposed the rule and stated that it should have universal

application or it should not be made at all.

MR. T. P. O'REILLY (Ballyconnell) opposed the rule on the

ground that he was the only resident solicitor in Ballyconnell

and the diversion of clients to other towns would cause

hardship to them and would reduce his practice.

MR. B. J. LYNCH (Carrick-on-Shannon) stated that in view

of the great difference of opinion in the profession he did not

think that a majority obtained by a postal ballot would justify

the introduction of the rule.

MR. C. McGuiix fDundalk) opposed the rule and stated

that solicitors must be given credit for ability to decide

whether there is a conflicting interest.

It would lead to a

diversion of clients and slower service.

MR. G. Y. GOLDBERG (Cork) supported the rule as being

for the benefit of the profession and the public. There was

always a danger of a conflict of interests when a solicitor

acts for both parties. The council were not seeking to impose

the rule but wanted to obtain the views of the profession.

He supported Mr. Dillon-Leetch and thought that the rule

was perfectly fair and constitutional.

MR. W. D. McEvoY (Gorey) stated that conditions are

completely different in the city and the country. He referred

to the opinion of counsel obtained by the Wexford Bar

Association and stated that he thought that the rule was a

reflection on the intelligence and integrity of solicitors.

MR. J. A. KENNEDY

(Carrickmacross)

stated that he

opposed the rule.

MR. W. P. TOOLAN (Ballinamore) opposed the rule. He

thought the main arguments in favour of it i.e. price cutting

and touting were insufficient. If the present rules prohibiting

these abuses were inadequate they could be strengthened and

he thought that the cases which were mentioned previously

should have been brought to the notice of the society.

MR. JAMES SMITH (Arva) opposed the rule and stated that

be knew of only one case where a solicitor was made liable for

damages in a conveyancing transaction. In that matter he acted

for one party only. A careful solicitor will always draw up

a proper contract. In cases of conflict he will send his client

to another solicitor or instruct counsel. The Bar Associations

could regulate fee cutting. He did not think that the proposed

rule would prevent auctioneers from diverting clients to

certain solicitors. He was the only solicitor resident in Arva

and if the rule were made he would have to send clients

thirteen miles to seek other advice and he would get no

return by receiving clients from other towns. He did not

understand why sales by private treaty were excluded from

the scope of the proposed rule.

MR. BARRY STEEN (Navan) stated that the resolution of the

Meath Bar Association in favour of the rule was passed at a

badly attended meeting and then only by the casting vote of

the chairman. He personally opposed the rule.

The President in closing the discussion said that the council

were not trying to force any regulation on the profession.

The discussion at the Ordinary General Meeting in Galway

was inconclusive although a slight majority of the speakers

at that meeting appeared to be in favour of a limited rule.

He did not understand the references to the sincerity of the

proposers of a rule. As drafted it was intended to meet the

views of a number of the speakers at the Galway meeting who

were not prepared to go the whole way and advocate a

universal rule. A limited rule would meet the biggest abuse

of touting by auctioneers and undesirable relations with

solicitors. There was also the difficulty which arises when

there are two adjoining Bar Associations one of which has

a rule and the other has not. He went on to say that no

regulation would be brought in without a postal ballot. He

did not know whether there would be a postal ballot as the

council would have to reconsider the matter. The rule making

authority under the Solicitors Act was vested in the council

not in a general meeting but the council were taking steps

to inform themselves of professional opinion on the matter.

There was no doubt what the predominant opinion of the

members at the present meeting was on the subject but it

did not follow that it was representative of the entire pro

fession and the duty of the council was towards the profession

as a whole. The council would have to consider the legal

points raised at the meeting and no further step will be taken

without adequate notice to the profession.

The proceedings then terminated.

CORONERS BILL, 1961

The Coroners Bill, 1961 has now passed the

committee stage in Dail fiireann and it is obtainable

from the Government Publications Office, ("price

z/- nett). The following is an extract from the

Ddil Debates

for Thursday, I5th February, 1962,

and contains a discussion on what is now section

35 (2) of the Bill.

Section 35

(2) now reads as

follows :

" A coroner or deputy coroner shall not hold

an inquest on the body of, or inquire into the

death of, any person if he has drawn up, or

assisted in the drawing up, and is a beneficiary

under, any

testamentary disposition made by

that person."

" MINISTER FOR JUSTICE (MR. HAUGHEY) : I move

amendment No. 30 :

In subsection (2), page 12, line 46, to delete

' who is a solicitor or barrister '.

It has been pointed out that sometimes a coroner

who is a doctor might assist in the drawing up of

a will under which he would be a beneficiary and

that, therefore, the prohibition in subsection (2) of

Section 45 on ' legal' coroners holding inquests

should be extended to medical coroners when they

find themselves in the same position. Under the

subsection, as proposed to be revised, any coroner

or deputy coroner will be prohibited from holding

an inquest or inquiring into the death of any person

where he has drawn up or assisted in drawing up

the will of the deceased person and benefits under it.

Amendment agreed to.

MR. McGiLLiGAN :

I move amendment No. 31 :

In subsection (2), page 12, line 49, to delete

' and is a beneficiary under '.

I want to delete certain words. The object of this

is that a person should not act as a coroner in the

case of a death where, prior to that death, he has

helped in the drawing up of a will or a testamentary

disposition. The matter is limited to those words.

He is precluded from acting only if he has assisted