310 / 328
The Council have been in correspondence with
the Irish Auctioneers' and Estate Agents' Association
on the subject of their respective fields of professional
activity of solicitors and auctioneers.
In a recent
issue of the GAZETTE members are informed that
proceedings have been instituted by the Society
against a house agent who had drawn up an agree
ment for letting of a furnished flat, his remuneration
consisting of the usual commission on the making
of a letting. As the house agent refused to give an
undertaking to discontinue this practice, proceedings
were instituted against him by the Society and were
subsequently withdrawn on his giving the desirable
undertaking and indemnifying the Society against
the costs of the proceeding. The Council wrote the
Irish Auctioneers' and Estate Agents' Association
to notify them of the proceedings and asking them
to advise
their members
thereof, which
the
Association agreed to do. The Association have
drawn the Council's attention to their view that
solicitors should not undertake work which the
Council of the Association considered to be the
proper responsibility of the auctioneers and estate
agents. They referred particularly to the practice
of solicitors advertising properties for sale and
letting by private treaty and also undertaking work
normally dealt with by estate agents. The Council
have replied stating that they would be unable to
find themselves in agreement with the Association,
if it were suggested that solicitors should not
undertake land agency and rent collection work
which has always been part of the normal practice
of solicitors, although they cannot claim an exclusive
right in it any more than auctioneers, accountants,
or members of the public.
With regard to the question of advertisements by
solicitors offering property for sale or letting, the
Council of the Society are in agreement with the
Association that in the interest of the respective
bodies and their members, solicitors should not
hold themselves out as undertaking such work. It
has, however, been pointed out to the Association
that there is no legal prohibition which would
prevent
solicitors or any
other person
from
advertising property for sale or letting on the
instructions of clients, and that cases do occur in
which clients may direct solicitors to perform this
work. The Council have stated that members of the
Society who have been so instructed by their clients
could not legitimately refuse to accept instructions
having regard to the particular relations which exist
between solicitors and their clients. Subject thereto,
the Council wish to recommend to members of the
Society that solicitors should not undertake the
work of advertising property for sale or letting
without direct instructions from clients.
The
Association have already at the Society's request
sent out a circular drawing the attention of their
members to the fact that it is illegal for an unqualified
person to draw up a contract for sale, lease or other
document relating to real or personal estate directly
or indirectly in expectation of fee or award.
GUARDIANSHIP OF INFANTS ACT,
1963
This Act contains very little new matter, it being
largely a question of consolidation of previous
statutes.
However, Section 6 provides that the
father and mother of an infant shall be guardians of
the infant jointly. This being the logical outcome
of the Supreme Court judgment in Tilson Case
(1951) I.R. i. Provisions of Section 8 which are
termed to be new really make provision for the
appointment and removal of guardians by the Court.
Section n, which deals with applications to the
Court, makes provision that the Court may order
the infant to have a right of access to his father or
mother and that the father or mother may be
required to pay towards the maintenance of the
infant, such weekly or periodical sum having regard
to the means of the father or mother the Court
considers reasonable. Such an order may be made
on the application of either parent notwithstanding
the fact that the parents are residing together, but
an order as to the custody and maintenance shall not
be enforcible and no liability shall accrue while
they reside together. Section 12 provides that the
Court may vary or discharge any order previously
made by the Court under Part 2 of the Act, which
deals with guardianship.
WORK COVERED BY RETAINER
On 4th March, 1964, Mr. Justice Wilberforce
ruled in the High Court in England that the Electrical
Trades Union had succeeded in principle in its
action against its former solicitor, Mr. Maurice
Aaroh Tarlo. The Union had sought a declaration
that Mr. Tarlo was entitled only to a retainer of
£1,500 a year while in the Union's employment.
Mr. Tarlo, who had been provided with an office
and staff had his superannuation contributions paid
by the Union, contended that he was also entitled
to profit costs appropriate to a solicitor in private
practice.
It was said after the case that the Union
would be entitled to recover approximately £17,000
from Mr. Tarlo.
The judge also awarded the
Union the costs of the seven days' hearing except
a small portion attributable to the costs of an
accountant called by the Union.
The Costs are
expected to amount to about £10,000. The Judge
found that Mr, Tarlo's work on contentious matters