![Show Menu](styles/mobile-menu.png)
![Page Background](./../common/page-substrates/page0067.jpg)
r leading to the passing of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act,
1960 and also dealing with the present position of the Com-
,
pensation Fund. Copies of the report of the Compensation
[ Fund Committee for the year 1960/61 were distributed.
[
MR. JAMES CAWLEY (Dublin) asked whether the Society is
K> now under any pressure from the department to ask the
!
Minister to bring section 31 of the 1960 Act dealing with the
accountant's certificate into operation. The President replied
i
that the Society had not received any communication from
the Minister.
MR. T. J. O'KEEFFE (Roscommon) speaking for the
Roscommon Bar Association opposed the introduction of the
accountant's certificate provisions. He said that it would not
have the desired effect because a dishonest solicitor would
always find ways around the section. The fees charged by
accountants might be prohibitive and .would increase overhead
costs. His association thought that the soliciting of opinions
at ordinary general meetings would not give a representative
view point as the meetings would be dominated by Dublin
solicitors and he suggested a secret postal ballot. He further
stated that his association thought that the legislation intro
duced as the result of the initiative of the Council in recent
i
years had given the profession an odious name by labelling
i members of the profession as criminals,
r
MR. J. B. MACGARRY (Dublin) stated that the issue before
[
the meeting was the most vital which had been discussed for
many years and that every member should express an opinion.
The members had come to decide whether the accountant's
certificate provisions would be in the interests ofthe profession.
He thought that such a proposal would be ill-timed, ill-
conceived and unnecessary. Every solicitor is bound by the
Solicitors' Accounts Regulations and the Society can demand
an audited accounting statement from any solicitor. There
had been laxity between the years 1923 and 1940 which had
led to the present position followed by Governmental indif
ference between 1940 and 1954 and subsequently between
1958 and 1960. Only thirteen complaints had been received
by the Disciplinary Committee last year which had led to
orders striking off solicitors in three cases. He asked the
meeting to give the Council a chance to operate the provisions
of the new Act. He further stated that he thought section 31
of the 1960 Act was repugnant to article 40 of the Constitution.
He closed by saying that if the Society were to bring section 31
into operation it would be an acknowledgment by solicitors
that the profession cannot be trusted without control from an
outside agency.
MR. EDMUND CARROLL (Fermoy) said that all members are
in agreement with the Solicitors' Accounts Regulations already
introduced but the procedure under section 31 would not be
effective. He said that the meeting had no information as to
what would be the nature of the regulations to be made under
section 31
(b).
He was rather against the introduction of
accountants' certificates because many small offices do not
employ accountants and in some cases the expense of an
audit might be as much as 100 guineas per annum. He
suggested for consideration the alternatives of a five-yearly
audit of each solicitor's accounts or an audit of a number of
solicitors accounts each year to be selected by lot.
MR. W. J. ALLEN (Galway) opposed the introduction of
section 31 on the grounds already stated by other members and
the additional ground of the difficulty in obtaining auditors'
certificates. Many accountants have no professional qualifica
tions and auditors could not be compelled to produce certi
ficates within a given time.
MR. W. J. DILLON-LEETCII (Ballyhaunis) stated that the
Mayo Bar Association are totally opposed to the proposal of
bringing in section 31.
MR. G. Y. GOLDBERG (Cork) said that the Southern Law
Association were unanimously opposed to the proposal.
Nevertheless he said we must take facts as we find them. The
Council had authorised the last president to give an under
taking to the Parliamentary Secretary that members would be
canvassed on section 31 with a view to its eventual introduc
tion. The matter must be discussed and he felt as an individual
that sooner or later the Society would be met by a demand
from the Department to introduce the certificate failing which
the Department would do it for the Society. The Society must
then offer alternative suggestions or sound reasons why it
should not be introduced. The President had in his speech
pointed out that the solicitors' branch of the profession
contributes a sum of .£14 to the Society of the King's Inns
from the stamp duty on each apprentice's indentures and that
the Society makes a direct contribution of £500 per annum to
the Incorporated Council of Law Reporting. He thought we
were the most imposed on profession in any country. He
thought that the accountant's certificate provisions might be
a small contribution but would not deter a dishonest solicitor.
He thought that there were not so many dishonest solicitors
as to cause alarm. Finally he said that if the accountant's
certificate provisions are introduced there should be a breathing
space of five to seven years. He thought the real answer to
the problem of defalcations is partnerships. It was inopportune
to introduce section 31 at present.
MR. S. A. SIEV (Dublin) stated that we were living in a free
country but that freedom is being replaced by restrictions.
The profession was being driven into a position of indignity
as the result of twenty-two solicitors in respect of whom
claims had been made on the Compensation Fund. The annual
contribution of £20 to the Compensation Fund ought to be
removed.
Section 31 would be an additional burden. He
thought that the accountant's certificate provisions would be
of no real value.
MR. J. HALPIN (Cavan) said that the Cavan Bar Association
agreed with the Roscommon and Mayo Bar Associations in
opposing the introduction of section 31.
It would have no
useful effect.
The accountants' certificates are required in
England but defalcations there had been heavy. He referred
to the difficulty and expense of getting accountants in country
districts.
He did not agree with Mr. Goldberg that the
Minister would eventually pass legislation if the Society
refuses to co-operate.
If the Council could operate the full
client-indemnity provisions of the Compensation Fund now in
operation he thought the Minister would not insist on the
introduction of section 31. On the other hand if claims are
not met the Minister might introduce legislation.
MR. ENDA GEARTY (Longford) opposed the accountant's
certificate provisions on the grounds advanced by other
members and also on the ground that section 31 might lead
to compulsory disclosure of clients' affairs to auditors. Figures
might be disclosed for unauthorised purposes. Other pro
fessions were not subject to requirements of this kind and he
thought that the Society had sufficient powers.
MR. EUNAN McCARRON (Dublin) stated that the Society
has already got the necessary powers. Why should these
powers not be used ? If a solicitor was intentionally defrauding
clients an auditor's certificate would not deter him.
He
suggested that spot audits might be made of individual
accounts in proper cases.
MR. JAMES CAWLEY (Dublin) asked the meeting to consider
the realities of the position. He said that it is unreal to suggest
that the Society and the profession are not answerable to the
Department of Justice. It was also unreal to discuss the matter
as if it involved the question of honesty only. In the majority
of cases defalcations arose from inefficient business manage
ment and incompetence without direct dishonest intent.
It
was even more important to-day that a solicitor should be
a businessman than that he should be a skilled lawyer. He
thought it incredible that solicitors who are entrusted with
vast sums of clients' monies should claim to be exempted
from having their accounts audited which is a minimu
61