The Gazette 1961

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

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

years had given the profession an odious name by labelling

i members of the profession as criminals,

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.

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.

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