68 / 328
requirement in every other business. He pointed out that
solicitors are being asked to account for monies which they
hold on trust. No question of the auditing of solicitors' profit
and loss accounts arises.
In the interests of the profession
itself members should agree to be subject to the jurisdiction
of the Society in regard to what he regarded as a minimum
requirement. The English system of law is followed in this
country and the accountant's certificate provisions are in
operation in England. He thought the profession is sick and
that it is futile to adopt the attitude of the ostrich. In his view
there is no substance in the argument that auditors might
disclose clients' affairs or that the audit might be used for
improper purposes. He did not look forward to paying
sur-charges to the Compensation Fund for the dishonesty or
incompetence of other solicitors. He thought we had time on
our hands now to set our house in order which we know is
not in order and that it would be advisable to introduce
section 31 with a breathing space.
MR. D. P. SHAW (Mullingar) said that there are two schools
of thought. One represented by solicitors who now have
their accounts audited, the other by solicitors who have not
adopted the practice of audited accounts. He was in favour
of the accountant's certificate. Solicitors are given the privilege
of receiving clients' monies.
They had the duty and the
responsibility of assuring the public that their monies entrusted
to the profession are safe. He did not think personally that
the Minister for Justice would insist on the accountant's
certificate provisions having regard to the fact that the Society
have accepted a statutory duty of providing full indemnity
from the Compensation Fund. He referred to the Compensa
tion Fund Committee report which he said showed a short
fall of over £23,000 in the monies available to provide for
indemnity. He thought that a further contribution might
have to be levied on the profession to make up this deficiency.
How can this be prevented, he asked, unless the profession
are united behind the Council in taking the necessary measures
to ensure the solvency of the Fund ?
MR. F. J. LANIGAN (Carlow) stated that he opposed
section 31. He thought that there was adequate machinery
available to the Disciplinary Committee and the Registrar's
Committee to make inquiries into a solicitor's financial position.
Only a small percentage of solicitors defaulted. He thought
that a period of seven to ten years should be allowed to
elapse before
the accountant's certificate provisions are
introduced and that there should be a yearly discussion.
MR. D. BOUCHIER-HAYES (Dublin) asked the meeting to
consider what is the image of the solicitor before the public.
He said that it is not favourable. One per cent, ofthe profession
can hold the whole profession up to odium. It was a miscon
ception to think that the adoption of section 31 and the
accountant's certificate provisions involved an imputation of
trickery or anything of that sort as regards the profession. He
instanced the cases of public bodies and State companies
whose officials are subject to compulsory audit. He thought
that the profession was taking steps to redeem its reputation
and that the Council should not wait until their hands are
forced. The issue before the meeting was whether or not the
profession would govern itself. Section 31 was the answer.
MR. DESMOND COLLINS (Dublin) stated that he did not agree
with the last speaker and he enquired whether stockbrokers
are subject to compulsory audit provisions.
MR. JAMES ROWLETTE (Sligo) speaking personally stated
that he opposed the suggestion of a compulsory certificate on
principle although he had his own accounts audited. He
thought that it would cheapen and belittle the profession.
MR. JOHN CARRIGAN (Tipperary) speaking for the Tipperary
Bar Association stated that his association approved the
introduction of section 3i subject to a breathing space which
should be left to the Council of the Society. He also personally
agreed with the proposal for accountants' certificates.
MR. C. P. FORDE
(Dublin) said that he agreed with
Mr. Rowlette on the question of principle. He enquired
whether the profession is to be placed in pawn to accountants
and stated that it would be similar to asking a surgeon to
obtain a certificate from an undertaker as to his professional
record. We should try to keep accountants out of our business.
MR. R. J. TIERNEY (Dublin suggested as an interim measure
that (i) any solicitor should be permitted to lodge with the
Society voluntarily an annual accountant's certificate and that
solicitors who do so should be indicated by a suitable mark in
the list of practising solicitors in the Society's calendar,
(ii) Such solicitors should be given an abatement in the
Compensation Fund contribution,
(iii) Each candidate for
election to the Council should undertake to lodge an annual
accountant's certificate with the Society.
MR. DESMOND MORAN (Dublin) stated that the decision on
the Solicitors Act case had put things back and that he thought
that the discussion should be postponed to see how the
present machinery works for some time.
MR. G. M. DOYLE (Dublin) stated that he thought that
section 31 should not be brought into operation for the
reasons given by other members.
MR. N. S. GAFFNEY (Limerick) said that a meeting of the
Limerick Bar Association had been held but that no decision
had been reached.
Speaking for himself he thought that
section 31 ought to be brought into operation both from his
own personal experience as a practitioner and from his
experience as a member of the Disciplinary Committee. The
greater number of defalcations were due to mismanagement.
Solicitors who got into trouble found themselves in an
irretrievable position when it was too late. He cited the
examples of New Zealand and Scotland where the accountant's
certificate is required.
In these countries the profession
opposed these certificates at first but the majority of the
profession subsequently realised that they were wrong and
when the accountant's certificate provisions were introduced
it was found possible to reduce the Compensation Fund
contribution. The nature and extent of the audit and the form
of the certificate was a matter to be prescribed by the regula
tions made under the Act. He thought there would be no
difficulty with proper regulations in having the matter dealt
with satisfactorily. He also thought that an audit is advisable
in every solicitor's business.
MR. PATRICK NOONAN (Athboy) said that the Meath Bar
Association opposed the introduction of section 31. He was
personally in favour of its introduction because he objected to
paying £20 per annum into the Compensation Fund for the
defaults of other practitioners. He did not think it was any
insult to be asked to produce an accountant's certificate. He
was not impressed by the suggestion that the Minister might
bring in a section over the head of the Society. He would let
him bring it in. Solicitors who defaulted did not go wrong
suddenly. There must be some kind of check if the profession
were not going to pay for them. He knew of cases in which
solicitors had their accounts audited but the audit disclosed
that there was not sufficient money in the client's bank account
Unless the accountant's certificate is produced to the Society,
this kind of position could not be controlled. He was also in
favour of spot checks. He ended by saying that without
control what he described as the running sore of mismanage
ment would continue.
THE PRESIDENT closed the discussion saying that as chairman
he did not propose to express his personal opinion. He stated
that the Council would not without the support of the
profession ask the Minister to bring in section 31. It would be
idle to think that everything in the garden is lovely. He
thought that there was no hope of reducing the Compensation
Fund contribution and that the probability was in the opposite
direction.
Correspondence received from bar associations shows that