15 / 244
The Society has received a letter from the Attorney
General stating that the judges of the High Court
have now agreed that the personal attendance .at
Green Street o f a solicitor applying for an
assignment, is not necessary, provided that the
following procedure is observed.
The solicitor seeking the assignment should
sign a form to the following effect:
“
I,
, Solicitor, hereby apply
to His Lordship, Mr. Justice
, sitting
at the Central Criminal Court that I may be assigned
as
solicitor for the defence o f
on
the charges about to be preferred against him/her,
nd I undertake, if so assigned, personally to take
instructions for his/her defence from the said
, and personally to attend the trial from day
to day.
(Dated)
(Signed)
The Dublin agent of the solicitor seeking the
assignment should attend in Court with the above
authority when the case is listed for assignment,
fhe arrangement does not affect the position of
Counsel who are proposed for assignment, or affect
r control the discretion o f the judge in assigning
solicitor and Counsel.
PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT-
TOUTING
")
n
April 22nd, the Chief Justice considered a
report from the Statutory Committee finding
‘hat a solicitor had been guilty of professional
misconduct by canvassing and touting for business
as a solicitor. The report was brought before
ae Court on notice of motion moved by Council
on behalf of the Society. The particulars o f the
nisconduct were as follows :—■
(a)
That the respondent had approached one,
AB, on or about the 7th April, 1947, at
the private residence of the said AB , having
been requested so to do by a medical
practitioner, with a view to obtaining the
instructions o f the said AB , to act as his
solicitor in an action for the recovery of
damages for personal injuries received,
and that he had accepted instructions from
the said AB, when he knew, or ought to
have known, that the said AB, was already
represented by another solicitor, without
making any enquiries from the other solicitor
as to the circumstances in which the latter
had received instructions so td act, arid that
he had knowingly sought and canvassed
instructions from the said AB , to act as his
solicitor.
(b)
That
the
respondent had personally
approached one CD, a client o f the com
plainant on or about the 7th April, 1948,
when the said CD was an inmate o f a hospital
under treatment for personal injuries
received as the result o f an accident, and
solicited the said CD, to employ the
respondent as his solicitor in respect of
legal proceedings which were expected as
a result o f the accident, and to cease to
employ the complainant as his solicitor
in connection with the said contemplated
proceedings.
The Chief Justice confirmed the report o f the
Committee finding the respondent guilty of
professional misconduct, censured him very severely,
and ordered him to pay all the costs o f the
proceedings before the Committee and before
the Court.
PROFESSIONAL ITEMS
Conversation between Counsel
W
hen
a defendant in the Dublin Circuit Court
recently applied to have a judgment by default
set aside and for liberty to enter a late defence,
one of the grounds upon which his application was
based was a conversation between counsel in the
Law Library. It was set forth in his notice o f motion
and deposed to in an affidavit made by his solicitor
that the defendant’s counsel spoke to the plaintiff’s
counsel in the Law Library and informed him that
owing to the lateness at which he had received
instructions it would be difficult for him to have a
defence drafted within the time limited, and asking
him if he would have any objection to the time
being extended. The plaintiff’s counsel, who was
unaware of any negotiations between the solicitors,
said that as far as he was concerned he had no
objection to any extension of time being granted
if such were applied for. No further communication
took place between the solicitors, and the defence
not having been entered the plaintiff proceeded to
mark judgment by default. Judge Barra O Briain
stated that such conversations should not be referred
to in affidavits or made the basis of any application.
Meredith, J. had expressly disapproved o f the
practice and he (Judge Barra O Briain) was fully
in agreement with that view. It would be impossible
for counsel to agree to facilitate a colleague if there
11