165 / 244
Solicitors’ Remuneration
On a report from the Special Committee the
Council approved o f the draft statement in support
of the application for an increase in solicitors’
remuneration and amendments to the General
Order.
The Secretary was directed to have it
engrossed and submitted to the Chief Justice as
soon as possible.
VACANCY FOR LECTURER TO THE
SOC IETY
The Council invite applications for the position
of Lecturer in Equity and Real Property. Any
member wishing to apply for the appointment
should communicate immediately with the Secretary.
SOLICITORS SHARING
AUCTIONEERS’ COMMISSION
W
here
a solicitor is retained to buy or sell, or
otherwise to act as agent for a client and obtains
a profit from the transaction from a third person
the solicitor is obliged to account to his client
for the amount of the profit so received. In this
respect the legal position o f a solicitor is not dis
tinguishable from that o f any other agent. Under
the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1906, Section 1,
it is a misdemeanour punishable by imprisonment
for an agent to accept or obtain corruptly from any
person any gift or compensation as an inducement
or reward for doing or forbearing to do any act
in relation to his principal’s affairs, or for showing
or forbearing to show favour to any person in
relation to such affairs. In the opinion o f the Council
if evidence were produced to the Society that a
solicitor had accepted a share of auctioneers’
commission without disclosing it to his client,
the vendor, such evidence would raise a
prima facie
case of professional misconduct which would
justify an application by the Society to the Statutory
Committee against that solicitor.
The onus of
showing that the profit so received had been
disclosed to the client would rest upon the solicitor.
If the evidence showed that the solicitor had
accepted a share o f auctioneers’ commission in
consideration of showing favour to the latter in
relation to the client’s affairs the solicitor might
also be exposed to proceedings under the Pre
vention of Corruption Act, 1906. This statement
is limited to the case where a solicitor himself
shares an auctioneer’s commission. It is not mis
conduct for a solicitor to arrange for a reduction
in the amount of the auctioneer’s commission
on a sale, or for a refund of all or part of the
advertising expenses, where the arrangement is
made on the client’s instructions and the moneys
received are duly credited to the client.
DECISIONS AFFECTING THE
PROFESSION
Withdrawal o f bill o f costs
O
n
December 23rd, 1949, having conducted for
his clients certain proceedings which were ultimately
compromised, a solicitor, Mr. L ., delivered to
his clients a bill showing costs amounting to £729
and disbursements, £1,250 and giving credit for
cash paid on account amounting to £745. In a
letter of same date, sent with the bill, the solicitor,
Mr. L., drew attention to the fact that certain
Counsel’s fees, amounting to £399, had been
marked “ not yet paid ” and asked for a remittance in
order to discharge them. No answer to this letter
was received and accordingly Mr. L. wrote a
letter, on January 20th, 1950, suggesting that the
clients should authorise the solicitor for the trustees
of the Will under which they took a share, to
pay out of the proceeds of sale of the trust property
a sum of £1,000 in order to discharge Counsel’s
fees. Mr. L. received a letter in reply from his
clients stating that he was solely responsible for
the delay. In these circumstances, in February,
1950, Mr. L. applied in a Probate action for a
charging order on his clients’ share on the trust
estate recovered or preserved through his efforts.
This application was heard on the 15 th February,
1950, and was adjourned generally under an arrange
ment whereby the administrators (the son and
daughter of the clients), undertook to retain sufficient
of the clients’ share to discharge the bill, while
the clients undertook to have the bill taxed under
the Solicitors’ Act, 1932. As Mr. L. was aware
that he could not ask the Taxing Master to tax
as disbursements unpaid Counsel’s fees unless
they were paid before the taxation, he managed to
reduce these fees to £280 which he paid on 17th
March, 1950. The taxation came on before the
Taxing Master on March 27th, when the Master
pointed out that the bill was defective in that
Counsel’s fees, unpaid when it was delivered,
were not shown in a separate schedule and that
he had, therefore, no option but to disallow them.
Thereupon in April, 1950, Mr. L. wrote to the clients
asking for their consent to his withdrawing the
bill and re-drawing it in a proper form. The clients
declined to consent to this and the solicitor now
applied to the Chancery Court for leave to amend
the bill or to withdraw and re-draw it. Harman,
J.,
15