206 / 462
GAZETTE
JU
LY/AUGUST
1991
1. Privilege - and the possible
loss of the privilege which be-
longs to the client. If privilege is
not extended to all members of
an M.D.P., then there is a serious
risk that it would be lost
whether on discovery or other-
wise. It must be emphasised
that this is not for the benefit of
lawyers or the legal profession
and is not to be confused with
t he simple ob l i ga t i ons of
confidence that other pro-
fessions may regard as binding
on them.
2 . Professional Indemnity - will
the lawyers professional in-
demnity extend to acts by the
non lawyers in the partnership
or will it be necessary to
structure a special indemnity
policy to cover all acts by any of
the partners in any of their
respective disciplines? and will
the partnership then be faced
with premiums by reference to
the discipline that carries the
highest risk?
3 . Compensation Fund - is this to
be extended to dishonesty by
non-lawyer partners? and if so,
will they be required to contri-
bute appropriately to the Com-
pensation Fund? If the answer
to these two questions is in the
negative, then how is the
liability of the Compensation
Fund to be determined in the
case of acts of dishonesty by a
non-lawyer partner?
4 . Discipline - It would seem
that prima facie each partner
would be governed by the
disciplinary requirements of his
own body. How does this affect
the lawyer, however, in relation
to conduct of non-lawyer
partners and in his capacity as
an officer of the Court or other
matters? A most important point
here is that the entire structure
of property transactions in this
coun t ry at the
moment
functions very largely on soli-
citors undertakings in relation to
a variety of matters: these
undertakings in turn are under-
pinned by the disciplinary
conduct and the sanctions that
can be imposed on a solicitor for
any unprofessional conduct in-
volving breaches of under-
takings.
Perhaps, there are some solu-
tions to the foregoing problems but
they are not very obvious and as of
now, the difficulties strike me as
being^ almost insurmountable.
Donal G. Binchy
SOLICITORS FINANCIAL
SERVICES SFS
There are now 274 member firms
in SFS, representing an increase of
10% on last year's membership.
The success of the scheme is
reflected in the number of new
firms joining each month. Indeed,
we would hope to reach our target
of 300 by the end of the year.
A comprehensive corporate plan
has been developed and approved
by the board of SFS. Some of the
main objectives are: —
• Increase the number of member
firms.
• Increase practice income of
member firms.
• Establish a favourable public
profile of SFS.
FOR SALE / TO LET
6, Inns Court,
Winetavern Street, Dublin 8.
(Adjacent to Four Courts)
PLEASE CONTACT
Peter McDonnell
Michael J. O'Neill & Son,
Solicitors,
5, Inns Court, Winetavern Street,
Dublin 8.
Tel: 6795500 Fax : 6795457
To improve the marketing aspect
of SFS, we have compiled a slide
presentation which will help the
member firms identify the financial
needs of their clients. Coupled with
that for each solicitor within the
member firms we have designed a
short questionnaire or checklist
which will be of assistance in identi-
fying clients requirements in this
area. These checklists will be
distributed over the coming weeks.
It has been decided to allocate a
sum of £6,000 towards promotion-
al activities designed to increase the
public profile of the scheme, and
ultimately, the volume of business.
Suggestions from member firms are
of course welcome.
For any further information, con-
tact the Law Society or the Solicitors
Division, Sedgwick Dineen.
Sbaliipar
EXQUISITE INDIAN CUISINE
'Shalimar. .is a new departure for Indian
restaurants in Dublin.'
IRISH TIMES
'Shalimar lives up to its Eastern promise.'
IRISHPRESS
The Shalimar simply could not be faulted.'
THE EVENING HERALD
Open 7 Days; To make a reservation please call
710738
17 South Great George's Street, Dublin 2.
OPENING TIMES
* Lunch - 1 2 - 2.30 Mon to Sat.
* Dinner - 6 -11.30 Mon to Thurs.
* 6 - 12.30 Fri to Sat. * 5 -11 Sundays
188