113 / 324
FINAL EXAMINATION.
AT the Final Examination for apprentices to solicitors
held on the 26th, 2yth and 28th days of March, the
following passed the examination and their names
are arranged in order of merit:—
Passed with Honours
1. John C. Farrell.
2. John F. Buckley, B.A., LL.B.
Passed
Michael C. Halpenny, B.A.; Dermot Hegarty,
Michael A. Regan, Noel M. Gleeson, Timothy
McEniry, Robert McGonagle, Patrick Kelly, Gerard
O'Malley, James J. O'Sullivan, Owen Binchy,
Michael A. Noonan, Kevin P. St. G. McClenaghan,
B.A., LL.B.;
Patrick R. O'Gorman, Anthony
F. McCormack.
24 candidates attended ; 16 passed.
The Council has awarded a Silver Medal to
John C. Farrell and a Special Certificate to John
F. Buckley.
The following passed in Part I or Part II Final
Examination and their names are arranged in order
of merit:—
Part
I.—James B. O'Leary, B.A.; Mairead F.
Ruttledge, William Nicholl, Patrick A. Glynn,
Edward J. Duffy, John P. Clifford, Iseult Clare
Kennedy, William W. Blood-Smyth.
Part
II.
—Michael G. Fog?rty, Terence M.
Williams, B.A.; Brenda Halpin, Matthew P. Drum,
Gerald B. Coulter, William J. B. Fallon, Charles
R. M. Meredith, Mary M. Murray, B.A.; Susanna
Bowler.
First and Second
Irish Examinations
The next examinations will be held on June 29th,
and 3oth.
Notice must be given on or before
June 8th.
DECISIONS
OF
PROFESSIONAL
INTEREST.
Failure of Complaints against Solicitor is no Protection
for Clerk.
The Divisional Court (Goddard L. C. J. Cassels
and Donovan J. J.) in a reserved judgment, dismissed
the appeal of a solicitor's clerk, against an order of
the Disciplinary Committee of January the 2yth,
1956, under section 16 (i) (£) of the Solicitors'
Act, 1941, which provides that "where it appears
.
.
.
that in the course or as a result of any pro
ceedings before
the Disciplinary Committee
a
person who is or was a clerk to a solicitor but is
filing and indeed he was the actual person who
not himself a solicitor has been a party to any act
or default of such solicitor in respect of which an
application or complaint has been or might be
made against such solicitor ... an application
may be made to the Disciplinary Committee that
an order be made directing that no solicitor shall
in connection with his practice as a solicitor take
or retain the said person into his employment or
remunerate him without the written permission
of the Law Society."
The clerk appealed on the ground that there was
no act or default proved against his principal to
which he had been a party, and therefore the
Disciplinary Committee had no power to make the
order against him.
Per Lord Goddard, C. J. :—A complaint had been
preferred on behalf of the Law Society against a
solicitor alleging that he had been guilty of pro
fessional misconduct in that he had
(a)
caused or
permitted to be filed in the High Court of Justice
an affidavit which he knew or ought to have known
was false, or alternatively misleading in a material
respect, and
(b)
failed adequately to supervise his
clerk, the appellant in the present proceedings.
An inquiry was duly held by the Disciplinary
Committee of the Society.
The committee found that a false and misleading
affidavit had been filed and used in a proceeding
in which the solicitor was acting for the party
on whose behalf the affidavit was prepared and filed.
But they also found that the solicitor did not know
and in fact could not have known of the contents
of the affidavit. Nevertheless they considered he
was not altogether blameless in that he should
have exercised special care in the particular case,
because there was a possibility of a conflict of
interest between the client and the solicitor's clerk.
The clerk had certain financial dealings with the
client, and as managing clerk to the solicitor he
was undertaking the conduct of the proceedings,
and at the most material times the solicitor was
away from his office.
The Court believed the present case to be the
first one in which an order against an unadmitted
clerk under section 16 of the Act of 1941 had come
before them on appeal.
The appellant's objection was that, as the com
mittee had found the complaints against the solicitor
to have failed, no order could be made against him
(the clerk) in that he could not be a party to an
act or default of a solicitor in respect of which an
application or complaint had been made if the
committee found the case not proved against the
solicitor.
The committee found, and it was not disputed,
that the clerk was a party to the preparation and
prepared and filed the affidavit and he knew that
it was misleading. The solicitor escaped punishment