149 / 324
Conflicting Interests.
MEMBERS submitted for the decision of the Council
a query as to the propriety of acting for the plaintiff
in civil proceedings arising out of a motor accident
against a defendant for whom the members firm
have already appeared in criminal proceedings.
The facts were that member with the consent of
an insurance company defended proceedings under
the Road Traffic Act against the owner-driver of
one of the cars involved. A passenger in the car
of the driver subsequently decided
to institute
proceedings against him jointly with the driver
of the other car involved. She instructed members
to act for her. The driver of the first mentioned
car was insured and raised no objection, but the
insurance company did object. Members satisfied
the Council that they had obtained no information
from the proposed defendant driver for whom
they had already acted in the District Court which
will prejudice the defence of the latter in the
civil proceedings. The law as stated in the text
book is that a Court will not grant an injunction
to restrain a solicitor from acting .for an adverse
interest to that of a former client of his in the same
proceedings unless satisfied that there is a likelihood
of an abuse of confidence in respect of information
obtained from the former client.
The Council
however are not concerned with the legal position
as much as with the question of professional etiquette
and propriety. They viewed the matter from the
aspect of professional conduct and practice and the
interests of the profession. The Council expressed
the view on the facts before them that the solicitors
who had already acted for one of the defendants in
the District Court should not continue to act for the
plaintiff in the subsequent civil proceedings against
that defendant.
INCREASE
OF
COURT
FEES.
THE following letter of the President and Secretary
of the Society was published in the Daily Press on
October 4th:—
3rd October, 1956.
Dear Sir,
The Council of the Incorporated Law Society of Ireland
held a special meeting to-day and considered the orders
made by the Minister of Justice with the concurrence of the
Minister of Finance, increasing the court fees in the Supreme
Court, High Court, Circuit Court and District Court, which
were issued without previous notice on Saturday last.
These fees are payable to the State in connection with legal
proceedings in the courts and are borne by the public who have
to resort thereto. The extent of the increase has shocked the
legal profession and we have been directed to bring to the
notice of the public, who are directly concerned, the impor
tance of the matter.
The increases so imposed appear to the Council to be
exorbitant.
In many cases fees have been trebled and this
shows only a small corner of the picture. For example, fees
on the issue of an originating summons have been increased
by approximately 500 per cent. The fees for an
ex parte
motion have been increased from 55. to £i
ijs.
6d. These
items taken together form a very large slice of the business
of the High Court and it is obvious that they have been
singled out for special treatment. The intention behind the
orders was clearly to produce revenue with little regard for
other considerations or consequences.
These extravagant
increases are not confined to the High Court. The stamp on
a Circuit Court Civil Process has been raised by 700 per cent,
and the fee on an ordinary District Court process has been
raised from is. 6d. to 55.
In Probate matters the
ad valoremfees
calculated on the gross
assets have been doubled. Heretofore these fees have been
assessed only on the gross personal estate. Under the new
order Probate fees will be assessed on real estate, including
freehold registered land.
In bankruptcy matters the State, through the Official
Assignee, will now levy 2s. in the pound off the gross assets
as expenses of realisation before the creditors receive anything.
The Council deplore that increases of such magnitude should
have been made without consultation or even notice to the
Superior Court, the Circuit Court and the District Court
Rules Committees, the Bar Council and this Society.
As a result of the haste with which the orders have been
issued, no provision has been made to enable plaintiffs to
recover the additional fees and until such time as the various
Committees have met and made new rules, plaintiffs must
pay such fees out of their own pockets. The Council have
to-day applied to the respective Committees to hold immediate
meetings.
The Courts of Justice are part of the machinery of the State
maintained as a paramount obligation for the well being of the
community out of current taxation. The nett costs of the
Courts for the last year were £473 35. od. which represents
a very small proportion of the total expenditure of the State.
The effect of the new orders is to impose a form—and a
most unfortunate form of additional concealed taxation to
the extent of approximately £150,000 in a full year. This
is a tax which will have to be paid directly by members of
the public who have of necessity to resort to the Courts and
will operate with particular hardship on defeated litigants
who have to pay the costs of proceedings or on debtors who
will now bear the additional burden of greatly increased
Court fees.
Yours faithfully,
DERMOT P. SHAW, President.
ERIC A. PLUNKETT, Secretary.
PROCEEDINGS AGAINST
SOLICITORS.
ON 19th October, 1956, the Disciplinary Committee
made an order directing that the name of Donal
J. Hughes, who formerly practised at 85, Upper
George's Street, Dun Laoghaire, Dublin, should
be struck off the roll of solicitors.
On jth October, 1956, the High Court made an
order under Paragraph 17 of the fifth schedule to
the Solicitors' Act, 1954, directing that no payment
shall be made by any of the banks specified in the
order out of a banking account in the name of
Thomas K. Fitzgibbon, Solicitor, who practises