765 / 822
contentious matter, namely, the sale of
(Blackacre), at
less
than the scale of
charges prevailing
in
the district
in
which he practised ;
and
(b)
allowed himself to be held out as being
prepared to do professional business in
the said non-contentious matter at less
than the scale of charges prevailing in
the district in which he practised.
The respondent was a member of a local Law
Society which had passed a resolution stating that
the scale of charges prevailing in the district of
that Society for conveyances of property payable
by both vendor and purchaser, whether separately
represented or not, was the scale prescribed by the
Solicitor's Remuneration Order,
1936, without
any percentage additions allowed by subsequent
Orders.
The respondent was instructed by the purchaser
of Blackacre.
The
houseagent concerned
told
the respondent that the vendor would probably
instruct him also but asked what, in that event,
would be the cost to the vendor. The respondent
replied that his fee to the vendor would be between
£17 and £20. The vendor (unknown to the res
pondent) had already asked another firm of solicitors
what their charges would be for acting for him
on the sale and they had quoted £28 133. 4d.,
being the appropriate fee according to the resolution
of the local Law Society mentioned above. On
learning
the respondent's quotation the vendor
took the deeds away from the other solicitors,
whom he had already instructed, and instructed
the respondent in their place. Subsequently, the
vendor withdrew the respondent's retainer and
the sale was completed by the other solicitors.
The
respondent completed
the matter for
the
purchaser alone,
to whom he charged the full
scale fee approved by the local Law Society.
At
the
hearing
before
the Committee
the
respondent admitted the above facts and did not
seek to deny that he had committed an offence
under Rule 2 of the Practice Rules. He stated,
however, that at the material times he had neither,
known nor suspected that the vendor had already
instructed other solicitors and that when quoting
the reduced fee he had been under the impression
that the vendor would .instruct him in any case.
The respondent further stated that he had had it
in mind that, acting for both parties, he would
not have to do so much work for both clients as
would substantially justify him in charging two
scale fees, even at the reduced rate approved by
the local Law Society. He had, therefore, thought
it proper at the time to give in advance an estimate
less than the scale fee so approved, although this
was not his usual practice.
The Committee
accepted
the
respondent's
evidence.
The Committee found that the allegations made
against the respondent had been substantiated and
that he had been guilty of professional misconduct
in respect thereof. Having regard to the matters
stated in extenuation by the respondent, however,
the Committee did not think that the case was one
in which they ought to exercise their full disciplinary
powers and they therefore ordered that there be
imposed on the respondent a monetary penalty to
be forfeited to his Majesty and that the respondent
do pay the costs."
(Gazette of the English L,an> Society,
October, 1947.)
Stamp duty on leases reserving a fine
A QUESTION which seems to be agitating the minds
of some solicitors recently is whether or not the
new rates of stamp duty imposed by Section 13 of
the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1947, apply to a lease
granted in consideration of a fine and a rent, as
well as to " conveyances or transfers on sale of
lands."
It is understood that the Revenue Com
missioners claim that Section 15
applies
to such
leases and nobody has found it worth while to
test the validity of the claim. The doubt arises from
the fact that Section 13
expressly provides that
the stamp duties chargeable on conveyances or
transfers on sale of lands, etc., under the heading
" conveyance or transfer on sale of any property "
in the First Schedule
to
the Stamp Act, 1891,
shall be at the new rate on and after ist December,
1947, but is silent as to leases. It is true that the First
Schedule to the Stamp Act, 1891, when it came
to fixing
the stamp duties on leases, expressly
provided that when the consideration for the lease
included a fine the fine was to be subject to the
same duty as a conveyance on sale for the same
amount.
It is also true that since the Finance
(1909-10) Act, 1910, which doubled the
ad valorem
duty on conveyances on sale, the duty on a fine
on a lease has also been doubled, but Section 76
of that Act (unlike Section 13 of the Finance (No.
2) Act, 1947),
expressly dealt with leases.
The
answer seems to turn on whether the words " The
same duty as a conveyance on a sale for the same
consideration " in the First Schedule to the Stamp
Act, 1891, as applied to leases, refer to
the duty
imposed by the Stamp Act, 1891, on conveyances,
etc., or to the duty on such conveyances for the
time being.
2p