The Gazette 1958-61

for Justice thus exercises over the legal profession

and the economic pressure which he can bring to

bear on its individual members he is able to stifle the

free expression of their arguments and objections to

any iniquity.

It is, therefore, important in a free

society that nothing should be done which would

unreasonably interfere with the full development of

an independent, autonomous legal profession.

may seem attractive at first glance that some of the

work which normally falls to the private practitioner

should be done by whole-time lawyers in civil service

departments or corporations. The attractions are

chimerical. By undermining the economic stability

of the profession and the relationship which should

exist between the public and their private legal

consultants the diversion of work from the private

practitioner to the whole-time legal employee may

cause irreparable damage.

The ethical standards of our profession are such as

to give one justifiable cause for pride. There is,

however, a very small minority which, for some

years past, has averaged each year approximately one

per cent, of practising solicitors who have betrayed

public confidence and sullied the good name of our

profession. There is a further minority which is

much more substantial who unethically endeavour

to attract business from their colleagues to them

selves by canvassing and price cutting. A man who

is unethical in one direction is capable of being

unethical in another.

Your Council have been

applying their attention to the best methods of

preventing the exploitation of the public by dishonest

solicitors and the exploitation of the profession by

dishonourable solicitors. The Solicitors' (Amend

ment) Act, 1960, which has just now been passed

into law, gives your Council control over practising

members of the profession which is consistent with

the Constitution of our State.

In this Act, your

Council, on your behalf and in the name of the

profession, have made a very generous gesture

towards the general public. They accepted legisla

tion providing at the expense of the profession a

compensation fund.

According to the statistics

and figures in our possession, this fund should be

completely adequate to protect the public against

financial loss through the dishonesty of that small

minority who have proved themselves unworthy of

our profession. For the future the public may, with

confidence, be reasonably assured that if they place

their legal affairs in the hand of any solicitor, they

have adequate financial protection. There are a few

very important exceptions where the Society have

discretion to refuse compensation. Members of the

public who sustain financial loss through their own

negligence, as for example clients who place their

legal affairs in the hands of solicitors whom they

already know to be of doubtful integrity will not

necessarily be compensated. Members of the public

who give their business to any particular solicitor

because they have been canvassed by him directly or

indirectly, or because the attraction of undercutting

in legal charges has been held out to them may for

the future have to bear their own losses. If a member

of the public gives his business to a solicitor in those

circumstances, he does so at his own risk. If that

solicitor commits a fraud involving financial loss to

the client, it is optional to your Council to refuse to

compensate for that loss. Those exceptions are very

reasonable. It would be most inequitable to suggest

that honourable members of the profession should

have to indemnify members of the public who, by

their conduct, have actively assisted solicitors in the

unprofessional and degrading conduct of unfairly

attracting business by canvassing or by under-cutt

ing in legal fees.

This Act will mean a considerable advance in

good relations between our profession and the

general public. It enables the public to have complete

confidence in the profession. It also gives the Society

the right to lay down rules of professional conduct

for the profession and to insist that its standards will

be maintained. In the negotiation of its terms with

the Government, our profession are indebted to

Mr. Haughey,

the Parliamentary Secretary for

Justice, not only for his invariable courtesy but also

for his practical assistance.

Another very important matter which has for

some time past been engaging the attention of your

Council is the legal education of our students. Your

Council are not satisfied that the present system is

satisfactory.

It may not be generally recognized

that down to almost 100 years ago there was no

organized training and education either for the Bar

or for solicitors. For a call to the Bar, the sole

jure

qualifications consisted of the ability to eat and

drink and to sign one's name.

Defacto

this involved,

according to a description of Joseph Napier, Q.C.

in the House of Commons Debate on the ist March,

1854 " going into a Pleader's Office for two or three

year to learn to tell a plain story in very unintelligible

language ". For a solicitor, the only training was

practical apprenticeship—in his case without the

gastronomical consolations. Such instruction as the

student obtained, therefore, depended entirely on his

own initiative and that of his principal. There was

no test of educational proficiency, either general or

legal, and if the student sought guidance from

lectures or classes, he would be unlikely to find it.

The system of lectures and examinations during

apprenticeship has evolved since then.

It is hide

bound by statute and has the inherent defect of

inflexibility which appertains to statutory provision.