164 / 364
could be drawn so that he was not a principal
in the second degree and, thus not being an actual
thief,
there was no inconsistency in his being
convicted of receiving as well as of conspiracy to
steal; accordingly the convictions should stand.
(Reg. v. Froggett, The Law Times, July 2,
1965 [Vol. 236] 374).
LEASE BY SOLICITOR-LESSOR
The relationship between a solicitor and his
client rests upon the retainer which represents the
contract between them. Without a retainer no
such relationship exists. If the solicitor is a mem
ber of a firm the client retaining the firm
is
entitled to the services of all its members unless
the retainer is given individually to one member
of the firm in his personal capacity.
In the absence of a special contract the owner
of land who himself is a solicitor is not legally
entitled to require the lessee to whom he grants
a lease to pay him costs or legal charges for
drawing the lease. Because the solicitor lessor is
not acting upon any retainer he is not providing
professional services in the circumstances which
would entitle him to recover costs.
The question also raises problems relating to
the standard of professional conduct as well as
difficulties of legal relationship. The relationship
between a solicitor and his client created by a
retainer
is
of a fiduciary character
imposing
special obligations more-extensive than that merely
of principal and agent. Not only must a solicitor
give his client the benefit of his professional skill
and judgment, but his advice must be wholly
dis-interested, and he may not use the relationship
to derive some personal benefit or remuneration
over and above proper professional remuneration.
If he cannot give disinterested professional advice
he must disclose to his clients sufficiently fully
and honestly all material and relevant facts and
circumstances known to him (opinion of counsel).
CLIENT ADVISED TO SUE SOLICITORS
The Court of Appeal dismissed with costs the
appeal of Mr. John Edward Street of Atwood
Road, Hammersmith, from a decision of Mr.
Justice Stephenson, setting aside a writ claiming
damages for injuries sustained in a road accident,
in which Mr. Street broke a leg in January, 1961.
Lord Justice Danckwerts said
that when Mr.
Street's
solicitors
served
the writ against
the
motorist earlier this year, the claim was clearly
barred
by
the Statute
of Limitations. Lord
Justice Salmon said that he (Mr. Street) would
have a "strong prima facie case" for receiving
substantial damages. Lord Justice Russell said:
"I hope, by some means or another, it will come
to Mr. Street's knowledge that in my view he
would seem to have at least a prima facie case,
of getting exactly the same amount of money out
of his solicitors, on the ground of their negligence,
as he would have got in the action."
(Daily Telegraph,
Tuesday, July 6, 1965).
DUTY OF SOLICITORS
IN LEGAL AID
CASES
Judgment was given on 23rd February, 19H4
for the defendants with costs, after the plaintiffs'
case had been withdrawn. The plaintiff was
legally aided. An application was made by
the
defendants
that the solicitor personally should
pay the defendants' costs and the solicitor agreed
to pay £2,000 towards their costs. An application
was made for the plaintiffs' costs to be
taxed
under the Legal Aid and Advice Act, 1949.
Mr. Justice Lyell, on December 15th,
1964,
directed that this question should be referred to a
Taxing Master for inquiry and report. An inquiry
was held and a report was made in which the
Taxing Master concluded "that there was suffi
cient evidence of costs having been
incurred
without reasonable cause oc wasted by undue,
delay in respect of all heads of the plaintiffs'
claim on and from March 1st, 1962, or alterna
tively at or prior to March 5th, 1963".
Having seen the Master's report, Mr. Justice
Lyell was satisfied that the solicitor's failure had
been of a serious and fundamental kind. It was
implicit from the judgment of Lord Maughan in
Myers v. Elman (1940 A.C. 282 at p. 287) that a
solicitor who without any
investigation of his
client's claim allowed or encouraged a client to
pursue a claim which proper investigation would
at an early stage have shown
to have been a
hopeless one was in breach of his duty to his
client for he would be causing his client to incur
costs without reasonable cause.
His Lordship said he wished to add some gene
ral observations with regard to the duty of the
legal profession where the client was legally aided.
Legal aid in civil cases had been granted for some
15 years and there would be general agreement
that it had conferred great benefit on the public
at large and incidentally on the legal profession.
But it was well to recall that it was a form of
maintenance and that as the law had long recog-
59