The Gazette 1964/67

JOINT SEMINAR WEEKEND

On Saturday and Sunday, the 22nd and 23rd

October, Cork suffered an avalanche of solicitors,

and despite the weight of legal opinion, extension

of closing hours was not available. Notwithstand

ing this, there was a much more learned, very

exhausted exodus from Cork on Sunday.

The weekend commenced with Mr. William

Maguire, solicitor, who spent all of Saturday

afternoon and evening explaining the Succession

Act and its implications to the gathering. This

mammoth job was carried out by Mr. Maguire

in his usual precise and highly informative man

ner.

Sunday morning, His Honour

Judge

Conroy delivered a very interesting paper on

Reversionary Leases and the Ground Rents Bill.

In the afternoon Mr. Brendan Kiernan, B.L.,

delivered his paper on Town Planning.

It was thanks to the work and co-operation of

the three joint organisers, the Council of Pro

vincial Solicitors Association, the Southern Law

Association, and the Society of Young Solicitors,

that the weekend was such a success. There were

some 270 solicitors present, representing every one

of the 26 counties. It is to be hoped that future

seminars will be as great a success as this one.

The next joint seminar will be held next spring,

and it is hoped that the venue will be in the

mid-west, or west, of Ireland. Suggestions for

topics for this seminar are requested and you

should send these to the Secretary, the Society

of Young Solicitors, -15 ..Braemor,, Park, Dublin

14.

•

.l -

',..

;...,' '

•/.:•• :.-•

•nic.j"l^"<-.'-"-

,IS<V

The Position 'of Solicitors

i••.••-'.•••"

DISTINCTION WITHOUT DIFFERENCE

".•'•"' -'-6 ;•;

Not the least anomalous consequence of

Rondel

v Worsley

is the distinction it draws between bar

risters and solicitors vis-a-vis immunity from neg

ligence claims. In the court below Mr. Justice

Lawton held [1966] 1 All E.R. 467, at 480, that

it was qua

advocate

that a barrister enjoyed im

munity in conduct of a case in or about the

court, and that, accordingly, a solicitor-advocate

enjoyed that, immunity

too.

In--the Court of

Appeal the word "advocate" was hot used, and

the immunity of solicitors was denied. Only by

Mr. Justice Salmon was the issue not closed :

was, he said, "not at present convinced that the

learned judge's [Lawton J's.] view was wrong, .on

this point." Under no head of, public-..policy

enunciated by their Lordships

it possible fd

find any rational basis for distinguishing between

counsel and solicitors as advocates.

Indeed,

two precisely similar actions, whether counsel or a

solicitor appears may depend on no more funda

mental, or vis-a-vis liability in negligence, rele

vant issue than the amount at stake since that alone

may determine whether the High Court or County

Court has jurisdiction. In this respect at least

we are at a

loss

to see how,

in Lord Justice

Danckwerts' phrase, barristers "face hazards quite

unknown" to solicitors.

On drafting the advisory work a majority of the

Court of Appeal likewise held that a barrister

could not be liable for negligence. Lord Justice

Salmon gave a strongly dissenting judgment. Here

at any rate usage is of little consequence, for, as

Lord Justice Salmon said, it is inconceivable that

"barristers, any more than any other professional

men, would write

'without

legal

responsibility

for negligence' above their doors." As the law

now stands, solicitors are liable for negligence in

relation to paperwork and advising. We do not

suggest that there is any ground of complaint on

that score. We wish merely to make the point. For

of counsel Lord Justice Danckwerts said

that

"sitting in the quiet contemplation of his cham

bers," were he not able to accept a case to advise

or instructions to draft a document "on the footing

that the result will not be open to proceedings by

the client for negligence," counsel might be "alarm

ingly anxious." Are the thoughts which disturb

a solicitor's quiet contemplation any less alarh)-

ingly anxious ones? Or, those that occur to the

surgeon at the operating table? Their anxiety is

perhaps mitigated by the realisation that the law

provides reasonable protection for those harassed

by unmeritorious claims. Could it not do so for

all? The answer to this question is, we think,

largely one of approach. In the Court pf Appeal

much was made of the historical grounds for the

differences between the two branches of the 'pro

fession. The function of historical enquiry

is,

however, merely to explain how such dif

ferences

came about, not to justify them.. Yet jn

Rond.cl

Worsley

their Lordships were, concer

ned 'to

justify them—in one particular context. To «s it

does not appear that they did so very convincingly,

or that the repercussions of the decision in

Rondel

Worsley

will be to the ultimate benefit, of the

Bar. Not that it is likely to be very ultimate for,

the

Financial Times

has noted,

it has "a

curiously fragile look about "it." Fragile certainly,

but scarcely curiously so.-----; «ovr.'?V.: M..-.-/SM

-.,

-.' .

'•'•*.'.•• •••'

;

'•••

''' '

'' v'"

•'•

•.•r? :;v

-^-New • Law • Journal,-

r27'th October, 1966i