The Gazette 1961 - 64

now an unjustifiable imposition which no one ever intended and which should now be removed. The second item is even worse—I consider it an insult to our profession—I can see no reason let alone justification why our apprentices should be called upon to subsidise the Kings Inns—it is in my view the bounden duty of the Bar to collect either from their own students or their own members whatever funds they require to meet the expense of educating their students and paying for their own administra tion. In the current year this charge alone will cost our apprentices nearly £600. If this money was available to us for the education of our own apprentices and we were relieved of the payment to the Incorporated Council of Law Reporting it would go a long way to assisting us in our present financial problems. Every president I have known has had a bee in his bonnet about something or other connected with our profession—I am no exception to the rule, and in giving expression to it I am bound to inform you that not only have the Council never even heard my views, but for all I know they might disagree violently with them. You will already have realised from my earlier remarks that I referred to two points upon which our relationship with our friends at the Bar require looking into—education and finance. May I suggest with all due respect that these are only two of many matters about which we and they ought to come together for discussions. It would be unfair of me to refer in any detail to other matters about which I hold very decided views before the Councils of our Society and the Bar have had an opportunity of considering them." I will, however, propose at our next Council meeting that a special committee of our Council be formed to consider and discuss with our friends at the Bar all such matters. I would only like to add in this connection that a happy relationship continues to prevail between our two professions which I hope may long continue. And now the sands of my presidential year are sinking fast, another chapter in the history of our Society draws to a close. It only remains for me to say that it has been one of the most hectic and happy years of my life. No words of mine can adequately convey to the members of our profession my thanks for the privilege I have enjoyed in serving on our Council. Nor could I ever hope to repay my Colleagues on the Council for the very great honour they did me in electing me as your President. My wife and I have represented the Society at various Government receiptions and we have enjoyed the hospitality of the Law Societies of England, Scotland and Northern Ireland, we have visited 59

items which could be of considerable benefit to members. If, as in other places, our members from the country were allowed even znd class travelling expenses to and from Council Meetings it would cost the Society another £500 per annum not to mention hotel expenses or cost of meals which would come to a further £400 approximately. This expense is at present borne entirely by the members concerned who with their Dublin Colleagues gave in the past year alone over two thousand hours of their time in attending meetings of the Council or its committees and that takes no account of time expended on travelling to and from such meetings. I have referred to these items as of interest only and I would like it to be clearly under stood that there is no question of allowing such expenses out of Society funds nor has such a request been made by anyone. How then can our budget be balanced in the future. We have of course power to charge the Com pensation Fund with a fair and reasonable amount to cover the cost of administering the fund in addition to all out of pocket expenses incurred by the Society. Let us be clear, however, that so far as our members are concerned this is no solution of our problem and would simply mean transferring money paid by our members from one pocket into another. There are two substantial items of expenditure which are very much in the minds of our Council. They are the payment of £530 to the Incorporated Council of Law Reporting and the payment of £14 by each of our apprentices as stamp duties on his indentures which goes to the Kings Inns. The first of these charges is in my view an un justifiable charge to which our Society should no longer be subject for the following reason. When we negotiated the terms of the Solicitors Act, 1954, the Government agreed to remit stamp duties on our practising certificates and part of the stamp duty on our apprentices indentures. The Act also gave to the Society the power to remove from the Roll or to suspend solicitors whose conduct justified such penalties without imposing on us the expense of applications to the court. In exchange for these concessions the Society undertook to contribute the sum of £5 30 per annum to the Incorporated Council of Law Reporting. As you know, the Supreme Court decision removed our right to deal with these cases and we are now back where we started having to incur in every case the expense of court proceed ings. In other words, the legal costs to which I earlier referred of approximately £500 in addition to the contribution of £530 to the Incorporated Council of Law Reporting have to be met annually—