The Gazette 1961 - 64

requirement in every other business. He pointed out that solicitors are being asked to account for monies which they hold on trust. No question of the auditing of solicitors' profit and loss accounts arises. In the interests of the profession itself members should agree to be subject to the jurisdiction of the Society in regard to what he regarded as a minimum requirement. The English system of law is followed in this country and the accountant's certificate provisions are in operation in England. He thought the profession is sick and that it is futile to adopt the attitude of the ostrich. In his view there is no substance in the argument that auditors might disclose clients' affairs or that the audit might be used for improper purposes. He did not look forward to paying sur-charges to the Compensation Fund for the dishonesty or incompetence of other solicitors. He thought we had time on our hands now to set our house in order which we know is not in order and that it would be advisable to introduce section 31 with a breathing space. MR. D. P. SHAW (Mullingar) said that there are two schools of thought. One represented by solicitors who now have their accounts audited, the other by solicitors who have not adopted the practice of audited accounts. He was in favour of the accountant's certificate. Solicitors are given the privilege of receiving clients' monies. They had the duty and the responsibility of assuring the public that their monies entrusted to the profession are safe. He did not think personally that the Minister for Justice would insist on the accountant's certificate provisions having regard to the fact that the Society have accepted a statutory duty of providing full indemnity from the Compensation Fund. He referred to the Compensa tion Fund Committee report which he said showed a short fall of over £23,000 in the monies available to provide for indemnity. He thought that a further contribution might have to be levied on the profession to make up this deficiency. How can this be prevented, he asked, unless the profession are united behind the Council in taking the necessary measures to ensure the solvency of the Fund ? MR. F. J. LANIGAN (Carlow) stated that he opposed section 31. He thought that there was adequate machinery available to the Disciplinary Committee and the Registrar's Committee to make inquiries into a solicitor's financial position. Only a small percentage of solicitors defaulted. He thought that a period of seven to ten years should be allowed to elapse before the accountant's certificate provisions are introduced and that there should be a yearly discussion. MR. D. BOUCHIER-HAYES (Dublin) asked the meeting to consider what is the image of the solicitor before the public. He said that it is not favourable. One per cent, ofthe profession can hold the whole profession up to odium. It was a miscon ception to think that the adoption of section 31 and the accountant's certificate provisions involved an imputation of trickery or anything of that sort as regards the profession. He instanced the cases of public bodies and State companies whose officials are subject to compulsory audit. He thought that the profession was taking steps to redeem its reputation and that the Council should not wait until their hands are forced. The issue before the meeting was whether or not the profession would govern itself. Section 31 was the answer. MR. DESMOND COLLINS (Dublin) stated that he did not agree with the last speaker and he enquired whether stockbrokers are subject to compulsory audit provisions. MR. JAMES ROWLETTE (Sligo) speaking personally stated that he opposed the suggestion of a compulsory certificate on principle although he had his own accounts audited. He thought that it would cheapen and belittle the profession. MR. JOHN CARRIGAN (Tipperary) speaking for the Tipperary Bar Association stated that his association approved the introduction of section 3i subject to a breathing space which should be left to the Council of the Society. He also personally agreed with the proposal for accountants' certificates.

MR. C. P. FORDE (Dublin) said that he agreed with Mr. Rowlette on the question of principle. He enquired whether the profession is to be placed in pawn to accountants and stated that it would be similar to asking a surgeon to obtain a certificate from an undertaker as to his professional record. We should try to keep accountants out of our business. MR. R. J. TIERNEY (Dublin suggested as an interim measure that (i) any solicitor should be permitted to lodge with the Society voluntarily an annual accountant's certificate and that solicitors who do so should be indicated by a suitable mark in the list of practising solicitors in the Society's calendar, (ii) Such solicitors should be given an abatement in the Compensation Fund contribution, (iii) Each candidate for election to the Council should undertake to lodge an annual accountant's certificate with the Society. MR. DESMOND MORAN (Dublin) stated that the decision on the Solicitors Act case had put things back and that he thought that the discussion should be postponed to see how the present machinery works for some time. MR. G. M. DOYLE (Dublin) stated that he thought that section 31 should not be brought into operation for the reasons given by other members. MR. N. S. GAFFNEY (Limerick) said that a meeting of the Limerick Bar Association had been held but that no decision had been reached. Speaking for himself he thought that section 31 ought to be brought into operation both from his own personal experience as a practitioner and from his experience as a member of the Disciplinary Committee. The greater number of defalcations were due to mismanagement. Solicitors who got into trouble found themselves in an irretrievable position when it was too late. He cited the examples of New Zealand and Scotland where the accountant's certificate is required. In these countries the profession opposed these certificates at first but the majority of the profession subsequently realised that they were wrong and when the accountant's certificate provisions were introduced it was found possible to reduce the Compensation Fund contribution. The nature and extent of the audit and the form of the certificate was a matter to be prescribed by the regula tions made under the Act. He thought there would be no difficulty with proper regulations in having the matter dealt with satisfactorily. He also thought that an audit is advisable in every solicitor's business. MR. PATRICK NOONAN (Athboy) said that the Meath Bar Association opposed the introduction of section 31. He was personally in favour of its introduction because he objected to paying £20 per annum into the Compensation Fund for the defaults of other practitioners. He did not think it was any insult to be asked to produce an accountant's certificate. He was not impressed by the suggestion that the Minister might bring in a section over the head of the Society. He would let him bring it in. Solicitors who defaulted did not go wrong suddenly. There must be some kind of check if the profession were not going to pay for them. He knew of cases in which solicitors had their accounts audited but the audit disclosed that there was not sufficient money in the client's bank account Unless the accountant's certificate is produced to the Society, this kind of position could not be controlled. He was also in favour of spot checks. He ended by saying that without control what he described as the running sore of mismanage ment would continue. THE PRESIDENT closed the discussion saying that as chairman he did not propose to express his personal opinion. He stated that the Council would not without the support of the profession ask the Minister to bring in section 31. It would be idle to think that everything in the garden is lovely. He thought that there was no hope of reducing the Compensation Fund contribution and that the probability was in the opposite direction. Correspondence received from bar associations shows that