The Gazette 1949-1952

had received instructions so td act, arid that he had knowingly sought and canvassed instructions from the said AB , to act as his solicitor. respondent had personally approached one CD, a client o f the com­ plainant on or about the 7th April, 1948, when the said CD was an inmate o f a hospital under treatment for personal injuries received as the result o f an accident, and solicited the said CD, to employ the respondent as his solicitor in respect of legal proceedings which were expected as a result o f the accident, and to cease to employ the complainant as his solicitor in connection with the said contemplated proceedings. The Chief Justice confirmed the report o f the Committee finding the respondent guilty of professional misconduct, censured him very severely, and ordered him to pay all the costs o f the proceedings before the Committee and before the Court. PROFESSIONAL ITEMS Conversation between Counsel W hen a defendant in the Dublin Circuit Court recently applied to have a judgment by default set aside and for liberty to enter a late defence, one of the grounds upon which his application was based was a conversation between counsel in the Law Library. It was set forth in his notice o f motion and deposed to in an affidavit made by his solicitor that the defendant’s counsel spoke to the plaintiff’s counsel in the Law Library and informed him that owing to the lateness at which he had received instructions it would be difficult for him to have a defence drafted within the time limited, and asking him if he would have any objection to the time being extended. The plaintiff’s counsel, who was unaware of any negotiations between the solicitors, said that as far as he was concerned he had no objection to any extension of time being granted if such were applied for. No further communication took place between the solicitors, and the defence not having been entered the plaintiff proceeded to mark judgment by default. Judge Barra O Briain stated that such conversations should not be referred to in affidavits or made the basis of any application. Meredith, J. had expressly disapproved o f the practice and he (Judge Barra O Briain) was fully in agreement with that view. It would be impossible for counsel to agree to facilitate a colleague if there 11 (b) That the

The Society has received a letter from the Attorney General stating that the judges of the High Court have now agreed that the personal attendance .at Green Street o f a solicitor applying for an assignment, is not necessary, provided that the following procedure is observed. The solicitor seeking the assignment should sign a form to the following effect: “ I, , Solicitor, hereby apply to His Lordship, Mr. Justice , sitting at the Central Criminal Court that I may be assigned as solicitor for the defence o f on the charges about to be preferred against him/her, nd I undertake, if so assigned, personally to take instructions for his/her defence from the said , and personally to attend the trial from day to day. The Dublin agent of the solicitor seeking the assignment should attend in Court with the above authority when the case is listed for assignment, fhe arrangement does not affect the position of Counsel who are proposed for assignment, or affect r control the discretion o f the judge in assigning solicitor and Counsel. (Dated) (Signed) PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT- TOUTING ") n April 22nd, the Chief Justice considered a report from the Statutory Committee finding ‘hat a solicitor had been guilty of professional misconduct by canvassing and touting for business as a solicitor. The report was brought before ae Court on notice of motion moved by Council on behalf of the Society. The particulars o f the nisconduct were as follows :—■ (a) That the respondent had approached one, AB, on or about the 7th April, 1947, at the private residence of the said AB , having been requested so to do by a medical practitioner, with a view to obtaining the instructions o f the said AB , to act as his solicitor in an action for the recovery of damages for personal injuries received, and that he had accepted instructions from the said AB, when he knew, or ought to have known, that the said AB, was already represented by another solicitor, without making any enquiries from the other solicitor as to the circumstances in which the latter