The Gazette 1949-1952

Undertaking by solicitor AB acted for his father, FB, who was sole executor of the will of JQ , deceased. Probate was granted on 22nd October, 1 9 4 1 . In March, 1 9 4 9 , CD, solicitor, was consulted by a residuary legatee whose distributive share of £750 had not been paid. It appeared that the executor had handled the administration himself and that the solicitor was not fully familiar with the details. The executor appeared to have overpaid some of the legatees by failing to deduct the full legacy duty, and had not paid CD’s client whose share, however, was on deposit receipt. Sufficient moneys had not been retained by the executor to pay A B ’s costs. After correspondence AB wrote to CD enclosing the deposit receipt for £750 in the client’s name on CD ’s undertaking to hold it pending settlement. CD alleged that the administration account furnished was unsatisfactory and asked the Council to say whether, having regard to the alleged, failure of the executor to furnish a satisfactory account, he was absolved from his undertaking, and whether he might hand the deposit receipt to his client in order to save the estate the expense o f Court proceedings. The opinion of the Council was that CD could not release himself from the under­ taking given, presumably on his client’s instructions, and that, if so advised, he ought to consult counsel as to his client’s legal rights. It was reported to the Society that a person holding an auctioneer’s and house agent’s licence was in the employment o f a solicitor as a clerk. The Secretary was directed to write to the solicitor concerned to enquire whether the facts as stated to the Council are correct, and, on confirmation o f the facts as stated, to invite the solicitor’s attention to the notification to the profession published in the Society’s Gazette for June, 1950, that it is not in accordance with professional practice and etiquette for a solicitor to employ as a clerk a person holding an auctioneer’s or house agent’s licence. Application under Section 18 On a report from the Court of Examiners the • Council decided not to oppose the application to the Chief Justice by an intending apprentice for exemption from the Preliminary Examination. The applicant holds the Leaving Certificate of the Ministry of Education, Northern Ireland. 14 Auctioneer and house agent employed by solicitor

actual amount of the rent. At present, subject to the limited operation o f Rule 6 of Schedule i, Patt 2, the commission is payable only in respect of unbroken units of £100. The Secretary was directed to prepare the case in support of the application and the following were appointed as a Special Committee to settle it and to attend before the Committee on the application: Messrs. Niall S. Gaffney, Vice- President, G. A. Overend, Dermot P. Shaw, John J. Sheil. J une 14 T H . Mr. Niall S. Gaffney, Vice-President, in the Chair. Also present: Messrs. Francis J. Gearty, Vice-President; G. A. Overend, Patrick R. Boyd, Derrick M. Martin, James R. Quirke, Joseph Barrett, Daniel O’Connell, Thomas A. O’Reilly, Reginald J. Nolan, Patrick F. O’Reilly, John R. Halpin, John J. Sheil, John J. Nash, James J. O’Connor, William J. Norman, Arthur Cox, Desmond Mayne. The following was among the business trans­ acted :— Branch Office, Adequate supervision AB , a practising solicitor, died some years ago. CD, who practises in a town fifty miles distant, continued the practice of AB for the purpose of winding it up. The practice of the deceased solicitor was continued under a business name. The office of AB was open daily under the supervision o f an unqualified managing clerk, and CD attended from his own office, usually once a week, for the purpose of supervising the business. The matter was brought to the attention of the Council by members of the Society, and, having invited the views of CD, the Council decided that in their opinion it was not possible for CD to supervise adequately the transaction of clients’ business in the branch office fifty miles distant from his own office, and that, unless arrangements could be made to sell the the practice within a specified time, a qualified solicitor should be engaged to manage the branch office, or that, alternatively, the branch office should be opened only on days when CD attended there personally. The general principle is that it is not in accordance with proper professional practice that a solicitor’s office should be managed by an unqualified assistant without adequate pro­ fessional supervision o f clients’ business. While the adequacy of the supervision must depend upon the facts of particular cases, the Council are generally of the opinion that a branch office which is open daily should be managed by a qualified assistant. If there is no permanent qualified assistant in charge of the office it should be open only on days when the principal attends in person.