The Gazette 1949-1952

Solicitors’ Remuneration On a report from the Special Committee the Council approved o f the draft statement in support of the application for an increase in solicitors’ remuneration and amendments to the General Order. The Secretary was directed to have it engrossed and submitted to the Chief Justice as soon as possible. VACANCY FOR LECTURER TO THE SOC IETY The Council invite applications for the position of Lecturer in Equity and Real Property. Any member wishing to apply for the appointment should communicate immediately with the Secretary. SOLICITORS SHARING AUCTIONEERS’ COMMISSION W here a solicitor is retained to buy or sell, or otherwise to act as agent for a client and obtains a profit from the transaction from a third person the solicitor is obliged to account to his client for the amount of the profit so received. In this respect the legal position o f a solicitor is not dis­ tinguishable from that o f any other agent. Under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1906, Section 1, it is a misdemeanour punishable by imprisonment for an agent to accept or obtain corruptly from any person any gift or compensation as an inducement or reward for doing or forbearing to do any act in relation to his principal’s affairs, or for showing or forbearing to show favour to any person in relation to such affairs. In the opinion o f the Council if evidence were produced to the Society that a solicitor had accepted a share of auctioneers’ commission without disclosing it to his client, the vendor, such evidence would raise a prima facie case of professional misconduct which would justify an application by the Society to the Statutory Committee against that solicitor. The onus of showing that the profit so received had been disclosed to the client would rest upon the solicitor. If the evidence showed that the solicitor had accepted a share o f auctioneers’ commission in consideration of showing favour to the latter in relation to the client’s affairs the solicitor might also be exposed to proceedings under the Pre­ vention of Corruption Act, 1906. This statement is limited to the case where a solicitor himself shares an auctioneer’s commission. It is not mis­ conduct for a solicitor to arrange for a reduction in the amount of the auctioneer’s commission

on a sale, or for a refund of all or part of the advertising expenses, where the arrangement is made on the client’s instructions and the moneys received are duly credited to the client. DECISIONS AFFECTING THE PROFESSION Withdrawal o f bill o f costs O n December 23rd, 1949, having conducted for his clients certain proceedings which were ultimately compromised, a solicitor, Mr. L ., delivered to his clients a bill showing costs amounting to £729 and disbursements, £1,250 and giving credit for cash paid on account amounting to £745. In a letter of same date, sent with the bill, the solicitor, Mr. L., drew attention to the fact that certain Counsel’s fees, amounting to £399, had been marked “ not yet paid ” and asked for a remittance in order to discharge them. No answer to this letter was received and accordingly Mr. L. wrote a letter, on January 20th, 1950, suggesting that the clients should authorise the solicitor for the trustees of the Will under which they took a share, to pay out of the proceeds of sale of the trust property a sum of £1,000 in order to discharge Counsel’s fees. Mr. L. received a letter in reply from his clients stating that he was solely responsible for the delay. In these circumstances, in February, 1950, Mr. L. applied in a Probate action for a charging order on his clients’ share on the trust estate recovered or preserved through his efforts. This application was heard on the 15 th February, 1950, and was adjourned generally under an arrange­ ment whereby the administrators (the son and daughter of the clients), undertook to retain sufficient of the clients’ share to discharge the bill, while the clients undertook to have the bill taxed under the Solicitors’ Act, 1932. As Mr. L. was aware that he could not ask the Taxing Master to tax as disbursements unpaid Counsel’s fees unless they were paid before the taxation, he managed to reduce these fees to £280 which he paid on 17th March, 1950. The taxation came on before the Taxing Master on March 27th, when the Master pointed out that the bill was defective in that Counsel’s fees, unpaid when it was delivered, were not shown in a separate schedule and that he had, therefore, no option but to disallow them. Thereupon in April, 1950, Mr. L. wrote to the clients asking for their consent to his withdrawing the bill and re-drawing it in a proper form. The clients declined to consent to this and the solicitor now applied to the Chancery Court for leave to amend the bill or to withdraw and re-draw it. Harman, J., 15