The Gazette 1952-1955

Department should, where appropriate, write to the beneficiaries in the terms of the approved draft letter. This letter, if adopted, will inform the beneficiaries that they should in their own interests consult solicitors and that if the Department’s services are required, the statutory fees will be charged. The proposals recommended by the Committee have been submitted to the Department. Liability o f Solicitors for Medical Fees. A m e m b e r acting for the plaintiff in a running-down action wrote to a doctor for a report on the client’s injuries. The doctor sent the report with a covering letter which stated “ I am sending you the report which you requested on the understanding that you undertake to pay my fees for attending the plaintiff, namely, £2 zs. and a fee o f £ 2 zs. for the report.” Member retained the report. Proceedings were never instituted and no fees were received by member from the client. On a request for advice, the Council expressed the opinion that member was liable to pay the sum o f £z zs. for the medical report. He was not liable for the doctor’s claim for treating the patient. In the opinion o f the Council, a solicitor who writes to a doctor requesting a medical report on behalf o f a client is normally liable in the absence o f a stipulation to the contrary for the doctor’s fee for the report as a matter o f professional etiquette. No opinion was expressed on the question o f legal liability. Privilege against disclosure ; Client’s address. M ember acted for a defendant in proceedings claiming a liquidated demand and on the client’s instructions accepted service o f a civil bill under­ taking to enter an appearance and defence. The client instructed member to take whatever action he thought necessary. She then changed her address and member was unaware o f her whereabouts. Member was unable to file the defence in compliance with his undertaking. The plaintiff’s solicitors asked member to disclose the client’s last known address. Member asked the guidance o f the Council as to whether he was prohibited from g i v in g the informa­ tion by the client’s privilege. The Committee, whose report was adopted, expressed the opinion that member might disclose the client’s last known address, as the information was not privileged against disclosure. Dublin Solicitors’ Bar Association. T he Association was given permission to put up a notice board in the Solicitors’ Buildings. EXAMINATION RESULTS. A t Examinations held on the 29th and 30th days of January, 1954 under the Legal Practitioners 77

(Qualification) Act, 1929, the following passed the examinations :— First Examination in Irish. Kenneth Leitch Armstrong, Timothy H. Crowley, Donald T. Ellis, Fergus Lauri Fahy, Michael Joseph Fitzsimons, Noel A. Foley, Jill Greensmith, Michael Patrick Keane, Bernard M. C. McDermott, Liam MacHale, Martin Enda Marren, James Kevin Martin, Clive Hunter Murphy, John D. Nugent, Paschal O’Brien, Patrick O’Brien, Franklin John O’Sullivan, Fergus Patrick Taaffe. 26 candidates attended; 18 passed. Second Examination in Irish. Mathias Buchalter, Valentine P. J. Carney, John J. Cooke, Gerald B. Coulter, George H. Crawford, Michael P. Donnelly, Kevin J. Early, John A. Gaynor, Patrick A. Glynn, Nicholas S. Hughes, Sean Kelly, John E. McCurtain, Donough B. McDonough, Patrick P. MacMahon, Timothy Murphy, John M. O’Connor, Patrick J. F. O’Connor, Aidan O’Donnell, Gerard O’Malley, Mairead F.

T. Ruttledge, Patrick F. Treacy. 27 candidates attended ; 21 passed.

EASTER VACATION Easter Vacation will commence on Monday, 12th April and will end on Saturday, 24th April.

SOLICITORS’ BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION.

T he ninetieth annual meeting o f the Association was held in the Solicitors’ Buildings on Friday, 29th January. The Chairman, Mr. R. A. O ’Brien, in moving the adoption o f the annual report said that while the gross ordinary income at £2261 12s. 9d. was slightly up on last year there was a small drop in annual subscriptions. The expenditure on relief amounted to £2052 10s. 6d. Mr. O’Brien referred to the fact that no deduction may be made from a solicitor’s income assessable to tax for provision for old age or infirmity. Solicitors found it impos­ sible to make adequate provision for old age or infirmity, and this factor combined with the ever increasing cost of living accounted for some of the cases on the Society’s books. He referred to the necessity of increasing the Society’s income and to a suggestion that the present annual subscription should be raised. A substantial increase in member­ ship would bring in additional funds which are urgently needed, and he appealed to members to assist the Directors in obtaining additional members.