The Gazette 1964/67

could be drawn so that he was not a principal in the second degree and, thus not being an actual thief, there was no inconsistency in his being convicted of receiving as well as of conspiracy to steal; accordingly the convictions should stand. (Reg. v. Froggett, The Law Times, July 2, 1965 [Vol. 236] 374). LEASE BY SOLICITOR-LESSOR The relationship between a solicitor and his client rests upon the retainer which represents the contract between them. Without a retainer no such relationship exists. If the solicitor is a mem ber of a firm the client retaining the firm is entitled to the services of all its members unless the retainer is given individually to one member of the firm in his personal capacity. In the absence of a special contract the owner of land who himself is a solicitor is not legally entitled to require the lessee to whom he grants a lease to pay him costs or legal charges for drawing the lease. Because the solicitor lessor is not acting upon any retainer he is not providing professional services in the circumstances which would entitle him to recover costs. The question also raises problems relating to the standard of professional conduct as well as difficulties of legal relationship. The relationship between a solicitor and his client created by a retainer is of a fiduciary character imposing special obligations more-extensive than that merely of principal and agent. Not only must a solicitor give his client the benefit of his professional skill and judgment, but his advice must be wholly dis-interested, and he may not use the relationship to derive some personal benefit or remuneration over and above proper professional remuneration. If he cannot give disinterested professional advice he must disclose to his clients sufficiently fully and honestly all material and relevant facts and circumstances known to him (opinion of counsel). CLIENT ADVISED TO SUE SOLICITORS The Court of Appeal dismissed with costs the appeal of Mr. John Edward Street of Atwood Road, Hammersmith, from a decision of Mr. Justice Stephenson, setting aside a writ claiming damages for injuries sustained in a road accident, in which Mr. Street broke a leg in January, 1961. Lord Justice Danckwerts said that when Mr. Street's solicitors served the writ against the motorist earlier this year, the claim was clearly barred by the Statute of Limitations. Lord

Justice Salmon said that he (Mr. Street) would have a "strong prima facie case" for receiving substantial damages. Lord Justice Russell said: "I hope, by some means or another, it will come to Mr. Street's knowledge that in my view he would seem to have at least a prima facie case, of getting exactly the same amount of money out of his solicitors, on the ground of their negligence, as he would have got in the action." (Daily Telegraph, Tuesday, July 6, 1965). DUTY OF SOLICITORS IN LEGAL AID CASES Judgment was given on 23rd February, 19H4 for the defendants with costs, after the plaintiffs' case had been withdrawn. The plaintiff was legally aided. An application was made by the defendants that the solicitor personally should pay the defendants' costs and the solicitor agreed to pay £2,000 towards their costs. An application was made for the plaintiffs' costs to be taxed under the Legal Aid and Advice Act, 1949. Mr. Justice Lyell, on December 15th, 1964, directed that this question should be referred to a Taxing Master for inquiry and report. An inquiry was held and a report was made in which the Taxing Master concluded "that there was suffi cient evidence of costs having been incurred without reasonable cause oc wasted by undue, delay in respect of all heads of the plaintiffs' claim on and from March 1st, 1962, or alterna tively at or prior to March 5th, 1963". Having seen the Master's report, Mr. Justice Lyell was satisfied that the solicitor's failure had been of a serious and fundamental kind. It was implicit from the judgment of Lord Maughan in Myers v. Elman (1940 A.C. 282 at p. 287) that a solicitor who without any investigation of his client's claim allowed or encouraged a client to pursue a claim which proper investigation would at an early stage have shown to have been a hopeless one was in breach of his duty to his client for he would be causing his client to incur costs without reasonable cause. His Lordship said he wished to add some gene ral observations with regard to the duty of the legal profession where the client was legally aided. Legal aid in civil cases had been granted for some 15 years and there would be general agreement that it had conferred great benefit on the public at large and incidentally on the legal profession. But it was well to recall that it was a form of maintenance and that as the law had long recog- 59