The Gazette 1964/67

his fees. In a fused profession the solicitor would be entitled to act as advocate in these Courts either carrying out the preparatory office work himself or having it done by a partner or assistant. The existing corps of barristers would be entitled to accept instructions from a client or an accoun tant or other professional expert direct, either forming partnerships among themselves or joining firms of solicitors. Solicitors and barristers would have equal status and priority in Court and for appointment as judges, Attorney General, Taxing Masters, Court Registrars and other legal appoint ments. Possibly under a fused system the present rule that an advocate is not liable for negligence might be changed so that all members of the profession, advocates and officer lawyers alike, would be liable to the client for negligence in performing their duty. There are two recent English cases on the law of professional negli gence which are relevant. The case of Hedley Byrne v. Heller casts some doubt on the long standing immunity of counsel from liability as regards purely advisory work. In the particular case the defendant was a bank but the reasoning behind the decision might conceivably have wider application. In Rondel v. Worsley the English High Court recently held that an advocate (which it thought would include a solicitor as well as counsel) is immune from liability for negligence qua advocate. This decision is under appeal. Inferior Courts and Non-Contentious Business Although there is at present fusion of function in the lower Courts and for non-contentious busi ness many solicitors do not exercise their rights, either because they have not the time or inclin ation to conduct Court cases as well as office work or because they wish to obtain the protection against liability for negligence which may result from engaging the services of a member of the Bar. It is unlikely that any practical result would emerge from fusion unless the existing organisation of the solicitors' profession were changed so that large partnerships would become the prevailing pattern of the profession. In small units it is unlikely that there would be sufficient and sus tained demand for advocacy in a firm to justify the retention of a wholetime advocate and to ensure that he would not become redundant if the volume of litigation declined. One advan tage of the present system is that the demand of a particular solicitor or firm for advocates can be tailored to the requirements of his clients at any particular time. At the date of the last annual report there were 1,111 self-employed solicitors in the State grouped in 929 principal offices. Of

Standard of the Preliminary Examination The Council approved in principle of a report from a committee recommending that the stan dard of the Preliminary Examination should be raised to the standard of the open public Matri culation Examination and that applicants for exemption from the Preliminary should be required to satisfy the Society that they have achieved an equivalent standard of education. As from June 1967 the universities will cease to accept the Leaving Certificate for the purpose of Matricu lation unless the candidate has secured honours in at least one subject, as from June 1968 honours in two subjects will be required. The Council have under consideration the question of limiting exemption from the Society's Preliminary Exam ination to candidates who have obtained the open public Matriculation of a university without credit for any subjects passed at the Leaving Certificate or other non-university examination. THE PROS AND CONS OF FUSION—I 1. There is already fusion of function (but separa tion of status) in about 80 per cent of the whole field of practice viz., litigation in the Circuit and District Courts, probate work, conveyancing and all advisory work. A solicitor may engage in this type of work without counsel. Counsel is equally entitled to practise in these fields but because of separation of status he does so as a member of the Bar and will not take instructions from the client or from any other professional adviser except a solicitor. He has no legal redress for his fees and he is not liable for negligence. The existing field of fusion of function will be extended if the juris diction of the Circuit Court is increased. As regards the type of work mentioned in this para graph the only remaining step would be fusion of status so that barristers and solicitors would practise on equal terms with the same right to accept instructions from a client or from an accountant or other professional adviser of the client. Fusion of status from the practical point of view if applied literally in practice would widen the functions of the Bar more than the solicitors' profession. 2. Superior Courts As regards advocacy in the Supreme Court and High Court there is separation of function and status. With trivial exceptions, solicitors have no right of audience. Counsel accepts instructions only from a solicitor. He is not legally liable for negligence and he has no legal right to recover

86