The Gazette 1946-49

contentious matter, namely, the sale of (Blackacre), at less than the scale of charges prevailing in the district in which he practised ; and (b) allowed himself to be held out as being prepared to do professional business in the said non-contentious matter at less than the scale of charges prevailing in the district in which he practised. The respondent was a member of a local Law Society which had passed a resolution stating that the scale of charges prevailing in the district of that Society for conveyances of property payable by both vendor and purchaser, whether separately represented or not, was the scale prescribed by the Solicitor's Remuneration Order, 1936, without any percentage additions allowed by subsequent Orders. The respondent was instructed by the purchaser of Blackacre. The houseagent concerned told the respondent that the vendor would probably instruct him also but asked what, in that event, would be the cost to the vendor. The respondent replied that his fee to the vendor would be between £17 and £20. The vendor (unknown to the res pondent) had already asked another firm of solicitors what their charges would be for acting for him on the sale and they had quoted £28 133. 4d., being the appropriate fee according to the resolution of the local Law Society mentioned above. On learning the respondent's quotation the vendor took the deeds away from the other solicitors, whom he had already instructed, and instructed the respondent in their place. Subsequently, the vendor withdrew the respondent's retainer and the sale was completed by the other solicitors. The respondent completed the matter for the purchaser alone, to whom he charged the full scale fee approved by the local Law Society. At the hearing before the Committee the respondent admitted the above facts and did not seek to deny that he had committed an offence under Rule 2 of the Practice Rules. He stated, however, that at the material times he had neither, known nor suspected that the vendor had already instructed other solicitors and that when quoting the reduced fee he had been under the impression that the vendor would .instruct him in any case. The respondent further stated that he had had it in mind that, acting for both parties, he would not have to do so much work for both clients as would substantially justify him in charging two scale fees, even at the reduced rate approved by the local Law Society. He had, therefore, thought it proper at the time to give in advance an estimate

less than the scale fee so approved, although this was not his usual practice. The Committee accepted the respondent's evidence. The Committee found that the allegations made against the respondent had been substantiated and that he had been guilty of professional misconduct in respect thereof. Having regard to the matters stated in extenuation by the respondent, however, the Committee did not think that the case was one in which they ought to exercise their full disciplinary powers and they therefore ordered that there be imposed on the respondent a monetary penalty to be forfeited to his Majesty and that the respondent do pay the costs." (Gazette of the English L,an> Society, October, 1947.) Stamp duty on leases reserving a fine A QUESTION which seems to be agitating the minds of some solicitors recently is whether or not the new rates of stamp duty imposed by Section 13 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1947, apply to a lease granted in consideration of a fine and a rent, as well as to " conveyances or transfers on sale of lands." It is understood that the Revenue Com missioners claim that Section 15 applies to such leases and nobody has found it worth while to test the validity of the claim. The doubt arises from the fact that Section 13 expressly provides that the stamp duties chargeable on conveyances or transfers on sale of lands, etc., under the heading " conveyance or transfer on sale of any property " in the First Schedule to the Stamp Act, 1891, shall be at the new rate on and after ist December, 1947, but is silent as to leases. It is true that the First Schedule to the Stamp Act, 1891, when it came to fixing the stamp duties on leases, expressly provided that when the consideration for the lease included a fine the fine was to be subject to the same duty as a conveyance on sale for the same amount. It is also true that since the Finance (1909-10) Act, 1910, which doubled the ad valorem duty on conveyances on sale, the duty on a fine on a lease has also been doubled, but Section 76 of that Act (unlike Section 13 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1947), expressly dealt with leases. The answer seems to turn on whether the words " The same duty as a conveyance on a sale for the same consideration " in the First Schedule to the Stamp Act, 1891, as applied to leases, refer to the duty imposed by the Stamp Act, 1891, on conveyances, etc., or to the duty on such conveyances for the time being. 2p