The Gazette 1955-58

FINAL EXAMINATION. AT the Final Examination for apprentices to solicitors held on the 26th, 2yth and 28th days of March, the following passed the examination and their names are arranged in order of merit:— Passed with Honours 1. John C. Farrell. 2. John F. Buckley, B.A., LL.B. Passed Michael C. Halpenny, B.A.; Dermot Hegarty, Michael A. Regan, Noel M. Gleeson, Timothy McEniry, Robert McGonagle, Patrick Kelly, Gerard O'Malley, James J. O'Sullivan, Owen Binchy, Michael A. Noonan, Kevin P. St. G. McClenaghan, B.A., LL.B.; Patrick R. O'Gorman, Anthony F. McCormack. 24 candidates attended ; 16 passed. The Council has awarded a Silver Medal to John C. Farrell and a Special Certificate to John F. Buckley. The following passed in Part I or Part II Final Examination and their names are arranged in order of merit:— Part I.—James B. O'Leary, B.A.; Mairead F. Ruttledge, William Nicholl, Patrick A. Glynn, Edward J. Duffy, John P. Clifford, Iseult Clare Kennedy, William W. Blood-Smyth. Part II. —Michael G. Fog?rty, Terence M. Williams, B.A.; Brenda Halpin, Matthew P. Drum, Gerald B. Coulter, William J. B. Fallon, Charles R. M. Meredith, Mary M. Murray, B.A.; Susanna Bowler. First and Second Irish Examinations The next examinations will be held on June 29th, and 3oth. Notice must be given on or before June 8th. DECISIONS OF PROFESSIONAL INTEREST. Failure of Complaints against Solicitor is no Protection for Clerk. The Divisional Court (Goddard L. C. J. Cassels and Donovan J. J.) in a reserved judgment, dismissed the appeal of a solicitor's clerk, against an order of the Disciplinary Committee of January the 2yth, 1956, under section 16 (i) (£) of the Solicitors' Act, 1941, which provides that "where it appears . . . that in the course or as a result of any pro ceedings before the Disciplinary Committee a person who is or was a clerk to a solicitor but is filing and indeed he was the actual person who not himself a solicitor has been a party to any act or default of such solicitor in respect of which an

application or complaint has been or might be made against such solicitor ... an application may be made to the Disciplinary Committee that an order be made directing that no solicitor shall in connection with his practice as a solicitor take or retain the said person into his employment or remunerate him without the written permission of the Law Society." The clerk appealed on the ground that there was no act or default proved against his principal to which he had been a party, and therefore the Disciplinary Committee had no power to make the order against him. Per Lord Goddard, C. J. :—A complaint had been preferred on behalf of the Law Society against a solicitor alleging that he had been guilty of pro fessional misconduct in that he had (a) caused or permitted to be filed in the High Court of Justice an affidavit which he knew or ought to have known was false, or alternatively misleading in a material respect, and (b) failed adequately to supervise his clerk, the appellant in the present proceedings. An inquiry was duly held by the Disciplinary Committee of the Society. The committee found that a false and misleading affidavit had been filed and used in a proceeding in which the solicitor was acting for the party on whose behalf the affidavit was prepared and filed. But they also found that the solicitor did not know and in fact could not have known of the contents of the affidavit. Nevertheless they considered he was not altogether blameless in that he should have exercised special care in the particular case, because there was a possibility of a conflict of interest between the client and the solicitor's clerk. The clerk had certain financial dealings with the client, and as managing clerk to the solicitor he was undertaking the conduct of the proceedings, and at the most material times the solicitor was away from his office. The Court believed the present case to be the first one in which an order against an unadmitted clerk under section 16 of the Act of 1941 had come before them on appeal. The appellant's objection was that, as the com mittee had found the complaints against the solicitor to have failed, no order could be made against him (the clerk) in that he could not be a party to an act or default of a solicitor in respect of which an application or complaint had been made if the committee found the case not proved against the solicitor. The committee found, and it was not disputed, that the clerk was a party to the preparation and prepared and filed the affidavit and he knew that it was misleading. The solicitor escaped punishment