The Gazette 1955-58

Conflicting Interests. MEMBERS submitted for the decision of the Council a query as to the propriety of acting for the plaintiff in civil proceedings arising out of a motor accident against a defendant for whom the members firm have already appeared in criminal proceedings. The facts were that member with the consent of an insurance company defended proceedings under the Road Traffic Act against the owner-driver of one of the cars involved. A passenger in the car of the driver subsequently decided to institute proceedings against him jointly with the driver of the other car involved. She instructed members to act for her. The driver of the first mentioned car was insured and raised no objection, but the insurance company did object. Members satisfied the Council that they had obtained no information from the proposed defendant driver for whom they had already acted in the District Court which will prejudice the defence of the latter in the civil proceedings. The law as stated in the text book is that a Court will not grant an injunction to restrain a solicitor from acting .for an adverse interest to that of a former client of his in the same proceedings unless satisfied that there is a likelihood of an abuse of confidence in respect of information obtained from the former client. The Council however are not concerned with the legal position as much as with the question of professional etiquette and propriety. They viewed the matter from the aspect of professional conduct and practice and the interests of the profession. The Council expressed the view on the facts before them that the solicitors who had already acted for one of the defendants in the District Court should not continue to act for the plaintiff in the subsequent civil proceedings against FEES. THE following letter of the President and Secretary of the Society was published in the Daily Press on October 4th:— Dear Sir, The Council of the Incorporated Law Society of Ireland held a special meeting to-day and considered the orders made by the Minister of Justice with the concurrence of the Minister of Finance, increasing the court fees in the Supreme Court, High Court, Circuit Court and District Court, which were issued without previous notice on Saturday last. These fees are payable to the State in connection with legal proceedings in the courts and are borne by the public who have to resort thereto. The extent of the increase has shocked the legal profession and we have been directed to bring to the notice of the public, who are directly concerned, the impor tance of the matter. The increases so imposed appear to the Council to be that defendant. INCREASE OF COURT 3rd October, 1956.

exorbitant. In many cases fees have been trebled and this shows only a small corner of the picture. For example, fees on the issue of an originating summons have been increased by approximately 500 per cent. The fees for an ex parte motion have been increased from 55. to £i ijs. 6d. These items taken together form a very large slice of the business of the High Court and it is obvious that they have been singled out for special treatment. The intention behind the orders was clearly to produce revenue with little regard for other considerations or consequences. These extravagant increases are not confined to the High Court. The stamp on a Circuit Court Civil Process has been raised by 700 per cent, and the fee on an ordinary District Court process has been raised from is. 6d. to 55. In Probate matters the ad valoremfees calculated on the gross assets have been doubled. Heretofore these fees have been assessed only on the gross personal estate. Under the new order Probate fees will be assessed on real estate, including freehold registered land. In bankruptcy matters the State, through the Official Assignee, will now levy 2s. in the pound off the gross assets as expenses of realisation before the creditors receive anything. The Council deplore that increases of such magnitude should have been made without consultation or even notice to the Superior Court, the Circuit Court and the District Court Rules Committees, the Bar Council and this Society. As a result of the haste with which the orders have been issued, no provision has been made to enable plaintiffs to recover the additional fees and until such time as the various Committees have met and made new rules, plaintiffs must pay such fees out of their own pockets. The Council have to-day applied to the respective Committees to hold immediate meetings. The Courts of Justice are part of the machinery of the State maintained as a paramount obligation for the well being of the community out of current taxation. The nett costs of the Courts for the last year were £473 35. od. which represents a very small proportion of the total expenditure of the State. The effect of the new orders is to impose a form—and a most unfortunate form of additional concealed taxation to the extent of approximately £150,000 in a full year. This is a tax which will have to be paid directly by members of the public who have of necessity to resort to the Courts and will operate with particular hardship on defeated litigants who have to pay the costs of proceedings or on debtors who will now bear the additional burden of greatly increased Court fees. Yours faithfully,

DERMOT P. SHAW, President. ERIC A. PLUNKETT, Secretary.

PROCEEDINGS AGAINST SOLICITORS.

ON 19th October, 1956, the Disciplinary Committee made an order directing that the name of Donal J. Hughes, who formerly practised at 85, Upper George's Street, Dun Laoghaire, Dublin, should be struck off the roll of solicitors. On jth October, 1956, the High Court made an order under Paragraph 17 of the fifth schedule to the Solicitors' Act, 1954, directing that no payment shall be made by any of the banks specified in the order out of a banking account in the name of Thomas K. Fitzgibbon, Solicitor, who practises