The Gazette 1955-58

Lawyer in two Jurisdictions. Basis of Fees. Is an applicant entitled to the taxation of a bill of costs which had been delivered to him by an English solicitor who was also a member of the Canadian Bar, and is such a bill of costs, a Bill of an English solicitor within the meaning of the Solicitors Acts ? the applicant's wife was arrested in Montreal on charges resulting from her being in possession of some counterfeit currency. These charges were eventually dismissed, although it was only fair to say, in view of the size of the bill, that the proceedings in Canada were of some com plication and that there were two trials. The respondent was an English solicitor who was also a member of the Canadian Bar. The respondent sent to the applicant a bill of fees for his services on the basis that he was a Canadian barrister. It was a long bill and no doubt a considerable body of work had been done. There were no details of charges for anything except disbursements, and it was not surprising that the client wished to have the bill taxed. It is not for the Court to decide whether the bill was excessive ; but taxation was a salutary practice even if nothing was taxed off. It was even more salutary if something was taxed off. The taxation of a bill of costs is for the protection of the public. The work that the respondent had done was for the most part work which an English solicitor with a Canadian correspondent could have done as effectively. A small part of the work could not have been done by an English solicitor, if he had not been a Canadian barrister, but it could have been done through Canadian correspondents. A substantial part of the work could not have been done by a Canadian barrister if he had not also been an English solicitor. All the work that the respondent did was done in London, partly from his private address and partly from his solicitor's office; he did not put his foot one single yard outside the jurisdiction. Totally different considerations would have arisen if he had gone to Canada. The bill was that of an English solicitor with the additional qualification that he was a Canadian barrister and was therefore an English solicitor's bill within the meaning of the Act. It would be a strange anomaly if the respondent could hold himself out, as he did in England, to English people as an English solicitor and without being subject to the statutory burden of taxation to which all English solicitors were subject, merely because he had the additional qualification of being a Canadian barrister. (In Re a Solicitor—No. 3.— "The Times,"—i\st October, 1955.) Yes, said Roxburgh, J. In September, 1954,

determined by the Court, which shall not exceed 75 per cent, of the annual value of a weekly pay ment. The Court should consider in particular the age of the workman and his expectation of life. For this purpose a life annuity shall be deemed to be purchasable at a price calculated in accordance with the Table set forth in the Second Schedule to this Act. If, according to paragraph 4 (i) of the Fifth Schedule to the Act of 1934, two or more juvenile dependants are entitled to the benefit of the children's lump sum, the Court may by Section 9, now allocate the said lump sum in proportion to the number of months which must elapse between the date of the death of the workman and the date on which such juvenile dependants would attain the age of 16 years. By Section 10 the supplemental allowances provided for by Section 3 of the 1953 Act shall no longer be payable. appeal against striking off roll refused. Mr. A. R. Blackburn former M.P., applied to the Court of Appeal (Singleton, Jenkins and Parker, LJJ.) for leave to appeal against a decision of the Disciplinary Committee of the Law Society which had been affirmed by a Divisional Court of the Queen's Bench Division, that he be struck off the roll of solicitors and that the action be reheard before the Disciplinary Committee. On August 19th, 1955, the Disciplinary Committee ordered that the applicant's name be struck off the roll of solicitors of the Supreme Court on the grounds that having been convicted under the Prevention of Frauds (Investments) Act, 1939, at the Central Criminal Court on January yth, 1955, and having been sentenced to two years' imprisonment he had been guilty of conduct unbefitting a solicitor of the Supreme Court. The basis of the application was that the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal dismissing his appeal was so wrong that two sub sequent decisions of that Court had disregarded it and stated that it was wrong. The Court of Appeal in the exercise of its discretion dismissed the applica tion on the ground that the effect of a rehearing before the Disciplinary Committee would be indirectly to rehear the appeal before the Court of Criminal Appeal. Leave to appeal to the House of Lords was refused. (In Re a Solicitor—No. 4.—" The Times," z-jf/j October, 1955.) DECISIONS OF PROFESSIONAL INTEREST. Leave to