The Gazette 1958-61

already know to be of doubtful integrity will not necessarily be compensated. Members of the public who give their business to any particular solicitor because they have been canvassed by him directly or indirectly, or because the attraction of undercutting in legal charges has been held out to them may for the future have to bear their own losses. If a member of the public gives his business to a solicitor in those circumstances, he does so at his own risk. If that solicitor commits a fraud involving financial loss to the client, it is optional to your Council to refuse to compensate for that loss. Those exceptions are very reasonable. It would be most inequitable to suggest that honourable members of the profession should have to indemnify members of the public who, by their conduct, have actively assisted solicitors in the unprofessional and degrading conduct of unfairly attracting business by canvassing or by under-cutt ing in legal fees. This Act will mean a considerable advance in good relations between our profession and the general public. It enables the public to have complete confidence in the profession. It also gives the Society the right to lay down rules of professional conduct for the profession and to insist that its standards will be maintained. In the negotiation of its terms with the Government, our profession are indebted to Mr. Haughey, the Parliamentary Secretary for Justice, not only for his invariable courtesy but also for his practical assistance. Another very important matter which has for some time past been engaging the attention of your Council is the legal education of our students. Your Council are not satisfied that the present system is satisfactory. It may not be generally recognized that down to almost 100 years ago there was no organized training and education either for the Bar or for solicitors. For a call to the Bar, the sole de jure qualifications consisted of the ability to eat and drink and to sign one's name. Defacto this involved, according to a description of Joseph Napier, Q.C. in the House of Commons Debate on the ist March, 1854 " going into a Pleader's Office for two or three year to learn to tell a plain story in very unintelligible language ". For a solicitor, the only training was practical apprenticeship—in his case without the gastronomical consolations. Such instruction as the student obtained, therefore, depended entirely on his own initiative and that of his principal. There was no test of educational proficiency, either general or legal, and if the student sought guidance from lectures or classes, he would be unlikely to find it. The system of lectures and examinations during apprenticeship has evolved since then. It is hide bound by statute and has the inherent defect of inflexibility which appertains to statutory provision. 59

for Justice thus exercises over the legal profession and the economic pressure which he can bring to bear on its individual members he is able to stifle the free expression of their arguments and objections to any iniquity. It is, therefore, important in a free society that nothing should be done which would unreasonably interfere with the full development of an independent, autonomous legal profession. It may seem attractive at first glance that some of the work which normally falls to the private practitioner should be done by whole-time lawyers in civil service departments or corporations. The attractions are chimerical. By undermining the economic stability of the profession and the relationship which should exist between the public and their private legal consultants the diversion of work from the private practitioner to the whole-time legal employee may cause irreparable damage. The ethical standards of our profession are such as to give one justifiable cause for pride. There is, however, a very small minority which, for some years past, has averaged each year approximately one per cent, of practising solicitors who have betrayed public confidence and sullied the good name of our profession. There is a further minority which is much more substantial who unethically endeavour to attract business from their colleagues to them selves by canvassing and price cutting. A man who is unethical in one direction is capable of being unethical in another. Your Council have been applying their attention to the best methods of preventing the exploitation of the public by dishonest solicitors and the exploitation of the profession by dishonourable solicitors. The Solicitors' (Amend ment) Act, 1960, which has just now been passed into law, gives your Council control over practising members of the profession which is consistent with the Constitution of our State. In this Act, your Council, on your behalf and in the name of the profession, have made a very generous gesture towards the general public. They accepted legisla tion providing at the expense of the profession a compensation fund. According to the statistics and figures in our possession, this fund should be completely adequate to protect the public against financial loss through the dishonesty of that small minority who have proved themselves unworthy of our profession. For the future the public may, with confidence, be reasonably assured that if they place their legal affairs in the hand of any solicitor, they have adequate financial protection. There are a few very important exceptions where the Society have discretion to refuse compensation. Members of the public who sustain financial loss through their own negligence, as for example clients who place their legal affairs in the hands of solicitors whom they