The Gazette 1961 - 64

declined to act for both parties. He also thought that the rule would not remedy the abuse of fee cutting as a solicitor who obtained a new client as the result of the rule would ba more tempted to reduce fees in order to retain the client. MR. W. A. OSBORNE (JAthy) stated that the Kildare Bar Association were opposed to the rule. MR. RAYMOND C. MEREDITH (Dublin) stated that his firm would never act for both parties where there is a conflict. He opposed the rule and stated that it should have universal application or it should not be made at all. MR. T. P. O'REILLY (Ballyconnell) opposed the rule on the ground that he was the only resident solicitor in Ballyconnell and the diversion of clients to other towns would cause hardship to them and would reduce his practice. MR. B. J. LYNCH (Carrick-on-Shannon) stated that in view of the great difference of opinion in the profession he did not think that a majority obtained by a postal ballot would justify the introduction of the rule. MR. C. McGuiix fDundalk) opposed the rule and stated that solicitors must be given credit for ability to decide whether there is a conflicting interest. It would lead to a diversion of clients and slower service. MR. G. Y. GOLDBERG (Cork) supported the rule as being for the benefit of the profession and the public. There was always a danger of a conflict of interests when a solicitor acts for both parties. The council were not seeking to impose the rule but wanted to obtain the views of the profession. He supported Mr. Dillon-Leetch and thought that the rule was perfectly fair and constitutional. MR. W. D. McEvoY (Gorey) stated that conditions are completely different in the city and the country. He referred to the opinion of counsel obtained by the Wexford Bar Association and stated that he thought that the rule was a reflection on the intelligence and integrity of solicitors. MR. J. A. KENNEDY (Carrickmacross) stated that he opposed the rule. MR. W. P. TOOLAN (Ballinamore) opposed the rule. He thought the main arguments in favour of it i.e. price cutting and touting were insufficient. If the present rules prohibiting these abuses were inadequate they could be strengthened and he thought that the cases which were mentioned previously should have been brought to the notice of the society. MR. JAMES SMITH (Arva) opposed the rule and stated that be knew of only one case where a solicitor was made liable for damages in a conveyancing transaction. In that matter he acted for one party only. A careful solicitor will always draw up a proper contract. In cases of conflict he will send his client to another solicitor or instruct counsel. The Bar Associations could regulate fee cutting. He did not think that the proposed rule would prevent auctioneers from diverting clients to certain solicitors. He was the only solicitor resident in Arva and if the rule were made he would have to send clients thirteen miles to seek other advice and he would get no return by receiving clients from other towns. He did not understand why sales by private treaty were excluded from the scope of the proposed rule. MR. BARRY STEEN (Navan) stated that the resolution of the Meath Bar Association in favour of the rule was passed at a badly attended meeting and then only by the casting vote of the chairman. He personally opposed the rule. The President in closing the discussion said that the council were not trying to force any regulation on the profession. The discussion at the Ordinary General Meeting in Galway was inconclusive although a slight majority of the speakers at that meeting appeared to be in favour of a limited rule. He did not understand the references to the sincerity of the proposers of a rule. As drafted it was intended to meet the views of a number of the speakers at the Galway meeting who were not prepared to go the whole way and advocate a universal rule. A limited rule would meet the biggest abuse

of touting by auctioneers and undesirable relations with solicitors. There was also the difficulty which arises when there are two adjoining Bar Associations one of which has a rule and the other has not. He went on to say that no regulation would be brought in without a postal ballot. He did not know whether there would be a postal ballot as the council would have to reconsider the matter. The rule making authority under the Solicitors Act was vested in the council not in a general meeting but the council were taking steps to inform themselves of professional opinion on the matter. There was no doubt what the predominant opinion of the members at the present meeting was on the subject but it did not follow that it was representative of the entire pro fession and the duty of the council was towards the profession as a whole. The council would have to consider the legal points raised at the meeting and no further step will be taken without adequate notice to the profession. The proceedings then terminated. CORONERS BILL, 1961 The Coroners Bill, 1961 has now passed the committee stage in Dail fiireann and it is obtainable from the Government Publications Office, ("price z/- nett). The following is an extract from the Ddil Debates for Thursday, I5th February, 1962, and contains a discussion on what is now section 35 (2) of the Bill. Section 35 (2) now reads as follows : " A coroner or deputy coroner shall not hold an inquest on the body of, or inquire into the death of, any person if he has drawn up, or assisted in the drawing up, and is a beneficiary under, any testamentary disposition made by that person." " MINISTER FOR JUSTICE (MR. HAUGHEY) : I move amendment No. 30 : In subsection (2), page 12, line 46, to delete ' who is a solicitor or barrister '. It has been pointed out that sometimes a coroner who is a doctor might assist in the drawing up of a will under which he would be a beneficiary and that, therefore, the prohibition in subsection (2) of Section 45 on ' legal' coroners holding inquests should be extended to medical coroners when they find themselves in the same position. Under the subsection, as proposed to be revised, any coroner or deputy coroner will be prohibited from holding an inquest or inquiring into the death of any person where he has drawn up or assisted in drawing up the will of the deceased person and benefits under it. Amendment agreed to. MR. McGiLLiGAN : I move amendment No. 31 : In subsection (2), page 12, line 49, to delete ' and is a beneficiary under '. I want to delete certain words. The object of this is that a person should not act as a coroner in the case of a death where, prior to that death, he has helped in the drawing up of a will or a testamentary disposition. The matter is limited to those words. He is precluded from acting only if he has assisted 93