The Gazette 1964/67

Union Bank of Cavendish Square, London, against Mr. Ellis Lincoln was reported. The matter subse quently came before the High Court Queen's Bench Division on Thursday, 28 July 1966. The Divisional Court (the Lord Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Ashworth and Mr. Justice James) dis missed with costs the appeal of Mr. Ellis Lincoln, solicitor, against the order of the Disciplinary Committee of the Law Society, on 16 June 1966 that his name be struck off the Roll of Solicitors of the Supreme Court. The Lord Chief Justice in his judgment said that the allegations were that Mr. Lincoln had failed to comply with the Solicitors' Accounts Rules, 1945 to 1959, in certain respects—there was an allegation in regard to a practising certificate, but that had disappeared from the case—that he had been guilty of misconduct unbefitting a soli citor in a number of respects some of which followed from his failure to comply with the ac counts rules, namely, utilising money, received and held by him on behalf of clients for his own pur poses and purposes of other clients, and failing adequately to supervise conveyancing clerk, Ber tram Hall, aged 60. In October 1965 after Mr. Lincoln had been interviewed by an assistant to the Law Society's investigation accountant and an investigation of the books had been made, it was found that the clients' ledger contained no entries in respect of clients' banking account transactions later than 5 April 1965—and that delay certainly influenced the Disciplinary Committee, since they treated the books as being thereby "disastrously in arrears". The total amount due to clients was some £20,900 whereas the cash available on that ac count was some £7,237. Although there was that shortage Mr. Lincoln had left a "cushion" of some £6,000 which he would have been entitled to have transferred into office account on account of bills of costs. On analysis, £3,000 was the total of some 61 withdrawals not posted to any clients ledger account and which could not be, and even today had not been, justified; £10,270 was P:::C:-J withdrawals creating debit balances contrary to Rule 7 was really concealing the true position. In July 1965 Bertram Hall left; he just did not turn up, and thereafter—and one had great sym pathy with Mr. Lincoln in this respect—he dis covered that Mr. Hall had been occupying his position in the office to make money for his own benefit and had landed Mr. Lincoln in potential liabilities (it was too early to ascertain them) running into tens of thousands of pounds, largely due to undertakings Hall handed out in the name of the firm. There was no doubt that a sub-

[Law Institute Journal, Victoria and Queens land Law Society, July 1966, p. 272.] Enforcement of Solicitor's Undertaking The National Union Bank, Ltd., sought an order that a solicitor (Mr. L.) stand committed to Brixton Prison for failing to comply with personal undertakings in writing given by him or on his behalf in his capacity as a solicitor of the Supreme Court on or about January 18, 26 and 27, 1965, to hold to the sole order of the bank the leases of the five several properties referred to in the written undertakings and to account to the bak or its order for £19,500 out of the proceeds of sale of the properties; and in the alternative that the bank might be at liberty to issue a writ or writs of attachment against the solicitor on the grounds aforesaid. During the hearing the bank abandoned its claim under the first heading and obtained leave to amend the notice of motion by asking for the following orders against the solicitor : that he be ordered, first, forthwith to deliver to the bank the leases of the properties known as and situate at 287 Gray's Inn Road, and 7 Plender Street, both in the County of Greater London, referred to in the undertakings, and second, forthwith to account for and pay to the bank the sum of £2,950 being the aggregate of the sums paid by the purchasers of the several properties referred to in the undertakings by way of deposit and part payment. Held (Pennycuick, J.) : (1) (a) the court would not make an order on L. to do something which it was not possible for him to carry out, and accor dingly the court would not order L. to hand over, in effect, the lease of No. 7 Plender Street; (b) as L. could obtain the lease of No. 287 Gray's Inn Road by paying off the mortgage, the court would order him to hand that lease over to the bank. (2) On the true construction of the under takings they did not cover the deposits in the event, which had happened, of the contracts not being completed, and accordingly the court would make no order relating to the deposits. Per Curiam : In exercising jurisdiction over solicitors as officers of the court what the court has in practice always done is first to make a mandatory order on the solicitor to perform his undertaking, and, if that is disobeyed, application for a committal order may follow and then the order would be made. [Re/A Solicitor (1966), 3 All E.R., p. 25.] Consequences of Solicitors' Undertaking In Vol. 59, No. 10, of the Gazette (i.e. April issue, 1965, at page 105) the case of the National