The Gazette 1964/67

JOINT SEMINAR WEEKEND On Saturday and Sunday, the 22nd and 23rd October, Cork suffered an avalanche of solicitors, and despite the weight of legal opinion, extension of closing hours was not available. Notwithstand ing this, there was a much more learned, very exhausted exodus from Cork on Sunday. The weekend commenced with Mr. William Maguire, solicitor, who spent all of Saturday afternoon and evening explaining the Succession Act and its implications to the gathering. This mammoth job was carried out by Mr. Maguire in his usual precise and highly informative man ner. On Sunday morning, His Honour Judge Conroy delivered a very interesting paper on Reversionary Leases and the Ground Rents Bill. In the afternoon Mr. Brendan Kiernan, B.L., delivered his paper on Town Planning. It was thanks to the work and co-operation of the three joint organisers, the Council of Pro vincial Solicitors Association, the Southern Law Association, and the Society of Young Solicitors, that the weekend was such a success. There were some 270 solicitors present, representing every one of the 26 counties. It is to be hoped that future seminars will be as great a success as this one. The next joint seminar will be held next spring, and it is hoped that the venue will be in the mid-west, or west, of Ireland. Suggestions for topics for this seminar are requested and you should send these to the Secretary, the Society of Young Solicitors, -15 ..Braemor,, Park, Dublin 14. " / • t .l - ',.. ;...,' ' . •/.:•• :.-• •nic.j"l^"<-.'-"- ,IS

enunciated by their Lordships is it possible fd find any rational basis for distinguishing between counsel and solicitors as advocates. Indeed, in two precisely similar actions, whether counsel or a solicitor appears may depend on no more funda mental, or vis-a-vis liability in negligence, rele vant issue than the amount at stake since that alone may determine whether the High Court or County Court has jurisdiction. In this respect at least we are at a loss to see how, in Lord Justice Danckwerts' phrase, barristers "face hazards quite unknown" to solicitors. On drafting the advisory work a majority of the Court of Appeal likewise held that a barrister could not be liable for negligence. Lord Justice Salmon gave a strongly dissenting judgment. Here at any rate usage is of little consequence, for, as Lord Justice Salmon said, it is inconceivable that "barristers, any more than any other professional men, would write 'without legal responsibility for negligence' above their doors." As the law now stands, solicitors are liable for negligence in relation to paperwork and advising. We do not suggest that there is any ground of complaint on that score. We wish merely to make the point. For of counsel Lord Justice Danckwerts said that "sitting in the quiet contemplation of his cham bers," were he not able to accept a case to advise or instructions to draft a document "on the footing that the result will not be open to proceedings by the client for negligence," counsel might be "alarm ingly anxious." Are the thoughts which disturb a solicitor's quiet contemplation any less alarh)- ingly anxious ones? Or, those that occur to the surgeon at the operating table? Their anxiety is perhaps mitigated by the realisation that the law provides reasonable protection for those harassed by unmeritorious claims. Could it not do so for all? The answer to this question is, we think, largely one of approach. In the Court pf Appeal much was made of the historical grounds for the differences between the two branches of the 'pro fession. The function of historical enquiry is, however, merely to explain how such differences came about, not to justify them.. Yet jn Rond.cl v Worsley their Lordships were, concerned 'to justify them—in one particular context. To «s it does not appear that they did so very convincingly, or that the repercussions of the decision in Rondel v Worsley will be to the ultimate benefit, of the Bar. Not that it is likely to be very ultimate for, as the Financial Times has noted, it has "a curiously fragile look about "it." Fragile certainly, but scarcely curiously so.-----; «ovr.'?V.: M..-.-/SM ? !Y -., -.' . '•'•*.'.•• •••' '' ; .' '••• '' ''' ' '' v'" - . •'• •.•r? :;v -^-New • Law • Journal,- r27'th October, 1966i