The Gazette 1967/71

to give his professional opinion. The view of the I MA is that he can do this more objectively when his fee is not subject to the outcome of lita- gation. Yours sincerely, NOEL REILLY, Secretary. Probate Office 23rd July, 1968 The Probate Officer, Four Courts, DUBLIN 7. Dear Sir, I shall be obliged if you will let me know the present position under the rules as to com munication between solicitors and the Probate Office through the Post Office. Is it possible at present to bespeak by post copies of wills, grants, etc. with notification of fees payable sent to the solicitors by post to avoid unnecessary journies from his office. Most of the other public offices such as the Estate Duty Office and the Land Commission are encouraging and in some cases insisting on communications through the Post Office rather than personal attendance. The matter is becoming more urgent for solicitors having regard to the time involved in travelling and queing for attention in various public offices around the city. Information on this point would be of great assistance to my Council. Yours faithfully, ERIC A. PLUNKETT, Secretary. The following reply was received on 25th July, 1968: Dear Sir, I have to say in answer to the first proposi tion in your letter of the 23rd inst. that the position remains unchanged, that is, that appli cations for Grants of Probate or Letters of Ad ministration are still governed by Order 79, Rule 3 (1962 Rules), which disallows applications by letter, where the Probate Office is concerned. The Second issue raised by you, that is, re quisition to Probate Office, through the post, for copies of Wills, Grants and other documents, is neither mentioned in, nor proscribed by the Rules of Court. In these circumstances, this facility for bespeaking copies through the post will be granted to Solicitors who require it. Where however the practitioner cannot supply the date of the relevant Grant, a Search by an Official of the Probate Office would be necessary

to ascertain it, and this would entail an addi tional expense factor. I trust the foregoing is the information you desire. • i Yours faithfully, PROBATE OFFICER. CASES OF THE MONTH National Insurance; Solicitor's Articled Clerks By agreement between the fathers of two articled clerks in a firm of solicitors it was agreed that the clerks should be articled, and that although the articles would not contain a provision for payment to the clerks they would be paid from the day they started the actual cost of travel between the house and the office and of lunches on days of attendance at the office. No pay ments were made on days of non-attendance at the office. The question arose as to whether the firm was liable to pay National Insurance con tributions and this question turned on whether or not the clerks being in receipt of the cost of their lunches and travel were "gainfully occupied" within the meaning of the National Insurance Acts. Cooke, J. said that the payments were made solely as a result of the articled clerks' employ ment and in his opinion they were thus gainfully employed under the contract of service. What was gained was free travel and free lunches. The fact that there was no profit to the articled clerks themselves did not nulify the actual gain. Solicitor, Professional Negligence, Complaint by Law Society. The Council of the Law Society of Scotland made a complaint against a solicitor in respect of an alleged breach of the Solicitors' (Scotland) Ac counts Rules 1952, as amended, whereby as at 31st May 1966 the total sums due to clients exceeded the amount in the client bank account by £15,646. After a hearing the Discipline Com mittee found him guilty of professional miscon duct and fined him £25. The deficiency was cleared by the solicitor before the Council's complaint was heard by the Discipline Com mittee. The Council appealed to the Court of Session under Section 7 of the Solicitors' (Scot land) Act 1958 which provides inter alia that any person aggrieved by the Discipline Com mittee may within 21 days appeal against the decision to the Court of Session and crave that the Court should substitute a further censure and fine a graver punishment. It was contended