The Gazette 1967/71

view was expressed senior counsel should not be briefed in the Circuit Court. A further point made was the existing right of audience of solicitors in the Circuit Court which was not much used because of the attitude of certain judges. One member sug gested that in the Circuit Court junior counsel and solicit should have a joint right of audience, the solicitor, where junior counsel is briefed being entitled to address the Court and examine and cross-examine witnesses alternately with counsel as senior and junior counsel do at the present time. Reference was also made to the fees charged by counsel particularly in licencing and planning applications. (e) The pending statutory enquiry into the allegad restrictive practises monopolies and fees of the legal profession. It was suggested that the Society should keep in close contact with the Federation of Professional Associations. (f) Failure to appoint solicitors to statutory boards. Attention was drawn to this matter particularly in regard to the Redundancy Tribunal in which all the legal representatives are members of the Bar. The solicitors profession should be properly represented on such boards. (g) Pending increase in jurisdiction Circuit and District Courts and the question of procedure for appeal. One member suggested that the appeal should be on the notes and not by way of re-hearing by a Judge only, particul arly in cases in which the appeal is from a judgment of a trial by judge and jury of the Circuit Court. Other members however stated that they would prefer a re-hearing by way of retrial, having regard to the experience of the profession many years ago when the appeal from an order of the Circuit Court was on the notes and a wholly unsatisfactory view of the case might be' presented to the appeal judge who had not seen the witness. The credibility of the witnesses could only be assessed on a personal view by the Court. (h) The Society's procedure for dealing with complaints from members of the public. One member thought that solicitors should not be asked to waste time in answering letters from the Society asking for comments on complaints from unreasonable clients. It was pointed out in reply that the Society cannot refuse to deal with complaints from members that

is discussion, whereas, unfortunately, for many years the attendances at our Society's half yearly meetings have been poor, and I am hopeful that this well attended meeting will usher in an era of better support and co-operation. The President's statement was followed by a general discussion in the course of which the following points were raised. (a) The refusal of some country solicitors to supply judgment bankruptcy and sheriff's office searches on sales of registered land. It was suggested that this was not proper conveyancing practice. The contrary view expressed was that such searches are unnecessary in the case of registered land because the entry on the Land Registry folio is conclusive evidence of title. (b) Defective procedure and delay in regard to Land Registry maps. It was however pointed out that the Land Commission will accept an ordinance survey sheet, properly marked on an application for sub-division. (c) Certain forms issued by the Revenue Commissioners requiring attestation by named parties including clergymen, peace commissioners, members of the garda siochana, omitting to name solicitors in the recognised category. (d) Grievances against the Bar. It was suggested that 'absentee Counsel' should not be entitled to receive fees where they do not appear in Court. Solicitors should undertake more advocacy on behalf of clients in the Circuit Court. In many cases it was stated Counsel appear at consultations without having read, or having properly read their briefs. The solicitors' profession and the legal system is exposed to criticism by clients who observe such conduct and consider, rightly, that there is an abuse of the legal system. Members also referred to serious delays by some counsel in dealing with professional business and repeated failure to answer correspondence and reminders in regard to cases to which they have received papers. It was suggested that on formal interlocutory applications where an attested copy affidavit is required counsel should hand in the affidavit because it is impossible for the town agent or his representative under present working conditions always to attend in Court on such applications. Reference was made to the pending increase in jurisdiction of the Circuit and District Courts and the dissipated in open