The Gazette 1967/71

Appeal by Solicitor Fails An action by a solicitor for an injunction, inter alia, restraining officials of the Law Society from requiring him to disclose certain confidential infor mation in respect of clients' affairs was "obviously misconstrued", said Mr. Justice Diplock. The Court dismissed the appeal of Mr. A. G. Parry-Jones a Barry solicitor, against an order of Mr. Justice Buckley striking out the endorsement on the writ in an action brought by him against the Law Society and certain of its officials, as dis closing no cause of action. The solicitor argued that the society could not require him to produce under rule 11 of the Solicitors' Accounts Rules, 1945, information which was subject to an obliga tion of confidence between solicitor and client. The Master of the Rolls, giving judgement, said that section 29 of the Solicitors Act 1957 stated that the council of the Law Society "shall make rules" with regard to the keeping of accounts by solicitors. Necessarily the statute imported that the rules could trespass upon the confidential ob ligations between solicitor and client if it was necessary in order to comply with the rules. It seems that rule 11 of the Solicitors' Accounts Rules (which requires a solicitor to produce docu ments for the inspection of any person appointed by the council) was a valid rule under the statute which overrode any confidence or privilege which might exist 'between solicitor and client. The duty of confidence between solicitor and client was subject to and overridden by the duty of any party to the confidence to comply with the law of the land and if it was the duty of such a party, whether under common law or statute, to disclose, in defined circumstances, confidential information, then we had to do so. Mr. Justice Salmon agreed with both 'the judge ments of Denning M. R. and Lord Justice Diplock (Parry-Jones v Law Society, Times, November 16th 1967). Continuous Practice, as Solicitor Section 29 (2) of The Solicitors' Act 1954 pro vides that a solicitor who has not at some time been in continuous practice as a solicitor for a period of seven years, cannot without special leave of the Society take an apprentice. It has been held by the English Chancery Division that a Solicitor who in four out of five years had been late in

Obtaining a practising certificate could not claim to have been continuously in practice for that period although he 'had in fact been practising during the whole period. The pupose of the application to the Court was to establish whether or not he was entitled to take an apprentice. Pennycuick J. in delivering judgement stated that the applicant's first prac tising certificate had been taken out on 7th March 1960, and since then he had been continuously in practice, at first as an assistant to another soli citor, and later on his own account. The word "continuously" needed qualification because on four occasions had not taken out a practising certificate until after the end of the month's period of grace allowed by the Act. It was inescapable that during a relatively short period in each of the four years, the applicant although in fact prac tising as a solicitor, was not doing so lawfully, and it was impossible to say as a matter of construction that he was in practice during those periods within the meaning of Section 41 of The Solicitors' Act 1957 (ADLAM v. Law Society, Times Newspaper, 9th November, 1967). Delay — A Disgrace to Profession Criticism of court procedure was voiced by Mr. Justice Phillimore when giving judgement in a case which arose out of a road accident 10 years ago. He blamed the plaintiff's solicitors for the delay and added: 'It is indeed a shocking story and a disgrace to the legal profession'. The plaintiff was 20 when injured, when being driven home by Mr. Donal Wales, now her hus band after a party. His car and a car driven by Mr. Stanley Charles Fitt, formerly of Stepney, whose whereabouts had not been traced, collided at a light-controlled crossing. Mrs. Wales sued her husband and Mr. Fitt. The sole issue of liability depended on whether the lights were in favour of Mr. Wales or Mr. Fitt. Judgement was entered for £3,200 damages and costs against Mr. Fitt. Referring to court procedure his Lordship stated: 'I question whether this case does not involve some criticism of present procedure. Our system is to leave the conduct of litigation in the hands of the litigants. The plaintiff has the prin cipal conduct of the case, but if he does not get on with it it is open to the defendant to apply to dismiss the case for want of prosecution. 70