The Gazette 1973

THE SOCIETY Proceedings of the Council

the wife's instructions having regard to the fact that any communications between Y and members were on a solicitor and client basis. There is authority for the proposition that communications between solicitor and client relative to the commission or furtherance of a crime or fraud do not fall within the professional privilege and this exception applies as well where the solicitor is ignorant of criminal or fraudulent purpose for which his advice is sought as where the solicitor is a conspirator with the client (R. v. Cox and Railton, 14 OBD 153). Will—direction to employ solicitor—attestation A member acted for a client who is executrix and universal legatee of a will of a deceased husband. The will contains a codicil drawn by the solicitor who pre- pared the will directing the administratrix to instruct him to take out probate and to administer the estate. The solicitor himself was one of the witnesses to the codicil. The Council on a report from a committee were of the opinion that the direction in the codicil to employ the particular solicitor is void on two grounds. One it was witnessed by the solicitor himself. Two according to Cordery, 6th edition, page 83, a direction in a will that trustees are to appoint a particular solicitor does not give them any right to be so employed longer than the trustees choose. Sale of registered land part subject to equity note The Council on a report from a committee decided to republish the statement in the Society's Gazette, May 1971, page 3, to be printed in the February Gazette. REGI STERED LAND ONE SALE WITH SEVERAL T I TLES (Reprinted from May 1971 Gazette) Members wrote to the Society stating that he acted for a client in the sale of property comprised in three separate folios in the Irish Land Commission. The examiner in the Land Commission had directed that the facts be submitted to the Society for a ruling as to the correct basis of charging costs. The greater portion of the lands are comprised in a folio which is subect to equities. The equity note can be cancelled only after investigating the pre-registration title. The smaller part is comprised in two folios in one of which there is no equity note and in the other of which the equity note can be cancelled under the thirty year registration rule i.e. Rule 33 L.R.R. 1966. The Council considered Opinion C 38 and C 40 in the Society's Handbook and also opinion published in the November 1969 Gazette, page 54. The Council decided to revoke the decision published in the November 1969 Gazette. They are of opinion that where the title to register land is com- prised in several folios the solicitor for the purchaser is entitled to treat each folio separately and should appor- tion the purchase price between the several folios and the same proportion as the rateable valuation for the purpose of ascertaining the costs. 3

November 23rd, 1972. The President in the chair, also present Messrs W. B. Allen, Walter Beatty, Bruce St. J. Blake, John F. Buckley, John Carrigan, Anthony E. Collins, Laurence Cullen, Gerard M. Doyle, James R. C. Green, Gerald Hickey, Christopher Hogan, Michael P. Houlihan, Nicholas S. Hughes, Thomas Jackson Junior, John B. Jermyn, Francis J. Lanigan, John Maher, Eunan McCarron, Patrick McEntee, Brendan A. McGrath, Senator J. J. Nash, Patrick Noonan, John C. O'Carroll, Peter E. O'Connell, Thomas V. O'Connor, William A. Osborne, Peter E. M. Prentice, David R. Pigot, Mrs. Moya Quinlan, Robert McD. Taylor, and Ralph J. Walker. The following was among the business transacted. Publication of popular legal handbook A member is the author of a book You and the Law which was published in September 1972. Arising out of the publication of the book he was asked to appear on a sponsored programme on RTE for interview in con- nection with matters dealt with in the publication. Due to ill health he has been obliged to discontinue practice. In the opinion of the Council there is no professional objection to publication of the book or to members' appearing on the RTE programme. Administration of Estates. Secret Assets. Privilege X died intestate in Ireland in 1970 and was survived by his widow and brothers and sisters. For many years X and his wife were estranged. The deceased's widow resides in the U.S.A. The deceased's only asset was a sum of approximately £1,500 on deposit in the Bank of Ireland. The widow was aware that there was money in the bank but does not know its whereabouts. The widow is probably entitled to the money in the bank. Members were consulted by Y a brother of the deceased and members and Y both know the bank holding the accounts. Y instructed members to submit the following proposal to the widow. 1. She should agree to share the money in the bank with Y and Y would then take the necessary steps to obtain a release of the money. 2. The widow should execute a power of attorney enabling Y to obtain letters of administration. Member believes that the widow would agree to these proposals for the reason that failing agreement she would be unable to ascertain the whereabouts of the bank account. Members required a direction as to whether it would be proper to act for their client in the matter outlined above. The committee which reported and whose report was adopted by the Council were unanimous in stating that it would be improper for member to act in the manner suggested and directed the Secretary to write immediately informing him of this fact. The committee were divided on the question as to whether it would be proper for members to inform the bank confidentially of the death of the deceased and the existence and address of the widow without