The Gazette 1978

GAZETTE

MARCH 1978

Fees Orders 1978 (1) Members are advised that a number of Fees Orders came into force on the 8th day of March, 1978. The average increase in Court fees in the Supreme Court, High Court, Circuit Court and District Court is 77% over those determined in 1970. The Orders in question are: (a) Supreme Court and High Court (Fees) Order, 1978. S.I. No. 42 of 1978. (b) Circuit Court (Fees) Order, 1978. S.I. No. 43 of 1978. (c) District Court (Fees) Order, 1978. S.I. No. 44 of 1978. (d) District Court (Fees) (No. 2) Order, 1978. S.I. No. 56 of 1978. The No. 2 Order outlines, inter alia, the proceedings in respect of which no fees are payable. (2) The Criminal Justice (Legal Aid) (Amendment) Regulations, 1978. S.I. No. 33 of 1978, provides for changes in the fees and expenses payable to solicitors under the Criminal Legal Aid Scheme. (3) The fees in the Land Registry are also up but they are not in force until the 3rd day of April, 1978. The relevant Orders are: (a) Land Registration Fees Order, 1978. S.I. No. 40 of 1978; and (b) Land Registration Fees (No. 2) Order, 1978. S.I. No. 74 of 1978. (4) Circuit Court Rules (No. 1), 1978. S.I. No. 77 of.

court or an agency of the state unless the Minister of Justice for an important state reason relieves him of this obligatioin. A lawyer cannot invoke his obligation to keep secrets if, under the provisions of the Criminal Code, he is bound to inform the authorities of a committed crime." That quotation is not invention. It is taken from a law of one of the Eastern European countries. And it is precisely because the law of the ancien régime required a lawyer to disclose "anything menacing to the king" that the law of France is as strict on this subject as it is. The European Community has many obvious defects. One of its merits is that it forces lawyers brought up in different legal systems to look more closely at thier own system to see what really matters and, perhaps, preserve it before it is too late. The vigorous action which has been and is being taken by the CCBE and by national professional bodies has had an effect in making the Community and national authorities aware of the dangers inherent in ill-considered action or legislation. It is important that individual lawyers should be aware of them too. On the immediate practical level, lawyers in Scotland should be particularly careful in three respects. First, if a client for whom they act is investigated by the EEC Commission, steps should be taken to ensure that correspondence which is "privileged" by UK standards is not surrendered without a fight. Second, if they are involved in advising clients in other countries, they should bear in mind that the UK concept of "privilege" does not apply. Third, they should, where possible, be careful to distinguish in correspondence between letters which relate to the management of their clients' affairs by themselves as agents and letters which are intended to convey legal advice. The former may be subject to seizure, the latter ought not to be. If there is doubt, the Law Society (or, in the case of advocates, the Dean of Faculty) should be consulted. This article has been reproducedfromthe "Journalofthe Law Society of Scotland" with the kind permission of the Scottish Law Society. A significant step in the history of the solicitors' profes- sion occurred this Winter. District Justice Bernard Carroll of Cork had become the first District Justice to state a case on a point of Community law to the Court of Justice of the European Communities, last Summer. This case, Minister for Fisheries v Schonenberg, was heard in December, and Rory Conway became the first solicitor from Ireland or Britain, other than solicitors employed by the Commission, to appear before the Court. Since then Liam Young of Dublin has appeared in another case, Mulcahy v Commission. Both solicitors referred to the interest and the historic nature of the occasion. Mr. Conway had the satisfaction of having his case decided in his favour in February; the result of Mulcahy v Commission is awaited. The High Court has already stated several cases to Luxembourg under Article 177 of the E.E.C. Treaty. The Supreme Court and the Circuit Court have yet to do so. A case involving the Northern Ireland Pigs Marketing

1978, which came into operation on the 15th day of March, 1978, provide for the discontinuance of the need for a Certificate of Jurisdiction from the Probate Registry in Circuit Court contentious probate proceedings. Irish Solicitors Appear in European Court

Board was to be sent to Luxembourg, but was settled, and the papers were never sent, so there has yet to be a case stated from Northern Ireland. Unlike the Schonenberg case, Mulcahy v Commission involved proceedings issued by Mr. Young directly in the Court of Justice, and was not a case stated. More and more points of Community law will come to the notice of practitioners and their clients. (What may be a case of professional negligence involving Community law has arisen in Britain.) Many such questions will arise in cases before the lower Courts, and the quickest and cheapest way of dealing with them may well be, as it certainly was in the Schonenberg case, to state a case to the Court in Luxembourg immediately. Solicitors therefore should be ready to argue questions of Community law not only in the Irish Courts, but in Luxembourg as well, when necessary. On the evidence to date, they should be able to do it very well.

47