Page images
PDF
EPUB

"(b) That all barristers, whether senior or junior to A.B.,

should so far as reasonably practicable do the work of A. B., making any arrangement they think fit as to sharing fees, but so that all fees be as between A. B. and the client booked by A. B.'s clerk to the credit of A.B.

"(c) That any barrister doing the work for A.B. should after his signature to any pleadings or other documents add for A. B., now serving in His Majesty's Forces (or as the case may be), and if holding a brief should state to the court for whom he is holding such brief, and for what reason."

The Attorney-General, in moving the resolution, announced that he had received from Mr. Bingley (the secretary) the gratifying information that he had so far obtained the names of about 350 barristers now serving in His Majesty's Forces, including several King's Counsel and members of the Bar Council.

Sir Robert Finlay, K.C., M.P., seconded the resolution, and said that he heartily concurred in its object, and hoped it would have the desired effect of preserving the practice of barristers who were serving the country.

The chairman, Mr. Hugo Young, K.C., Sir Reginald Acland, K.C., Mr. Hansell, Mr. Sheldon, Mr. Austen-Cartmell, and Mr. McCardie also spoke in favour of the resolutions, which were carried unanimously.

The above resolutions were published and communicated to the Law Society and others, and the following communications were received :Law Society's Hall, Chancery-lane, W.C., 23rd October 1914.

BARRISTERS SERVING IN H.M. FORCES.

Dear Sir, I have received your letter inclosing a report which on the motion of the Attorney-General was adopted at a special meeting of the Bar Council held on the 21st inst. with regard to briefs, which in ordinary circumstances would be delivered to barristers serving in H. M. Forces.

The report was considered by the council at their meeting this afternoon and was approved by them. If you will send me seventy-two copies of the report I shall be happy to forward them to the various provincial law societies. I shall be obliged at the same time if you will kindly favour me with fifty copies for the members of the council.

Yours faithfully, E. R. Cook, Secretary. The Secretary, Bar Council, 2, Hare-court.

Inns of Court O.T.C., Berkhamsted, Herts. 24th October 1914.

Dear Bingley,Very many thanks for your letter and copy of report. I have made the members of the Bar in camp here acquainted with the contents of the latter, and I should be glad if you would convey to the Bar Council our deep appreciation of their action in the matter.

Yours very truly, F. H. L. ERRINGTON, Lieut.-Colonel,
Commanding Inns of Court O.T.C.

16th County of London, 58, Buckingham-gate, S.W.,
27th October 1914.

Dear Bingley,-I have seen the notice as to the steps taken by the Bar Council with respect to serving members of the Bar. I am sure all of us, whether our practice be large or small, deeply appreciate the consideration and thought shown for us.

Yours sincerely, JULIAN Q. HENRIQUES, Captain

The City of London Solicitors' Company, 19, Gt. Winchester-street, London, E. C. 9th November 1914. Dear Sir,-At a meeting of the court of this company held on the 2nd inst., the attention of the court was called to the resolution passed at the special meeting of the Bar Council held on the 21st October last with reference to delivering briefs and papers to barristers serving with His Majesty's Forces, and I was instructed by the Court to inform you that they cordially supported such resolution and would do their best to give it effect.

I am, dear Sir, yours faithfully, S. H. BARNES,
Deputy Clerk.

The Secretary of the Bar Council, Temple, E.C. The secretary of the council is keeping a register of all members of the Bar serving in His Majesty's Forces, and would be glad to receive their names, and professional addresses, together with the particulars of their service. He has so far received the names of about 700 barristers, including the following members of the council-Mr. Felix Cassel, K.C., M.P., Mr. L. G. Hoare, Mr. Geoffrey Lawrence, Mr. W. Cleveland Stevens, and Mr G. E. W. Bowyer.

At the request of the council the chairman submitted to the Lord Chancellor, the Lord Chief Justice of England, and the Master of the Rolls the suggestion that barristers on active service should be allowed to appear in courts of justice in military uniform and without wig and gown. The council were glad to learn that the suggestion met with approval, and that announcements to this effect were immediately made in open court.

[blocks in formation]

As a result of such conference the executive committee made a report to the council, and the council passed resolutions which were communicated to the Law Society in the following letter :

General Council of the Bar, 2, Hare-court, Temple, 2nd April 1914.

Dear Sir, I am directed by the chairman of the General Council of the Bar to inform you that at a meeting of the council held yesterday the matters discussed with the deputation from the Law Society on the 12th January last were considered, and the following resolutions were adopted :

1. That in all ordinary cases the junior's fee shall be marked according to the accustomed proportion of two-thirds or threefifths of the leader's fee.

2. That in all cases where a higher fee than would ordinarily be marked having regard to the importance of the case (which higher fee is hereinafter called an exceptional fee) is required by a leader, the following proportions shall in future be observed in respect of the junior's fee, viz. :—

(a) The accustomed proportion between the leader's and the junior's fee (viz., two-thirds or three-fifths) shall continue to apply to all cases where the exceptional fee does not exceed 100 guineas.

(b) In cases where the exceptional fee exceeds 100 and does not exceed 500 guineas, the junior's fee shall be the usual proportion of the first 100 guineas and one-half of the remainder, and in cases where the exceptional fee exceeds 500 guineas, the junior's fee shall be the usual proportion of the first 100 guineas, one-half of the next 400 guineas, and one-third of the remainder.

(c) That these proportions shall only apply to cases where the fee paid to the leader is really an exceptional fee, i.e., where it is more than would ordinarily be marked having regard to the importance of the case. These resolutions do not differ, except in the details of (b), from the proposals put forward by the deputation, and with regard to those details the suggestions made by the deputation in respect of the junior's proportion in cases of exceptional fees were thought to be somewhat complicated, and the proportions embodied in the resolutions were adopted as being simpler and not materially differing from those suggested by the Law Society.

If the Bar Council are assured that these resolutions will be accepted by the solicitors as a satisfactory solution of the whole matter, the council are prepared to recommend the Bar to adopt this arrangement as a rule of the Profession.

I am, dear Sir, yours faithfully, HENRY C. A. BINGLEY,
Secretary.

S. P B. Bucknill, Esq., Secretary, the Law Society. Since the date of the above letter the following correspondence has passed between the Council and the Law Society :

Law Society's Hall, Chancery-lane, 22nd April 1914.

[blocks in formation]

Law Society's Hall, Chancery-lane, 24th July 1914. Dear Sir, I am directed by the Council of the Law Society to advert to your letter of the 2nd April last, and in reply thereto to send you the following resolution which has been passed by them :

"That in all cases in which a leader and a junior are briefed, the fee payable to the junior shall be two-thirds of the fee which would ordinarily be marked for the leader having regard to the importance of the case and the amount of the papers, but the junior shall not be entitled to an increased fee owing to the leader claiming an exceptional fee."

Yours faithfully, E R. Cook, Secretary. Henry C. A. Bingley, Esq., General Council of the Bar, 2, Hare-court, Temple.

[blocks in formation]

Dear Sir,-In further reply to your letter of the 24th July 1914, my council desire me to express their regret that the suggestions made by them and communicated to you in my letter of 2nd April 1914 (which suggestions were founded upon and intended to give effect to the proposals put forward to my council by the influential deputation from your society on the 12th January 1914), have apparently not been accepted by your society as a solution of the question.

My council regret that they cannot see their way to adont the fresh proposal put forward by your society, although they are most anxious to come to an amicable arrangement on the lines suggested by your deputation on the 12th January 1914. I am, dear Sir, yours faithfully, HENRY C. A. BINGLEY, Secretary.

The Secretary, The Law Society, Chancery-lane.

Law Society's Hall, Chancery-lane, 1st December 1914.
FEES OF COUNSEL.

Dear Sir, I have received your letter of to-day's date, which
I will submit to the council.

Yours faithfully, E. R. Cook, Secretary.

H. C. A. Bingley, Esq., General Council of the Bar, 2, Hare-court, Temple.

II.-Re a Practising Barrister Engaging in Business.

The Attorney General having invited the opinion of the council as to the propriety of a practising barrister taking an active part in the business of a financial firm at a fixed salary plus a commission on the business done by the firm, the council adopted the following resolution, which was communicated to the AttorneyGeneral :

"The council having carefully considered the AttorneyGeneral's letters dated 27th November and 19th December 1913, desire to inform him that they feel great difficulty in formulating any general rule of universal application as to the conduct of a barrister in practice or holdings himself out as in practice (hereinafter for brevity's sake called a practising barrister).

"The council have hitherto invariably declined to lay down abstract rules of professional etiquette owing to the difficulty and inexpediency of framing any exact rules on such a subject. The council in most cases which have been brought before them have, after investigating the facts, found it comparatively easy to determine whether or not a particular case is in accordance with, or contrary to, professional etiquette.

"The council, however, being anxious at all times to render the Attorney-General every assistance in their power, hope that the following expressions of their opinion will help him to arrive at a conclusion in the particular case which he has under his consideration at the present time.

[ocr errors]

The council are of opinion that a practising barrister should not as a general rule carry on any other profession or business, or be an active partner in or a salaried official or servant in connection with any such profession or business.

"There are, undoubtedly, exceptions to this general rule, but having regard to the particulars given in the Attorney-General's letter, the council do not consider it necessary to attempt an enumeration of such exceptions. In the opinion of the council the business specified in the Attorney-General's letter is not an exception to the general rule.

The council are clearly of opinion that a practising barrister should not actively associate himself with the carrying on of a financial business (e.g., the issuing of Government loans) for a salary or for other payments varying with the amount of financial business done.

"The council see no objection to a practising barrister acting as an ordinary director (i.e., not a managing director) of companies of good standing, carrying on a business which is free from anything of a derogatory nature. They consider that there is a great difference between the usual work of ordinary directors in the privacy of a board room and the active carrying on or management of a business.

On the other hand, the council see grave objections to a practising barrister taking part in negotiations and arrangements with financial houses and visiting other persons, firms, or companies as the representative of any financial house. The council

consider that such conduct on the part of a practising barrister would not accord with the principles which should regulate the conduct of a practising barrister in relation to his profession as such, and would clearly be contrary to professional etiquette."

III.-Proceedings by and against Poor Persons.

The advice of the council was asked as to the duties of counsel under rule 25 of the New Order XVI.

Rule 25 is as follows:-

[ocr errors]

The application shall be referred for inquiry to one or more solicitors or counsel willing to act in the matter, whether named in the list to be kept pursuant to rule 23 (1) or not, who shall report to the court through the prescribed officer whether and upon what terms the applicant ought to be admitted as a poor person. For the purpose of their report the reporters may make such inquiries as they think fit as to the means and the position and may of the applicant and as to the merits of the case, require the attendance of the applicant and may hear any other person, and may require facts to be proved by affidavit or statutory declaration, and in making their report they shall have regard to the probable cost of the litigation in relation to the matter in dispute. The report and any documents or information obtained for the purposes of the report shall be treated as confidential, and shall not be shown or disclosed to the parties or either of them."

The council replied that in their opinion it is undesirable that any counsel should act as reporter under rule 25 of Order XVI. of the Rules of the Supreme Court (Poor Persons) 1914, except in conjunction with a solicitor, and then should only undertake work which he could properly undertake apart from the Poor Persons Rules.

IV.-Re Counsel accepting Instructions direct from a Solicitor in India.

The council have had under consideration the following communication from a barrister :

Temple, 15th June 1914.

Sir, I am desirous of obtaining the guidance of the Bar Council on the following point :-Is a barrister practising in London entitled (a) to advise on contentious questions; (b) to draw pleadings, &c., on instructions sent direct from a solicitor of an Indian High Court, where the professions of solicitor or pleader and advocate are separate; or must he refuse to do so unless instructed by a London solicitor?

The ruling reported on p. 2264 of the Annual Practice 1914, on the authority of An. St., 1902-3, p. 11, does not cover the case, (a) because the ruling does not specifically cover contentious matter and pleadings; (b) because it is confined to a colonial advocate in a colony where the professions of barrister and solicitor are combined.

In my case, i.e., Bombay, the profession of solicitor is distinct from that of advocate (corresponding with that of barrister in England), and solicitors have no right of audience in the High Court (under normal circumstances).

My attention has been drawn to the point under the following

circumstances :

From 1903-1908 I was practising at the Bar in London; from 1908-1912 I practised at the Bar in Bombay, except during six months when I acted on the Bench of the High Court of Karachi. I was engaged on a Government Commission until the end of 1913, and since January 1914 have been practising here at the Bar. I have been asked by solicitors in Bombay (a) to advise, (b) to draw pleadings on their instructions sent direct through the post I have refused to do so unless instructed by a London solicitor-being of opinion that any other course would be contrary to professional etiquette. I am told that other barristers take a different view and have acted upon it. I am anxious for a decision of the council, both for my own guidance and because it is unsatisfactory that others should be doing what I abstain from doing in deference to what I believe to be the etiquette of the

Profession.

[blocks in formation]

on instruc

The council ascertained that the words in the letter 66 tions sent direct from a solicitor of an Indian High Court" referred to questions (a) and (b).

The council replied that in their opinion a barrister practising in England does not commit any breach of professional etiquette-(a) in advising on contentious questions (either before the commencement of or during litigation) within the jurisdiction of the Indian High Court upon instructions sent direct from a solicitor of an Indian High Court without the intervention of a solicitor of the English High Court; (b) in drawing pleadings in cases within the jurisdiction of the Indian High Court upon instructions from a solicitor of that High Court without the intervention of a solicitor of the English High Court.

V.-Re a Barrister practising on a Circuit, but not being a
Member of the Circuit Bar Mess.

The council have had under their consideration the following com-
munication from a barrister :-
Temple, E.C., 7th Jan. 1914.

To the Secretary, Bar Council, 2, Hare-court, Temple, E.C. Dear Sir,-In view of the rejection of my application to be a member of the Circuit, and in view of the fact that I am practising on that circuit, may I know (1) whether, in the opinion of the Bar Council, I can appear on that circuit without a special fee; and secondly, whether I can appear without a member of that circuit being with me in the case?

Hoping you will oblige me by answering these two questions at your earliest convenience,

I remain, yours very truly,

The council replied that in their opinion, so long as the barrister in question confines his circuit practice to the Circuit, he can appear on that circuit without a special fee, and without a member of that circuit being briefed with him.

[blocks in formation]

VII.-Re the right of Counsel to retain his Brief against the
Solicitor who instructed him.

Mr. A. was briefed by a solicitor to appear for a prisoner who was charged at Marlborough-street Police Court with bag snatching in Bond-street, and the fee on the brief was paid on delivery. When the case was called Mr. A., on stating that he appeared for the prisoner, was informed by the magistrate that the solicitor who was instructing Mr. A. had not been retained by the prisoner. The prisoner, on being brought into court, was asked whether he wished to be defended by Mr. A., and said he did. The prisoner was then put back, and the case was adjourned until the afternoon; when the case was again called on the magistrate informed Mr. A. that from inquiries he had made it appeared that the solicitor had not been retained by the person whose name was given to the court as retaining him, and that the solicitor had no authority from that person to conduct the defence of the prisoner. The magistrate having informed Mr. A. of these facts, Mr. A. considered that he had no alternative but to return his brief and withdraw from the The magistrate then informed the solicitor who had instructed Mr. A. that he intended to lay the circumstances of the case before the Law Society, and asked Mr. A. to retain his brief and produce it to the Law Society if necessary. Mr. A., on the spur of the moment, and without considering the position, assented to the magistrate's request. Afterwards entertaining grave doubts whether he was entitled, as against the solicitor who had instructed him, to retain the brief or carry out the undertaking given to the magistrate, Mr. A. submitted the matter to the Bar Council.

case.

The council were of opinion that in the circumstances of the case Mr. A. was not entitled to retain the brief as against the solicitor who instructed him, and to whom it belonged; nor was he justified in producing the brief to the Law Society without the consent of the solicitor. The council informed Mr. A. that his proper course was to request the magistrate to release him from his undertaking on the ground that he gave it without due consideration.

VIII.-Re the Application of Retainer Rule 20 to Bankruptcy
Proceedings.

The council have had under their consideration the following
correspondence :-
Liverpool, 30th July 1914.
Dear Bingley, We should be glad of an opinion, or ruling,
from the Bar Council on the following case :-
Counsel appeared for the trustee in a motion in the bank-
ruptcy, the object of which was to perfect the trustee's title.
In subsequent proceedings in the same bankruptcy, first one,
then another, counsel was brief for the trustee. So far as is
known, there was no particular reason for the change in either
case, nor did either of the other counsel know that he was not
the first to be briefed for the trustee.

The question is: Was the first counsel entitled to a brief under rule 20?

According to the notes in the White Book the rule applies to administration actions, but nothing is said of bankruptcy proceedings.

We take it that the reason for the rule is the protection of the client, and that counsel who has advised, or drawn pleadings, or accepted a brief is entitled to further briefs in the same action, because otherwise he might accept a brief from another party and would be in a position to use information previously obtained to the detriment of the party from whom he had obtained it.

If this view is right, there seems no reason why the rule should not apply to bankruptcy proceedings.

For example, in the case submitted above, the counsel first engaged, knowing of a possible defect in the trustee's title, might be briefed for the bankrupt in a later application, and might use his knowledge to the detriment of the trustee and the general body of creditors.

Or, to take another example, the same counsel might appear for a creditor at the public examination and against him on an application to reject his proof.

In either case such counsel's position would be embarrassing, if not untenable, and his first client, instead of being protected, would be prejudiced.

Instances could easily be multiplied, but we have said enough to make the position clear. Yours truly,

General Council of the Bar, 2, Hare-court, Temple,

[ocr errors]

31st July 1914.

Dear Sirs, I will bring your letter of the 30th inst. before the Bar Council when it reassembles after the Long Vacation. Meanwhile I may perhaps draw your attention to the case appearing on page 6 of the enclosed statement. I should be obliged if you would kindly return this statement at your convenience as I have few copies left. With reference to the cases you put in which counsel might conceivably change sides," I do not know whether you have considered the effect of retainer Yours faithfully, HENRY C. A. BINGLEY. Liverpool, 8th August 1914. Dear Bingley. We are obliged for your answer to our letter and for your inclosure, which we return.

rule 21.

With regard to the cases we put in which counsel might conceivably change sides,' we have, of course, considered the effect of retainer rule 21.

66

if the first counsel is entitled to a brief in the case we put under retainer rule 20, rule 21 applies; he can't "change sides and the client is protected.

[ocr errors]

If he is not entitled to a brief under rule 20, there is nothing except his own sense of what is right to prevent him changing sides" to the possible prejudice of his first client. The real question in our opinion is, whether bankruptcy proaction in rule 20. ceedings are covered by the word

If we did not make this clear in this case which we submitted, will you please see that the Bar Council is under no misapprehension in the matter?

[ocr errors]

Yours truly,

The council replied that in their opinion bankruptcy proceedings do not constitute an action " within the meaning of retainer rule 20, and consequently that such rule does not apply to bankruptcy proceedings.

IX.-Re a Barrister in the Permanent Employment of an
Education Authority appearing as Counsel.

The opinion of the council was asked under the following circum

stances :

Mr. D., a barrister, is the chief educational official of the educational authority of a county, i.e., the education committee of the county council.

His official title is " Organiser of Education," and his employment is a whole-time one. His duties, which are in no way concerned with legal work, include inspection, the training of teachers, the supervision of school curriculums, and the holding of subsidiary examinations.

The legal business of the education authority is done by the clerk of the peace and the deputy clerk of the peace, who are also secretaries to the education committee. Mr. D. asks whether there is any objection to his appearing (with the consent of the education authority) as counsel in local courts in such cases as attendance prosecutions under the Education Acts, prosecutions by the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, and claims for compensation to children injured in schools, or to his holding a brief on behalf of the governors of the secondary schools or managers of primary schools on inquiries under the Charitable Trust Acts in connection with endowment schemes.

As to attendance prosecutions, the proceedings would be taken on the recommendation of the managers of the individual schools, who would choose and instruct their solicitors. In matters affecting secndary schools, the solicitors would be chosen and instructed by the local governing body (a statutory body).

The council were of opinion that it is undesirable that Mr. D., who is in the permanent employment of an education authority, should appear as a barrister in the matters referred to.

X.-Re a Barrister, a Salaried Official of a Municipal Corporation, acting under the direction of the Solicitor to the Corporation. In April last the council received the following communication:Alexandra Park, N., 3rd April 1914. Sir,-Would you be so kind as to obtain the decision of the council upon the following case.

I am a salaried official of a large municipal corporation, the staff of which is divided into departments. The corporation conducts its own legal work, which is carried out by the solicitors' department under the direction of an admitted solicitor, who is a salaried official of the corporation.

At the time of my "call to the Bar," and during the whole of the period of my studentship, and subsequently, I acted as committee clerk to different committees, my work being directed by the clerk to the corporation.

I am now proposing to change my duties and to accept a position which will remove me from the clerks' department and bring me under the direction of the solicitor to the corporation.

My new duties will include the drafting of legal documents and reports on legal and other matters.

Would the occupation of this position be in any way a violation of the declaration made by me when called to the Bar in 1910. or would it be inconsistent with the etiquette of the Profession? I am, Sir, your obedient Servant,

P.S.-I have never practised as a barrister. The address appearing in the Law List is that of the chambers where my name is up" for the receipt of letters, &c.

66

The council replied to the effect that the question as to the violation of the declaration made by the barrister on call to the Bar would more properly be addressed to the Bench of the Middle Temple, of which society the barrister is a member.

The council subsequently received the following letter from the Under-Treasurer of the Middle Temple :

Treasury, Middle Temple, 28th July 1914.

Dear Sir,-In reply to your letter of the 27th July the case of Mr. was referred by our Bench to the Joint Committee on the Duties, &c., of the Bar, who reported that they had resolved " that under Consolidated Regulation No. 25 Mr. is precluded from accepting the appointment under the direction of the solicitor to a municipal corporation, referred to in his letter of the 3rd April 1914 so long as he remains a barrister." This report has been adopted by the Four Inns.

Yours faithfully, HENRY BERESFORD PEIRSE.
Under-Treasurer.

XI.-Re Counsel's Right to a Refresher in a Criminal Case. A solicitor complained to the council that having briefed a counsel to defend a client charged with a criminal offence at the Central Criminal Court, the counsel, after a second adjournment, declined to further represent the client without the payment of a refresher, though no refresher had been arranged for when the brief was accepted. The solicitor declined to pay a refresher, and delivered the brief to another counsel, who conducted the case to its termination. The solicitor paid the fee marked on the brief to the second counsel, and refused to pay any fee whatever to the first counsel. The solicitor desired to know whether the course adopted by the first counsel and by himself was correct.

The council resolved as follows:-

No refresher having been arranged for when the brief was accepted, the first-named counsel was not entitled to refuse to continue to appear in the case without a refresher; neither was he, having withdrawn from the case, entitled to the fee originally marked.'

XII.-Re a King's Counsel appearing without a Junior. The council have had under their consideration the following correspondence :--Temple, E.C., 3rd November 1914. Dear Bingley, Will you kindly let me know if it is contrary to any rule for a leader to accept a brief before the Theatres Committee of the London County Council without a junior? As the matter is urgent I should like an early reply. I may say I have known it to be done on more than one occasion. Yours very truly,

H. C. A. Bingley, Esq.

[merged small][ocr errors]
[blocks in formation]

COMMUNICATION WITH OTHER BARS.

The council have during the past year received communications from members of the Irish, Indian, and Colonial Bars with reference to organisation, rules of professional conduct and practice, &c.. and they have been glad to be able to afford information which they have reason to hope has proved useful. They note with satisfaction that several of such Bars have formed councils or associations on the lines of the General Council of the Bar, and they have received with much interest copies of their annual statements or reports.

CAUSE LISTS, &C.

The council have continued to obtain and post daily in the Temple, the House of Lords, Privy Council, High Court, Mayor's Court, and City of London (Admiralty) lists.

Through the courtesy of the clerks of assize and other circuit officials, they have also been able, in many cases, to post notices of alteration of circuit dates and of special arrangements made by the judges of assize with regard to the order of business, or the time for taking any particular class of business. It is believed that such information is of much use to members of a circuit who do not happen at the moment to be on circuit, and the secretary will at all times be glad to receive any such information for the purpose of posting the same.

The general and daily cause lists for the House of Lords, Privy Council, High Court of Justice, and Mayor's Court, and the Weekly King's Bench lists, the calendars of prisoners awaiting trial at assizes and quarter sessions, Ross' Weekly Parliamentary Record, the Annual Judicial Statistics (Civil and Criminal), &c., may be seen on application at the offices of the council.

The council desire to remind the Profession that the chairman of the council is prepared, in conjunction with the president of the Law Society, to undertake the settlement of differences which may arise between the two branches of the Profession. Before the matter is entertained the parties in dispute are required to sign the following

memorandum :—

"We, the undersigned, hereby testify our consent to leave the matter in dispute between us to be settled by the chairman of the General Council of the Bar, or some member of that council to be named by him, and the president of the Law Society, or some member of the council of that society to be named by him, as they think fit, and to abide by their decision."

This method of settlement was originally adopted at the suggestion of the Law Society, and it is believed has on many occasions been of service to the parties.

The council think that it may be of interest and use to members of the Profession to know that the editors of the Annual Practice and the Yearly Practice of the Supreme Court collect and publish the principal resolutions of the council on matters relating to professional conduct and practice.

It is hoped that members of the Bar will continue to communicate with the secretary on any matter which may come to their knowledge touching the interests and the well-being of the Profession.

ATTENDANCES.

There have been sixteen council meetings and forty-six committee meetings since the issue of the last annual statement.

The following is a list of the attendances of the elected and additional members of the council at the council meetings. The average attendance at such meetings was thirty-two.

[blocks in formation]

I

J. Alderson Foote
J. F. P. Rawlinson,
M.F.

12

Sir Reginald Acland

11

Mr. A. F. Peterson

12

[ocr errors]

10

7

(1)

Hugo Young

6

[ocr errors]

J. Scott Fox

9

James J. Parfitt

8

[ocr errors]

T. R. Hughes

11

12

N. Micklem

[blocks in formation]

5

Lancelot Sanderson,

J. H. Cunliffe

1

[blocks in formation]

W. J. Disturnal

11

[blocks in formation]

J. A. Hawke

12

George Cave, M.P.... 7

F. Newbolt...

16

will gladly bring the point to the notice of the council if you desire me to do so, but I understand from your note that the matter is urgent.

The council will be meeting next Monday at 4.30 p.m. Yours faithfully, HENRY C. A. BINGLEY.

Temple. E.C., 3rd November 1914. Dear Bingley, Thanks for your note. I think it would be as well if the point were brought to the notice of the council. The

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

SAUNDERS LAW AND PRACTICE OF ORDERS OF AFFILIATION AND PROCEEDINGS IN BASTARDY. With the Statutes, Forms, and Forms of Agreement, together with the Practice on Appeals to the Quarter Sessions and Special Cases. By R. M. STEPHENSON, LL.B. (Lond.), Barrister-at-Law, of the Inner Temple and North-Eastern Circuit. Tenth Edition. Price 6s. 6d. net, Post Free.-FIELD & QUEEN (HORACE COX) LTD., "Law Times Office, Windsor House, Bream's Buildings, E.C.-[ADVT.]

[ocr errors]

WHERE TO FIND YOUR LAW.-Being a Discursive Bibliographical Essay upon the various Divisions and Subdivisions of the Law of England, and the Statutes, Reports of Cases, and Text Books containing such Law, with Appendixes, for Facilitating Reference to all Statutes and Reports of Cases, and with a Full Index. By ERNEST ARTHUR JELF. M.A., of New College, Oxford, Barrister-at-Law of the Honourable Society of the Inner Temple, and of the SouthEastern Circuit. Third Edition, greatly Enlarged, price 10s. 6d.. post free.-FIELD & QUEEN (HORACE COX) LTD., "Law Time" Office, Windscr House, Dream's-buildings, E.C.-{Advt.]

6

d.

LAW STUDENTS' JOURNAL.

fo SECRETARIES.-Reports of meetings should reach the office not later than first post Thursday morning to ensure insertion in the current number.

THE LAW SOCIETY.

HONOURS EXAMINATION-NOVEMBER 1914.

**The names of the solicitors to whom the candidates served under articles of clerkship are printed in parentheses.

At the examination for honours of candidates for admission on the roll of solicitors of the Supreme Court, the examination committee recommended the following as being entitled to honorary distinction:

First Class.

John Snow, B.A.Oxon. (Mr Henry Baines, of the firm of Messrs. Hazel and Baines, of Oxford; and Messrs. Twisden and Co., of London).

Second Class (in alphabetical order).

George Roddam Angus (Mr. George Walton Hodgson, of Stanhope).

Lawrence Michael Davis (Mr. D. A. Romain, and Mr. B. Abrahams, of the firm of Messrs. Roberts, Abrahams, and Co., both of London).

Harold Horseman, LL.B.London (Mr. Joseph Henry Smith, of West Hartlepool).

Moss Turner Samuels (Mr. N. Bannister Way, of Sunderland; and Mr. Fred. B. Kent. of Newcastle-on-Tyne).

Robert Bernard Waterer (Mr. Arthur J. Corner (deceased), of Hereford; and Messrs. Andrew Wood, Purves and Sutton, of London).

Third Class (in alphabetical order). Bertram Edward Broome (Mr. Fraser Sutton, of Manchester). Francis Vaughan Evans (Mr. Lewis Rhodes, M.A.Oxon., of the firm of Messrs. Godfrey Rhodes and Evans, of Halifax). Wilfrid Ariel Evill (Mr. S. Jacomb-Hood, of London). Reginald Leather (Mr. R. M. Grylls, of Cleckheaton; and Messrs. Lyell and Betenson, of London).

John Stanley Snowball (Mr. E. Richard Cross, LL.B.; Mr. Edgar J. Birdsall, of the firm of Messrs. Birdsall, Cross, and Black, both of Scarborough; and Messrs. Radford and Frankland, of London.

The council of the Law Society have awarded the following prizes of books: To Mr. Snow, the Daniel Reardon Prize, value about £23, and the Clement's-inn Prize, value about £10; to Mr. Davis, the John Mackrell Prize, value about £9.

The council have given class certificates to the above candidates,

Thirty-two candidates gave notice for the examination.

[blocks in formation]

Mr.

Henry Reeve Allerton having, in the opinion of the council shown himself best acquainted with the principles and practice of equity, and otherwise passed a satisfactory examination, they have awarded to him the prize founded by the late Mr. John Moxon Clabon, of Great George-street, Westminster. Allerton served his articles of clerkship with Mr. T. W. P. Lory (deceased), of Lowestoft; and Messrs. Keen, Rogers, and Co., of London; and obtained the Daniel Reardon and Clement's-inn prizes in March 1914.

LOCAL PRIZES.

The Timpron Martin Prize for Liverpool Students. Percy Milcrest Quiggin, who served two-thirds of his period of service in Liverpool, passed the best examination, and attained

« EelmineJätka »