DR. FINBLAY'S LAW PRACTITIONERS AMENDMENT BILL.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 301, 14 September 1908, Page 2

DR. FINBLAY'S LAW PRACTITIONERS AMENDMENT BILL.

Sir,—Jn introducing this Bill, Dr. Findlay, in showing the fairness of ~ the proposed amendment of the Law Practitioners Act, adduced as a reason for so doing the fact that all the solicitors, both in the North and' in tho South were practically unanimous in favour of. this proposed legislation. Now, sir, could a more unreasonable argument be put forward. Let this amendment be retrospective and then see how many practitioners would hail with delight this Bill, which it is asserted would be generally welcome by the members of the New. Zealand •Bar. Of course, it 1 is only natural that tho profession should bo in favour of tho proposed ■ amendment,, for less competition brought about by harder and moro examinations, which would directly result in fewer practitioners; must necessarily leave a more fruitful field for those who have benefited by that which they now wish to see changed. Clearly, then, wherein lies the weight of the practitioners' approval, and in its absence we would ask for whose benefit is this proposed change of legislation to be effected P As we will show later, it is certainly not for the-benefit of the general public, and is surely not for the benefit of the student, who, even as the standard of examinations now stands,"finds'the"present tests quite hard enough—too hard, in fact, as was echoed by certain responsible members of the Legislative Council itself. Further, sir, we wish to say thatj if, for the benefit of the public, it is desired that a Bill should be passed in order to better qualify a solicitor, in the safeguarding of his client's interests, and with this end in ; view - to ■ even further raiso the standard of. a practitioner's knowledge, then we would respectfully submit, that it is not going to be the two or three years' study ofLatin, Mental Science, etc., etc., which is going to bring about this improvement, but it is going to be the closer study of our law as" it now stands. In conclusion, if what- we have written is correct, then it is surely reasonable to infer that the man who will have to devote his time in the attainments of a schoolmaster (as is' practically required under the proposed amendment) must be less able to cope .with question of legal" "difficulty' than the qualified ■practitioner, who, not being compelled to turn his attentions to such scholastic attain-, inents,' is able, in place of such higher classical instruction,' to'utilise such tim'o. in. the closer study of the law, and is so ablo faithfully and conscientiously to'devote his whole time and energy in the interests of his client' and so swsure the better maintenance of the people's rights and tho peoplo's interests.— Yours, etc., TWO STUDENTS OF THE LAW. September 9.