SOLICITOR IN TROUBLE

Dominion, Volume 16, Issue 35, 4 November 1922, Page 5

SOLICITOR IN TROUBLE

LAW SOCIETY TAKES ACTION , 'The application of' the Law Practitioners’ Society to have Edmund James Stewart, a barrister and solicitor, of Hamilton, struck off the rolls, is dealt with by the judgment of the Court of Appeal entered yesterday in the negative. ’ The judgment states: “Tho plain outstanding facts therefore, are that the solicitor about the end of the year 1914 appropriated to his own use by way of a loan to himself, as he puts it, theXsum of £2OO, which his client, an ignorant and illiterate woman, had entrusted to him to invest, and that he so used the money without any consent on her part, and without informing her of what he hud done until some seven years and more nvleivhrds, when tho investigations of tho Law Society brought the matter to light; that at no time during that period had he provided any effective security, unless it -.was the mortgage which he states has been lost, and that when the property, the subject of the agreement comprised in that mortgage, was sold, he again treated tho money as lent to himself, without, on this occasion, providing any security whatever, oven the unsigned mortgage not having been prepared till two years, later. Whether there was or was not such an appropriation of tho money as non’d bring the solicitor within the criminal law, wo can but regal <1 his acts as coming within tho more serious classes of misconduct on the part of solicitors, which it is the duty ef the Court, in the exercise of its disciplinary'jurisdiction to punish and restrain We consider that eases m which solicitors tamper with moneys, held on trust for clients should Go rigorously dealt with, but at the same time, of course, according to the particular circumstances of each case. In mitigation some point is made of the solicitor having had to go into camp, and of the office disorganisation , winch ■followed, but, considering that Ins resident in camp was only from October, 1918. to the end of that year, and having regard .to tho dates of tho incidents above stated, this circumstance can have no relevancy as an excuse for or palliation of the misconduct in question, It is satisfactory to learn that ho has since May last “taken a n<>.J upon himself.” as the affidavits put it, and voluntarily submitted to a prohbit'on order, so that the further charge of the Law Society on the ground ot his drinking habits, which aro said to have dated from his camp-life, is net now pressed. We - recognise, also, that he has expressed regret for his conduct, that the money has been repaid, and that tho client received interest cn it during the whole of tho peribd in question. In our opinion, however, the class of misconduct in question is not, as it was urged it was, one which is to be adequately mebv an order that the sol’Citor should pay the costs. In view of all the circumstances, we consider that no sii.oiild bo suspended from practice for a period of six calendar months. An order is made accordingly, and also that he do p.iv to tho District Law Society of Hamilton the sum of £25, in addition to disbursements, as their costs or ana incidental to these proceedings.