TRUST ACCOUNT

Dominion, Volume 24, Issue 148, 19 March 1931, Page 8

TRUST ACCOUNT

Solicitors in Trouble LAW SOCIETY ACTION Several irregularities in professional practice were alleged in the Appeal Court yesterday against Ronald Gray Mason and Charles Ellis Waddingham, barristers and solicitors, of Auckland, and action against them was taken by the New Zealand Law Society. An appeal for leniency was made by Mr. Singer, on behalf of the practitioners, and the court announced that it would give its decision either this morning or to-morrow. In his address to the court Mr. Von Haast, who, with Mr. Free, appeared for the Law Society, said that the practitioners had failed to keep a separate trust account, that they had made fictitious entries to mislead the auditor, that there had been shortages in the trust account and cheques had been dishonoured on numerous occasions, and that they had failed to have the trust account audited. No Deficiency Now. There was no dispute about the facts, Mr. Von Haast said. He added that from investigations by Mr. Buddle, the auditor, the present position of the practitioners disclosed no deficiency, while the auditor sent in by the Law Society reported that full information and every assistance had been given him by both partners in the firm. The practitioners had failed to keep a separate trust account, Mr. Von Haast said. They had had one account in which their own money was mixed up with that of their clients, and they had drawn on this account for the firm’s purposes. From time to time there was a deficiency in the trust account and the partners had concealed it from the auditor by entering to their own credit gums that were the property of their clients. Their dealings with the trust account amounted in effect to misappropriation of their clients’ money. If friends’, relatives’ and other property had not been available clients would have lost tbeir money. Mr. Von Haast mentioned that the Auckland Law Society had incurred an expense of £45 in special audit fees, and he asked that the court should direct that this amount be paid by the practitioners. “Muddle fa Book-keeping.”

Mr. Singer said he joined issue with Mr. Von Haast when it was said that the practitioners had failed to have their trust account audited. The auditor had come in, but he had been unable to give a certificate; there had been no deliberate attempt to avoid having the account audited. The partners had been practising ever since the termination of the war, counsel said, but lately, through .muddle and incompetence in book-keeping—the bookkeeper had been dispensed with —the partners had fallen into deficiencies in professional practice. At no time, really, were the partners without resources that they could not have made good any deficiency and there was no deficiency at present. Counsel said he realised that the court would have to exercise its disciplinary powers, but he asked that whatever leniency was possible should be given; he made a particular plea against their being struck off tbe rolls.