BELATED AUDIT

Evening Post, Volume CIX, Issue 74, 28 March 1930, Page 13

BELATED AUDIT

CENSURABLE NEGLECT

SOLICITOR IN TROUBLE

The proceedings brought by the New Zealand Law .Society against George Mackay, solicitor, of Wellington, for having failed to have his trust account audited up to the 31st March, 1929, were: again before the Court of Appeal to-day. On the Bench were their Honours the Chief Justice (Sir Michael Myers), Mr. Justice Herdman, Mr. Justice Blair, Mr. Justice Smith, and Mr. Justice Kennedy. Mr H. 1\ yon H'aast, who appeared, with Mr. A. Free, for the New Zealand Law Society, said that their Honours would see from the affidavits that the practitioner had failed to have his trust account properly audited, and had been fined. The society communicated with him and he promised to have an audit undertaken but ho took no steps until about the time the Appeal Court sat. Counsel pointed out that the audit was only up to March of last year; it did not bring the account up to date. The Chief Justice inquired whether the Law Practitioners' Amendment (Solicitors' Fidelity Guaranteed Fund) Act was in force yet. Counsel: "Yes. It came into force on Ist January." His Honour: "There is power to have an audit up to date, is there not?" Counsel said that there was power. Mr. Justice Herdman: "Under the new Act have we power to order it or the New Zealand Law Society?" Counsel said he understood any law society had power to order such an audit. I)i any case, the audit for the current, year was practically due. "The Court wants to be satisfied.that everything is in order now," observed tho Chief Justice. '' We have the practitioner before us now, and we want to treat him fairly and properly." Mr. D. M. Findlay, who represented Maekay, said that he understood the position was that the practitioner had done practically nothing for some months past. The amount certified to have been to the credit of his trust account at 31st March last was £2 8s Bd. It was well known that he had not been attending to his business and his neglect to reply to the Law Society's requisition was quite in accord with his neglect of the whole of his work. Counsel said that he had recently seen the auditor and had been informed that everything was in order. Ho had not apprehended that any further questions would arise in regard to the intervening period. The Chief Justice: "They don't really, only it would be an advantage to him probably if everything were shown to bo all right." Counsel submitted that the Court should dispose- of the matter to-day. Mackay was practically out of business, and would lot be practising for some time at any rate. The purpose of the proceedings had been accomplished. There was ample power, counsel sub; mitted, to bring Mackay before the Court again if the Law Society found there was any need to do so. It seemed that he simply neglected to have the audit made; there was no suggestion of dishonesty. The Chief Justice: "It is a most censurable neglect, censurable in the highest degree." Counsel agreed, and said that Mackay had already beeu fined £50 in the lower Court for that breach of his plain duty. The Chief Justice said that the Court would indicate its view in writing on Monday or Tuesday next.