SUSPENDED

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 7944, 30 October 1911, Page 1

SUSPENDED

FOR TWELVE MONTHS THE CASE OF J. P„. LTJNDON, OF AUCKLAND SOLICITOR’S OFFENCE

Having boon found by tho Court of Appeal to havo been guilty of professional misconduct, John Raphael Lundon has been suspended from practice as a barrister and solicitor for a period of twelve calendar months, and has also been ordered to. pay to tho Auckland District Law Society the sum of .£35 for tho costs of tho proceedings.

Tho order was made on a motion, brought before tho Court of Appeal by tho Auckland District Law Society, to make absolute a rule nisi granted by Mr Justice Edwards on August 23rd. The court hearing the motion comprised Sir Joshua Williams (presiding judge), and their Honors Justices Dennision, Edwards, Chapman, and Sim. Tho judgment of the court was delivered by Sir Joshua Williams. Mr T. Cotter argued the caso for the Law Society, and Mr C. B. Morison appeared for Lundon.

THE COURT’S JURISDICTION. ! "On behalf of Lnudon," the judgment stated, "Mr Morison, who has argued his client’s case with great earnestness, and has put before tho court every ground which it is possible to suggest can induce tho court to take a lenient view of his client’s conduct, contends that though that comVuct was, as ho admits, a gross breach of professional etiquette, it did not involve tho commission of any offence known to the law, and that it could only be met by the reprobation of the reputable members of the legal profession, expressed by a condemnatory resolution of the District Law Society." Tho court had held, and its adjudication had been affirmed by the Privy Council, that, to justify the suspension of a barrister and solicitor from practice, it was not necessary that that person should have been guilty of any breach of the law, civil or criminal. It was sufficient if the court considered that tho offender had been guilty of serious professionar misconduct. If it were clear that any member of the legal- profession had been guilty of such conduct as to be inimical to the public welfare, and to- bring disgrace upon tho profession to which ho belonged, whether an offence against the lawhad been established or not, j ustice must take its-course,-without regard to its effect upon the offender. FACTS OP THE CASE.

Proceeding to. an examination of tho facts of the case the court found that on July 11th last at about 11.15 a.m. one Haddon was arrested upon a criminal charge, taken to tho police station, at Auckland, and there confined with another person named Anderson, also under arrest, in one of the cells. Tho offence with which Haddon was charged was of complicity in a series of daring thefts from the Harbour Boird sheds at Auckland. At Hadden’s instance, Mr Hall Skelton, a solicitor, but not a barrister, saw Hadden at the police station, aud was there instructed by him. to act in his defence. At about 8 o’clock on the evening of tho same day Lundon went to the police station to see Anderson, and learned from him that Hadden was under arrest. After his interview with Anderson had closed London asked to see Hadden. _ Accepting London’s statements up to this point as literally true, fhe court found that when visiting tho police_ station to see Anderson, he had been informed by that person that Hadden wished to see him

"about getting bail for him that night," and that ho had at the same time been informed that Hadden had already retained a solicitor. Lundon knew that Hadden’s case was one which would attract great public attention, and that therefore it was ono particularly to bo desired by practitioners who devote themselves to work of. that class. OBTAINED AN INTERVIEW BY SUBTERFUGE. '

Upon Lundon’s.own admissions therefore it appeared to the court to be beyond doubt that he obtained an interview with Hadden by a subterfuge. There was room for very grave doubt as to the truth of London’s evidence as to what passed between himself and Anderson and subsequently between himself and the police officer. If Lundon’s object in obtaining an interview' with Hadden had been, as ho suggested, to endeavour as an act of kindness to assist him in obtaining bail, as any. layman might, his interview with Hadden would have lasted only a few minutes, and ho would have endeavoured to obtain bail at once, when there w r as a reasonable prospect of succeeding in doing so. Lundon informed tho court that “Hadden was in a rather muddled condition from tho effects of drink," and that he (apparently without much ground) complained that he was not being properly treated by Hall Skelton. Dealing with Hadden in this condition, Lundon, according to his own statement, consented to supplant Hall Skelton, to whoso client he had obtained access by -a subterfuge. Hadden was in poor circumstances, so poor that Lundon thought it advisable to obtain from him an order for payment of tho paltry sum of .£3 18s 7d then iu tho hands of tho police, on account of his charges. Obviously there could he no justification iu burdening Hadden with tho quite unnecessary payment of two independent solicitors to perform tho same work. Tlio course taken by Lundon in this respect suggested that he felt it to bo necessary, or at least advisable, to placate Hall Skelton, if possible, while at the same time retaining control of the case, which ho was anxious to get into his own hands.

GROSS BREACH OF ETIQUETTE. With regard to the* subsequent communications between Hall Skelton, and Lundon, concerning which there was a considerable discrepancy in tho evidence, the court decided that tho probability was in favour of tho truth of tho account given by Hall Skelton. If Bundon's evidence were accepted as literally true, and tho most favourable constructiou put upon his conduct, it was beyond dispute, as his counsel admitted that ho was guilty of a very gross breach of professional etiquette. On tho following morning, Wednesday, Lundon was distinctly informed by Hadden “that ho wished Hall Skelton to act for him. Notwithstanding this, on Thursday, July 13th, he visited Hadden at Mount Eden gaol and obtained from him a letter to Hall Skelton cancelling the latter’s authority to act for him, also a further statement of the

affairs connected with Hadden's case. This statement and Hadden’s letter were obtained by the statement that Hall Skelton had thrown up tho case. Subsequently civil proceedings were taken against Lundon to recover the sum of .it 18s 7d, Hadden’s money which Lundon had obtained from the police, the proceedings alleging that tho money was obtained by false representation and with fraudulent intent. Bventuallv the proceedings were withdrawn, and the amount sued for and costs were paid. The court assumed that Lundon’s action in this regard was not an admission of the allegations contained in the statement of claim; but their Honors could not think that any self-respecting member of the profession would consider that such a settlement was satisfactory, or that it cleared his character from tho injurious imputations contained in tho statement of, claim in the action. “MOST SEVERE REPROBATION.” Tho judgment concluded; “Tho result is that the facts, as we find them, establish that Lundon in ob turning from, Hadden an order for payment of money was guilty of a false pretence which brought him within Hie criminal law. We aro satisfied, however, that his primary design iu making that false pretence was not to obtain inoncy from Hadden. Wo think that it is plain that that design, was by devious methods to obtain tho control of a sensational criminal case, and that the obtaining of tho money was an incident which in the course of his ordinary practice, as ho has himself deposed, naturally followed upon tho temporary success of that design. Therefore we do not think that it is necessary that a criminal prosecution should follow. The offender will be sufficiently punished by tho result of these proceedings. Lun’don's conduct in connection with tho receipt and retention of this money’ deserves, however, the most severe reprobation. His counsel asked the court to believe that he obtained payment of this small sum on the joint account of himself and of Hall Skelton. , This is contrary to his own evidence. . . . No doubt . when so acting Lundon intended to give Hadden good value for his money, and this distinguishes tho case from an ordinary case of false nretenoes. There is, however. no. doubt that this was an aggravated case of professional misconduct apart from its criminal character. That misconduct was accentuated by his retention of the money after he knew ho would have no opportunity to give value for it. His initial misconduct .in ob-; taining a retainer from Hadden bv false pretences is further accentuated by the

repetition of the same malpractice on July 13th at the gaol. We regret also that wo are compelled to come to the conclusion that Lundon's defence in these proceedings is founded upon statements which are wilfully false.” ‘/Treating this as a case of professional misconduct the least penalty which the duty of the court to the public allows it to impose is that T/undon bo suspended from practice as a barrister and also as a solicitor for tho period of twelve calender months from tho expiration of fourteen days from the date of this order. We allow that period to him in ordor that he may have a reasonable time in which to close his office business, but ho must not hereafter appear in any court until the period of b:s suspension has expired. There must also be an order that ho shall pay to the Auckland District Law. Society "for the costs of these proceedings the sum of «£35.”