DISMISSAL OF MOTION

New Zealand Times, Volume LIII, Issue 12527, 17 August 1926, Page 7

DISMISSAL OF MOTION

FOR READMISSION OF SOLICITOR J. r. LUNDorus"application. Judgment of the Court of Appeal was delivered yesterday by His Honour the Chief Justioe in the matter of an application by John Raphael Lundon, clerk, of Auckland, for admission as a solicitor. The judgment showed that London was struck off the rolls of barristers and solicitors by the Court of Appeal, comssting of Sir Robert Stout, and Justices Denniston, Cooper, Chapman, and Hosking, on December 10th, 1917. It pointed out that it was clear that the offence of which the court found Lundon guilty was regarded as a serious delinquency, which showed that lie was quite unfitted by character to remain a member of the profession. After traversing various phases of the case the judgment adds:— “It is clear therefore that the considerations which guide the court in granting or refusing an application by a person for admission as a solicitor must also guide the court in granting co- refusing an application by a solicitor for readmission after he lias been struck off the rolls. The relations between a solicitor and his client are so close and confidential, and the influence acquired over the client is so great and so open to abuse that the court ought to be satisfied that the person applying for admission is possessed of such integrity and moral rectitude of character that he may be safely accredited by the court to the public to bo entrusted with their business and private affairs. In the case of an application for readmission by a solicitor, who has been struck off the rolls, the anus lies upon tho applicant to establish affirmatively that he has, since the date on which he was struck off the rolls, so far amended his ways and character that he is now a fit and proper person for readmission to the position which ho then forfeited.” . . . . “The history of the efforts on Fletcher’s behalf to obtain payment of the moneys entrusted by him to Lundon is a history of evasion, obstruction, and procrasiination on Lundon’t part. No suggestion was ever made that Lundon was in any financial difficulties or was unable to repay the moneys entrusted to him by l'letcher. In tho light of these circumstances, what opinion can be formed of Lundon’s intrinsic character; of his regard for the elementary rules of honesty: and of ilia appreciation of the standard of professional conduct which should govern the relationship between solicitor and client? We. are constrained to say that he showed himself unscrupulous in his dealings with Fletcher whom he appears from the first to have treated as a mere source of revenue. Ho did little work for him, charged him extravagant fees, and obtained the control of all his moneys.” . . “We are not prepared to say that it has been established til at there has been a complete change in Lundpn’s character, or that the evidence has satisfied us that upon Bolid and substantial grounds we are justified in holding out to tho public that tho applicant is a fit and proper person to be readmitted as a solicitor.” The motion was dismissed 11W1 £ls 45s costs and disbursements to be paid to the Auckland Law Society.