LAWYERS AND THE PUBLIC

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 533, 10 December 1928, Page 8

LAWYERS AND THE PUBLIC

ONCE more the public is disturbed by tlie departure from New Zealand of a solicitor who has failed to account for £7,000 in trust moneys. People who lodge their capital with solicitors, capital often amassed after years of labour, are certainly entitled to protection, and their uneasiness is amply justified. The legal profession, too, has a right lo feel agitated; for the misdeed of one member tarnishes the good name of the whole, and then follows an inevitable diminution in the public’s faith. During the final session of the last Parliament, a Bill providing for the establishment of an insurance fund against defalcations was introduced, but it was dropped in the final scurry, after having been considered by the Legislative Council. This insurance scheme had the approval of the New Zealand Law Society, and was considered during the year by the branches of the society in the four centres. It is regrettable that the honourable profession of Law should have io consider schemes for thwarting the felonious activities of some of its practitioners, but each year there are falls from grace, and the public clamours for protection. To safeguard their honour, and to maintain the faith of the public, the lawyers will have to make a determined attempt to lessen the opportunity for maladministration of trust funds, but just how this may be done is a problem. The insurance scheme has much to commend it, yet it places a substantial burden on the young practitioner, who often has a hard enough struggle as it is. It is a drastic measure, and probably the desired protection could be provided if the Law Societies in the different centres were able to control admissions to the profession, and have, in addition, the right to put their own auditor into the office of a suspect. As the position is now, no investigation, apart from an annual private audit, need be made until the final crash comes, even though there might be well-founded suspicions concerning the conduct of a particular man. Naturally, the profession has no more desire for these disastrous crashes than the mulcted public has, and it is only necessary to give the Law Societies extended powers to check these dishonest men. As it is. the discipline of fehe profession is strict, and the integrity of mc«*t of its members unassailable; therefore it is not imperative to have protective legislative enactments. The profession itself, if given power, would be the sternest judge of all.