Wig and Gown: … … Mr. G. H. Radford, M.P., has called the members of the Law Society “an apathetic constituency.” The description is not inaccurate. About 3,500 members of the Society omitted to take part in the recent poll as to the custody of clients’ money. Much surprise was created even in Chancery-lane by the largeness of the majority against the special Committee’s proposals, for several of the leading provincial law societies, including the Birmingham Law Society, had let it be known that they were in favour of them. The provincial law societies were, too, well represented on the Committee. Among those who signed the majority report were Mr. C. F. Haigh, President of the Leeds Law Society, Mr. Cozens-Hardy. Vice-President of the Norwich Law Society, Mr. R. A. Pinsent, an ex-President of the Birmingham Law Society, and Mr. C. E. Barry, the representative of the Associated Provincial Law Societies. It is strange that the proposals put forward by such a representative committee should have received less than 700 votes. What appears to have weighed chiefly with the members of Law Society in rejecting the Special Committee’s proposals was a belief that dishonesty would not be prevented by their adoption. Two correspondents have expressed this belief in our own columns. “Solicitor” writes: “Neither compulsory audit, nor a separate banking account for clients, nor any number of statutory declarations, would afford the slightest protection to the client.” Mr. Henry A. Cresswell contends that the safeguards recommended by the Committee would “only tend to control the careless solicitor and not the dishonest solicitor.” This belief that the careless solicitor may not develop into the dishonest solicitor is very difficult to follow. A solicitor who does not keep his clients’ monies separate from his own may easily be led into making improper use of them without having any intention of actually stealing them. It is the first steps in wrongdoing that are so important. Surely the adoption of the Committee’s proposals would have made the steps less easy for the careless solicitor to take. – solicitors, though not unfavourable to the auditing of their accounts, object to the work being done by outside accountants. The “Solicitors’ Journal” which regards the results of the poll with “somewhat mixed feelings” adopts this view of the matter. Is not this an objection that could be met? The Law Society might organise a staff of auditors, similar to the Poor Law auditors, to audit solicitors’ accounts. Why should not the proposed staff of auditors consist of young solicitors, each of whom, of course, would undertake not to practise in the districts in which he acted as auditor? The members of the Law Society have declared that every solicitor ought to have his accounts audited or keep separate bank accounts for his clients’ money. They have shown that they dislike the Special Committee’s scheme for giving effect to this declaration. Ought they not to attempt to find another? The agitation that resulted in the appointment of the Committee can scarcely be allowed to end in a platitude.
Transcribed in whole or part from scanned originals: Presented with or without modified text and punctuation. For absolute accuracy refer to the original newspapers. Source: The British Newspaper Archive
Referenced
GRO0738 Devonport: Richard Alfred Pinsent: 1852 – 1948