GUARANTEE FUND

Hokitika Guardian, 2 September 1929, Page 7

GUARANTEE FUND

defaulting SOLICITORS.

LEGAL PROFESSION TO PAY LEVY.

WELLINGTON, August 30. It was made clear by the Leader of the Legislative Council( the Hon. Mr Sidey), when the Law Practitioners Amendment (Solicitors’ Fidelity Guaranttee Fund) Bill was under second reading consideration in the Upper House to-day that the measure has the unanimous support of the legal profession throghout New Zealand. Mr Sidey said the Bill was promoted by the legal profession, the object being to provide a fund for the purpose of reimbursing persons who might suffer pecuniary loss by reason of the mis-

appropriation of funds by solicitors. It

was not being promoted by the Government as a measure to compulsion in ernment as a measure of compulsion in

fession to contribute to the fund for the protection of those who might suffer through the defalcations of a few

members of the profession. It was purely voluntary on the part of members of the profession themselves. They had

felt that the defalcations of one member reflected on the whole profession and they were prepared to tax themselves against such a contingency arisI ing. Many people said M.r Sidey had a wrong perspective of the extent to which defalcations had taken place simply because of one or two illustrations which occurred - now and again. When one considered the large number of solicitors who had been engaged in New Zealand since the foundation of the colony, and the enormus number of trust funds that had been committed to,their care in that time the propor- | tion of those who hadgiven way to temptation was exceedingly small. There were black sheep in every fold and dishonest people were sometimes found in every walk of life. The Bill was not open to the same objection as had been raised against the measure in. troduced last year ,when it gave to the council of the Law Society what had been described as a blank cheque to do what it liked to achieve its object. There were no limitations at all in last year’s Bill as to the powers of the | council, and it was proposed to do everything by • Order-in-Council. The present Bill did not contain those objections. It did not affect any solicitor who . was temporarily in employment, or who was in the employment of any public office. It touched only those who were practising either on their own account or in partnership with other solicitors." The Leader of the Council said he had a list of tlie defalcations that had taken place in the last ten years. The total was £37,482, or an average of £3849 per annum. The number of solicitors in practise who - had certificates was 1740 ,this total including a number of qualified clerks and persons in the Public Service. After making a liberal allowance for those who did not come within the meaning of the Bill, it was safe to say that there were about 1500 who would be affected by the measure. Under the proposal to levy a contribution of £5 per head per year, the sum of £7500' would be provided for in the first year. This was about double the average amount, that had been lost by defalcations during tiie last ten years. In all human probability, more than liberal allowance was being made for any possible contingency that might arise. While there might have been difference of opinion amongst the society at one time in re-, gard to the Bill, he assured the Council that it had received a great deal of consideration as it now stood, and the district law societies as well as the vcouncil of the New Zealand Law Society, were unanimous in approval of the proposals. It was suggested by the Hon. Mr. Molntyre that opportunity-should be given for evidence to be head, but Mr Sidey expressed the view that there would be ample opportunity for that before the measure went through as it had yet to go before the House.