BARRISTERS AND ATTORNEYS.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXX, Issue 4462, 8 July 1875, Page 3

BARRISTERS AND ATTORNEYS.

(From the Argus, June 22.) "We have on several occasions discussed in these columns the advantages which would accrue to the public if the legal profession, in both its branches, were placed upon sounder footing as regards its government and education, and upon a more liberal footing in its relations with the public as regards its employment ; and we urged that to accomplish this the best mode would be to bring every branch of the profession into a corporation, to which should be entrusted the government and edu- ■ cation of the profession, subject to such legislative restrictions as would insure the attainment of the objects for which such a corporation was to be created. With this view we gave some publicity to a Bill which had been framed to establish such a corporation under the designation of “ The College of Justice.” Had that measure become law, not only would the whole profession have become incorporated and systematically educated, but freedom of access from one branch of the profession to the other would have been given, and whilst an attorney, if otherwise properly qualified, would have been enabled to practise also as a barrister, a barrister, if desirous to do so, would have been able to practise also as an attorney, thus securing to the public the opportunity of having its legal business conducted by one legal agent, instead of being compelled to employ two where the business could be much better and more economically done by one. Nothing, however, came of the Bill. The attorneys under the existing system, enjoying by far the largest share of the profits of the profession, sagaciously enough perceived that if the public acquired the opportunity of placing their business generally in the hands of counsel, the present control by the attorney branch of the profession of the legal business of the colony would be at an end. In the other branch of the profession the Bill met with more general approval, hut as it was well known that any barrister who toot an active part in its support would be at once excluded from all business over which the attorneys had control, very few barristers had the courage of their opinions, and the Bill was objected to by those barristers whose gentility, depending altogether upon their professional position, feared loss of caste if they should come into more direct contact -with the public. We have returned to the consideration. of this subject at the present time inconsequence of the Bill to Amend the Law relating to Attorneys, Solicitors, and Proctors, introduced into the Tipper House by Mr. Anderson, which stands for further consideration in committee this evening. We should have preferred to have seen a Bill introduced which would have dealt with both branches of the profession; but as the profession seems to be so divided, we see no reason why there should not be separate Bills and separate corporations for the government of each branch. The attorneys may well have their Attorney’s Institute, or “ Law Society,” and hereafter, if the barristers make out a good case for it, they can have their Inn of Court or College of Justice; but whether there are to be two corporations or one, the public is directly concerned in seeing that nothing is done which can in any degree give a monopoly of the legal business of the colony to either branch of the profession alone, or which would place one branch of the profession unduly under the control of the other. The public is most likely to be best served by a wholesome rivalry between the two, and the point which we as law reformers have especially to watch is that nothing further is done to compel the public to employ two legal agents where,but for artificial restrictions, one: would suffice-

Whilst, therefore, we are quite ■willing that the attorneys should have a “ Law Society,” and that it should be incorporated by statute, care must be taken that the present common law rights of the Bar, which are, in fact, the rights of the "public, shall not be interfered with. Now, by clauses 26 and 27 of Mr. Anderson’s Bill, this, whether intended or not, is most certainly-done. On a cursory perusal it might appear that those clauses are directed only to "prevent unqualified persons from acting as attorneys, but if critically examined, it will be found that by. their combined operation any barrister who should exercise his undoubted right ,of acting as a conveyancer or jurisconsult, or as an agent or advocate in legal business before arbitrators, unless set in motion by 'an attorney, would be liable to be brought before the Supreme Court, and punished for contempt, besides being liable to a penalty of ,£SO. This would be the case even if the barrister thought fit to resort to the ancient practice of his profession, and to see the client in the" first instance, and then, when necessary, to obtain under his own direction the services of an attorney to issue and serve the necessary process to carry on a suit. It is true that the 108th clause of the Bill saves rights confirmed by statute, but that clause would only preserve to a barrister his statutory rights in the, County Court and Court of Mines. This is a matter which most seriously .affects the public, ’ and we believe that the sooner these clauses are remodelled, so as to preserve intact the present rights of the public and the Bar, the more likely will it be that those parts of the Bill which may be useful will become law.’. .

To that which is ostensibly the main feature of the Bill—the incorporation of the attorneys —we have no objection, but the-Bill will require considerable alteration to effect this. As framed it is hot an incorporation of the attorneys, but of such of them only as at present are members of the Law Institute, and of those attorneys who may hereafter be admitted to membership by the council of the society. This would make the society a private and very exclusive corporation, with very large powers of a public and most importtant character. We would suggest that every attorney, as of right, should be a member of the society, especially as every attorney, whether a member or not, is to pay an annual fee of £2 to the registrar of the society, for registration as a practising attorney. Of course, if an attorney should be struck off the roll for misconduct, he would be ipso facto expelled the society. With the general provisions for the admission and education of attorneys we see no reason to find fault, except, indeed, that we cannot see why Scottish writers to the signet and attorneys of other* British colonies should be compelled to serve in this colony as articled clerks for three years before admission. The provisions for striking off the roll unworthy attorneys are sound, as in principle are the somewhat lengthy provisions (thirty-three clauses) devoted to the law of costs, although we would ratber see larger powers as to costs given to the Courts, with a little less of legislative detail, as detailed legislation tends to cripple the hands of the Court in giving relief to the client.