SOLICITORS AND THE PUBLIC.
WE have often regretted the short-sightedness of Trade Unions in not bringing the benefit of the consumer within the sphere of the supervision which they exercise over their members. We do not mean that Trade Unions, as such, are bound to care for the public, any more than any other bodies founded for the protection of particular interests. But if these particular interests can be promoted by measures taken for the furtherance of public interests, it is the business of societies which have these particular interests under their care to step over the boundary which may, at first sight, seem to divide the two from one another. It would bo a perfectly legitimate function of such a Society to fix something like a standard of efficiency for the workmen who belong to it. Just as the brand of a particular maker is a sufficient warrant of excellence, be it in calicoes, or cham- pagne, or pickles, so the name of a Trade Union might be a sufficient warrant for the excellence of any work done by its members. Instead of framing their rules, as they now too often do, to keep work down to a certain standard, they might frame rules with the view of ensuring that work stamped with their imprimatur should never fall below a certain stan- dard. The benefit to themselves would be that, as the exist- ence of this guarantee came to be known, the public would insist that all work in which they were interested should be done by men who belonged to a Trade Union. The labour of the members would thus be always in demand, because it would be the interest of large employers not to employ any but men whose work carried this assurance with it. Any serious complaints against work done by the members would be sub- mitted to the Committee of the Union, and if substantiated, would involve the expulsion of the offending workman from the Union.
This speculation has not much to do, it may be thought, with the Incorporated Law Society. What is there in common between solicitors and artisans ? This much, at all events,— that the public are directly concerned with the quality of the work which each do. If your house is badly built or care- lessly repaired, it is you, not the builder, who suffer. If your legal business is badly done, it is you, not your solicitor, who have to bear the consequences. In both cases, no doubt, you have a remedy. You can bring an action against your builder, if you are dissatisfied with your house ; you can bring an action against your solicitor, if you are dissatisfied with the results of his advice. But neither of these actions is very often instituted, and, considering the uncertainties of evidence and juries, it is just as well, perhaps, that the list is so small. What is wanted by that vast public which in practice depends upon Solicitors for help in half the important actions of life is some assurance as to the integrity and ability of the men to whose keeping they entrust their most important interests. As regards ability, there is no doubt that the Incorporated Law Society has done something to improve the branch of the profession which is to some extent committed to its charge. The ex- aminations which it carries on do at least ensure that na solicitor shall be admitted to practise who does not possess an elementary knowledge of law. But something more than this is wanted, before the Incorporated Law Society can be held to have done all that is in its power for the benefit of the public. We have no desire to see its privileges increased, because, though the public might gain in some ways in proportion as the Society became co-extensive with the profession, it would lose in others. Outside competition can seldom be safely dispensed with, either by the State or by corporate bodies, and provided that the public have the means of knowing whether the solicitors they employ do or do not belong to the Society, there is no need to insist that all solicitors shall be members of it, or to give solicitors who are members of it any advantage over solicitors who are not. But the Incorporated Law Society might do very much more than it does with regard to the qualifications, moral and professional, of its own members. What, for example, is there to prevent it from instituting a special examination for admission into its own ranks ? The examinations which it now holds have done something to keep gross ignorance out of the profession. Would it not be possible to do something more, in order to keep even a lesser degree of ignorance out of that part of the profession which constitutes the Incorporated Law Society ? We feel sure that there are many people to whom it would at times be a very great satis- faction to know that membership of the Incorporated Law Society might be taken as evidence of a greater knowledge of law than is known cc priori to be possessed by solicitors who are not members of the Society. As regards professional integrity, there may be more difficulty in providing such a guarantee as we have in view ; but we should like to be assured that there is no possibility of laying down certain rules of conduct for members, breach of which shall carry with it expulsion from the Society. As it is, solicitors found guilty of certain grave malpractices are struck off the Rolls. But there are many malpractices, involving gross carelessness if not positive dis- honesty, for which there is at present no remedy. It may be that the rules which guide the Judges in striking solicitors off the Rolls might advantageously be made more stringent, but, at all events, greater strictness of conduct might be demanded of members of the Incorporated Law Society than the law exacts from solicitors generally. The guarantee of honesty which would thus be afforded by membership of the Society would be a further gain to the public, which those who know what it is to have to employ a solicitor for some small business, and to have to choose one at random from among the names in the "Law List" or the local directory, will be best able to appreciate. If the Incorporated Law Society would seriously take the matter in hand, it would, in the long- run, do a very great service to its own members. The pro- ceedings at the annual meeting of the Society, the other day, seem to show that, like Trade Unions, it is chiefly occupied with the protection of its members and the profession against outside competition. We believe that, as regards its own mem- bers, it could do nothing that would be more to their advan- tage than to make their connection with the Society a standing testimonial to their fitness in all respects for the work they undertake to do. If membership of the Incorporated Law Society carried this warrant with it, it might be expedient to relax in its favour the rule that is now in force with reference to the responsi- bility of Solicitors for the advice they give. As the law stands, if the most experienced solicitor in London advises a client, after the most careful consideration and with the most con- summate ability, and in the end the advice turns out to be bad, and the client suffers by having followed it, the solicitor may have to defend himself against an action for the injury his client has sustained. If, on the contrary, this experienced' and able solicitor, instead of giving his own time and thought to the case, turns it over to his son—a barrister called only yesterday, and who has passed his examination by the merest good-fortune--he is insured against all consequences. The barrister's wig covers more sins than the solicitor's brains.
j
The only possible justification for such a law as this, is the existence of a large number of solicitors of whose qualifications• nothing is known, and the consequent necessity of encouraging them to employ some more competent head than their own in the management of their clients' affairs. If, however, some relaxation of the rule could be permitted, without weakening the force of the encouragement thus given, it would be a great concession to common-sense ; and it seems to us to be within.
the power of the Incorporated Law Society to do something, in the direction which has been suggested, which would make such a relaxation possible. If Membership of the Society were universally known to carry with it certain professional quali- fications, no objection need be entertained by Parliament to give the Members of the Society some part of the same ex- emption from responsibility which it gives, without inquiry, to every man who has been called to the Bar.
Previous page
