|
ΠΑΓΚΥΠΡΙΟΣ ΔΙΚΗΓΟΡΙΚΟΣ ΣΥΛΛΟΓΟΣ
|
|
|
(V9) 1 CLR 11
1909 May 4
[TYSER C.J. AND BERTRAM, J.]
IN RE AN ADVOCATE.
ADVOCATE-STRIKING OFF ROLL-PRINCIPLES OBSERVED BY COURT.
In exercising its jurisdictson to strike an advocate off the roll of the Court the principle by which the Supreme Court is guided is that it will not allow to remain on the roll of the Court a man who has been guilty of such conduct as to make it impossible for members of an honourable profession to associate with him in the ordinary transaction of their business.
It is not necessary to the exercise of the jurisdiction of the Court that the offence committed by the advocate should be a criminal offence, nor that it should be an offence committed by the advocate in his professional capacity.
Any misconduct which would constitute a bar to the enrolment of the advocate is sufficient to justify the Court in striking him off the roll of the Court.
In exercising its jurisdiction to strike an advocate off the rolls in this case, the Court cited and followed the following English authorities.
In re Blake, 30 L.J. Q.B., 32. Per Cockburn, C.J:"I am of "opinion that Blake is amenable to the summary jurisdiction of this "Court, although the misconduct of which he has been guilty did "not arise in a matter strictly between attorney and client, but out of "a simple loan transaction. I proceed on the general ground that "where an attorney is shewn to have been guilty of gross fraud, "although the fraud is neither such as to render him liable to an "indictment, nor was committed by him while the relation of attorney "and client was subsisting between him and the person defrauded, "or in his character as an attorney, this Court will not allow suitors "to be exposed to gross fraud and dishonesty at the hands of one of "its officers."
In re Hill (1868) L.R., 3, Q.B., 543. Per Blackburn, J.: "In "the present case I adhere to what I think is the effect of re Blake, "that although the misconduct is not directly or incidentally connected "with is character of attorney, still we must consider what effect "that has upon the question of a proper person to be an officer of the "Court."
Per Cockburn, C.J: "If these facts had been brought to our "knowledge upon the application for this gentleman's admission we "might have refused to admit him; and I think that the fact of his "having been admitted does not alter his position; having been "admitted, we must deal with him as if he were now applying for "admission; and as in the case of a person applying for admission "as an attorney, we should have considered all the circumstances, "and either have refused to admit, or have suspended the admission "for a certain time, so where a person has once been admitted, we "are bound, although he was not acting in the precise character of "an attorney, to take notice of his misconduct."
In re Weare (1893) 2 Q.B., 439. Per Lord Ether, M.R.: "The "Divisional Court, having heard the case, has come to the conclusion "that this Solicitor has been convicted of a criminal offence of such "a disgraceful character that he ought to be struck off the rolls. "The Court is not bound to strike him off the rolls unless it considers "that the criminal offence of which he has been convicted is of such "a personally disgraceful character that he ought not to remain a "member of that strictly honourable profession. Now what is the "offence? the offence is being a party to the use of the house belonging to him as a brothel. Is it, or is it not personally disgraceful? Try "It in this way. Ought any respectable Socilitor to be called upon "to enter into that intimate intercourse with him which is necessary "between two Solicitors even though they are acting for opposite "parties. In my opinion no other Solicitors ought to be called upon "to enter into such relations with a person who has so conducted "himself."
Advocate struck off the rolls.