In the matter of HILL, Gentleman, one, &c. 1. Misconduct for which the Court would either refuse or defer the admission of an attorney is ground for either striking an attorney off the roll or suspending him from practising, though the misconduct be not in his character of attorney. Thursday, May 28th. Application to strike attorney off the roll. Conduct as attorney's clerk. Criminal 2. An attorney acting as managing clerk to a firm of attorneys completed the sale of property belonging to a client of the firm, and appropriated part of the purchase money to his own use. Upon the discovery of the fraud a year afterwards he admitted the fact, and offence. repaid the amount. Upon motion to strike him off the roll the Court suspended him from practising for one year. 3. Where an attorney charged with a criminal offence denies his guilt, the Court will not try the issue on affidavits. 1868. Re HILL. MAY AY 4. Murray obtained a rule on behalf of the Incorporated Law Society, calling upon Robert Raby Hill, an attorney of this Court, to shew cause why he should not be struck off the roll. It appeared from the affidavits that Hill, who had been admitted an attorney, was engaged by Messrs. Hargrove, Fowler & Blunt, attorneys and solicitors, as their managing clerk, and continued in their employment from October, 1863, till April, 1865. In March, 1865, while acting as such, he completed the sale of certain property belonging to Mr. Webster, a client of Messrs. Hargrove, Fowler & Blunt. In February, 1866, Messrs. Hargrove, Fowler & Blunt, in settling their accounts with Webster, discovered that Hill had received from the solicitors of the purchaser 851., the balance of the purchase money, and had never accounted for it to the firm. He had then left their employment, and they wrote to him demanding an explanation. He called upon them and admitted having appropriated the money and offered to repay the amount, which they, after some time taken for consideration, accepted. He also admitted that he had not accounted to the firm for a sum of 87. 14s. which he had received for the defendant's costs in an action brought against Webster, in which the plaintiff was nonsuited. In an affidavit on shewing cause Hill stated that he was in great distress when he appropriated the 857. to his own use, and had always intended to repay it so soon as he was able, but that up to the time of the discovery of the fraud he had not been able to do so, in consequence of having to support his wife and family and to contribute in part to the maintenance of his aged parents, and that the omission to give the firm credit for the 87. 14s. was accidental and not intentional. Since he left the employment of Messrs. Hargrove, Fowler & Blunt he had been in practice at Ipswich from April, 1865, to January, 1866, in partnership with another attorney, and since the latter date on his own account, and there were affidavits that during those three years he had conducted himself with propriety in his character of attorney in the transactions in which he had been engaged. Holl shewed cause.-At the time of the misconduct of which Hill was guilty he was not acting as attorney but as attorney's clerk. [Cockburn C. J. What authority is there for the exercise of this jurisdiction when an attorney is charged with an indictable offence and has not been convicted? Murray, in support of the rule.— In Re Blake (a), where there was not the relation of attorney and client, Crompton J. said, p. 40, "The law as to the summary jurisdiction of the Court over attorneys, as its officers, as laid down in the books of practice, is of wider extent than Mr. Dowdeswell is ready to admit ;" and he cited Chitty's Archbold's Practice (ed. 11, by Prentice), p. 146, Lush's Pratice (ed. 2, by Stephen), p. 218 (b); and Blackburn J. said, p. 41, "It is not necessary, in order to induce the Court to interfere in a summary manner, that the misconduct charged should either amount to an indictable offence or arise out of a transaction in which the relation of attorney and client subsists between the attorney and the person against whom he has been guilty of miscon(a) 3 E. & E. 34. (b) 3rd ed., by Dixon, p. 320. 1868. Re HILL 1868. Re HILL. duct. Thus, in Stephens v. Hill (a), Alderson B. says, 'The question in this case is, whether the attorney has so misconducted himself in his character of an attorney, as to be an unfit person to remain on the roll.' 'If persons are to be accredited by the Court it is our duty to watch over and control their conduct."" Lush J. The misconduct in Re Blake (b) did not amount to an indictable offence. But in Re King (c) the Court struck an attorney off the roll who had been convicted on an indictment for a conspiracy to defraud notwithstanding judgment was reversed for insufficiency of the indictment.] In Re Blake the attorney was on account of his professional position entrusted with the deed of which he made a fraudulent use.-He then addressed the Court in mitigation. Murray, in support of the rule. COCKBURN C. J. The precise circumstances of the present case, namely, an act of delinquency committed by an attorney's clerk who at the same time was an attorney though not then acting as such has not hitherto come before the Court, but we ought not the less to entertain the application and deal with the case. I abide by what I said in Re Blake (b). Where an attorney commits a fraud, or does that which involves dishonesty, it is for the interest of suitors that the Court should interpose and prevent him from having the opportunity of using his power as one of its officers to defraud those who retain his professional services. In the present case, if the attorney had been proceeded against criminally a (a) 10 M. & W. 28. 34. (b) 3 E. & E. 34. (c) 8 Q. B. 129. conviction for embezzlement must have ensued, and upon that conviction being brought before us we should have been bound to act. If there were a conflict of evidence on the affidavits the Court would not interfere until there had been a conviction, but the person against whom this application is made does not dispute the facts. If these facts had been brought to our attention on an application to admit him as an attorney we should either have refused to admit or deferred the admission for a period of time. We are equally bound to take notice of the misconduct of a person who has been admitted an attorney, and deal with it according to the circumstances.--His Lordship then adverted to the circumstances of mitigation on the one hand, and to the fact that the repayment of the money was not spontaneous on the other, and said, we are not called upon to go to the extent of striking this person off the roll, but we cannot do less than suspend him from practising as an attorney for twelve months. BLACKBURN J. When we are called upon in the exercise of our summary jurisdiction to order an attorney to perform a contract to pay money or to fulfil an undertaking, the contract must have been made or the undertaking given by him in his character of attorney, or connected with it. But in the case of misconduct of an attorney amounting to a crime, the principle we act upon is that we are bound to see that the suitors of the Court are not exposed to placing their interests in the hands of improper persons; and the inquiry is much the same as when we have to consider whether a person is fit to be admitted an attorney. I adhere to Re Blake (a), in accordance with which, although the mis 1868. Re HILL. (a) 3 E. & E. 34. |
