In The Matter Of A Proctor Of The Supreme Court

Present: Fisher C.J., Drieberg J., and Jayewardene A.J.

In the Matter of a Proctor of the Supreme Court

and

In the Matter of Section 19 of the Courts Ordinance, 1889.

    Proctor-Neglect to tax bill-Orders of Supreme Court-Courts Ordinance, No. 1 of 1889, s. 19.

Where a Proctor wilfully neglected to tax his bill of costs against a client who called upon him to do so under the direction of the Supreme Court,-

Held, that the Proctor was guilty of misconduct.

THIS was an application under section 19 of the Courts Ordinance for a rule on the respondent, a Proctor, to show cause why he should not be suspended from practice or removed from the Roll of Proctors on the ground of misconduct. The facts are fully stated in the judgment of Drieberg J.

De Zoysa, K. C. (with Soertsz, Ameresekere, and Canjemanathan), for respondent.

L. M. de Silva, Acting Deputy S.-G. (with Basnayake), as amicus curiae.

July 17, 1928. FISHER C .J.-

 I have had the advantage of reading the judgment of my brother Drieberg in this case. He has dealt very fully with the facts, and I will only deal therefore very shortly with the charge in respect of failing to tax his costs which we hold to have been proved against the respondent. It is quite clear that he wilfully and without any excuse failed to comply with the request of his client made, as -he must have well known, at the instance of the Judge who was inquiring into the serious allegations .which had been made against him by bis client. He persistently ignored the request, and in his letters of February 21,1928, and April 4, 1928, he put forward an excuse which is idle and self-condemnatory.

It must be emphasized that a Proctor who studiously ignores a request to tax his bill, made to his knowledge at the instance of the Court which is in process of investigating charges against him, is guilty of misconduct as an officer of the Court.

We must mark our disapprobation of such misconduct, and we are of opinion that the respondent should be suspended from practice for three months, and we order accordingly.

 DRIEBERG J.-

In the Matter On June 22,1928, a rule was issued on the respondent, a Proctor, of a proctor to snow cause why he should not be suspended from practice Supreme or removed from the Roll of Proctors on the ground of misconduct Court, & c. and deceit as follows :-

(1) For failing to comply with the order of the Supreme Court of March 23, 1927, requiring him to submit an account supported by proper vouchers of how the sum of Rs. 150 drawn by him from Court on or about May 19, 1926,. was paid out by him, which order was communicated to him by the District Judge on April 12, 1927.

(2) For falsely representing to the District Judge of Colombo, at the inquiry by him on October 15,1926, that Mr. Nava-rataxam had been retained as Junor Counsel for the appeal, . that fees were then due to them which had not been paid, and that part of the sum of Rs. 150 was retained by him for the purpose of paying Mr. Navaratnam.

(3) For falsely representing to the District Judge of Colombo, at the inquiry held by him on October 15, 1926, that he had retained part of the said sum of Rs. 150 to pay Mr. E. G. P. Jayetileke a further fee for the appeal.

(4) For failing to prepare and tax his bill of costs against his client when called upon by his client to do so.

These proceedings were the result of a petition of June 7, 1926, by T. Don Leo, the defendant in D. C, Colombo, 14,179, in which he was sued for the recovery of Rs. 3,271.93. The respondent was his Proctor in this action. The plaintiffs' action was dismissed with costs and they appealed. Their Proctors, Messrs. Julius & Creasy, deposited a sum of Rs. 150 as security for Don Leo's costs of appeal. On April 29, 1926, the appeal was dismissed with costs, and on May 21 the respondent got an order of payment for the Rs. 150 and drew the money. Don Leo t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document