The Earl Now A Bankrupt

NAMELESS SOLICITOR.

Curious Secrecy Observed in a Case Involving Grave Questions.

A judgement of more than ordinary interest was given yesterday by the Lord Chief Justice in a case in which Mr. Hollams, on the part of the Incorporated Law Society, laid before the Court a report of the Statutory Committee, to whom an application had been made by Mr. John de Pass, Mr. Elliott A. de Pass, and Mr. John Hands, executors of the will of the late Madame du Pariente.
According to the custom which prevails in such cases, the name of the solicitor whose professional conduct had been involved in this matter did not transpire, but he was stated to have a practice in the West End, and to be earning 4,000 pounds a year.
The charges were that the respondent, while acting as a solicitor for the deceased lady, working upon her weakness and knowing she was possessed of a considerable unencumbered fortune, over which she had full control, induced her to become involved in loan transactions, in some instances for her own benefit and in others for his, without the knowledge of the lady's family, although he had promised he would inform them if she engaged in loan transactions.
The result was that her estate became liable for 8,500 pounds borrowed by the respondent for his own purposes and not repaid.

Prince and Earl as Sureties.

It was alleged that the solicitor induced her to become a surety, with Prince Victor Duleep Singh and the Earl of Euston, for a sum of 4,000 pounds, borrowed by the respondent from the Eagle Insurance Company, and that both the Earl of Euston and Prince Victor Duleep Singh were now bankrupts, and no dividends had been paid. The result was that Madame de Pariente's executors were liable for the unpaid balance of that 4,000 pounds.
When Mr. John de Pass called upon the respondent and reminded him of the previous promise that he would not allow her to engage in any loan transaction, he never mentioned this transaction, although it was for her own benefit.
The final finding of the Statutory Committee was that the respondent was guilty of professional misconduct within the meaning of the Act, although they did not think he had any intention to involve the lady in loss, as he believed that he would be able to keep down the interest and eventually to pay off all liabilities.
The Lord Chief Justice said he agreed with the finding of the Law Society. While holding that the respondent had gone perilously near to incurring the very gravest consequences, yet the professional misconduct proved was not in this case of such a nature as to be visited with suspension. In this case respondent would not be suspended, but must pay the costs of the proceedings.
Mr. Justice Wills and Mr. Justice Kennedy agreed.

Source: The Daily Mirror, May 19 1904, Page 5