Sir, – The Law Society complains (November 21st) that my comments about solicitors’ economy with the truth are unwarranted.
The following day, Tuesday, the very first case in my list, the plaintiff’s solicitor verifies on oath that there is no one living in the apartment which is to be repossessed, but counsel appears in court on behalf of an occupant who is notice party in the proceedings.
Later, there’s a case in which the belief that the defendant has no defence is averred to by the solicitor although he has received a 13-paragraph written defence which, curiously enough, sets out a defence, if true. In another case the no defence averment is made even though the one-page memorandum on which he bases his client’s claim contains two different versions of the deal and is therefore, technically, not an offer and acceptance but an offer and a counteroffer. It’s a defence.
And in the last case, No 122, a defendant’s solicitor swears he needs a court order for discovery of post-accident medical records for his medical witness when the same documents are available, for the asking and without any court order, under the Law Society’s own protocol for exchange of medical records between doctors. Wasted costs.
That was last Tuesday, but it’s the same every day.
Solicitors’ averments are prescribed by Rules of Court to enable the court to speed up the litigation when the solicitor, as officer of the court, confirms that it’s okay to do so. Solicitors should doublecheck the facts before confirming under oath. Failure to do so reveals an altogether too casual approach to the solemnity of the oath.
It’s almost as if solicitors think the legal system belongs to them, and that they can disrespect the oath without real fear of criticism or sanction. Witnesses generally may pick up on this and feel they are free to do likewise. – Yours, etc,