I. INTRODUCTION
2.1 In this chapter we outline the principal causes for concern in New South Wales in relation to mishandling of solicitor’s trust accounts. We do so under three basic headings, namely
- General Prevalence and Cost of Mishandling
- Types of Mishandling
- Types of Work and of Practitioner Involved.
2.2 It may be helpful at the outset to explain several central aspects of the present trust account system in New South Wales. We do so in the remaining paragraphs of this introduction.
A. General (or Office) Accounts and Trust Accounts
2.3 Most solicitors in New South Wales use two types of account in the course of their practice. One account, called a General or Office Account, is the account in which they deposit their own money. This includes, for example, money paid to them by clients for work which they have carried out. The other account, called a Trust Account, may be described in broad terms as the account in which they deposit money which is not their own but has been entrusted to them by another person for particular purposes.1 An example is money paid to a solicitor by the prospective purchaser of a house for the purpose of being paid by the solicitor to the seller at the time of completion of the sale.
B. Solicitors’ Fidelity Fund
2.4 The Solicitors’ Fidelity Fund is owned and managed by the Law Society.2 It is used to compensate people who suffer financial loss due to solicitor’s dishonest failures to account for money entrusted to them. The Fund was established in 1935, and until 1967 its income consisted solely of compulsory contributions from solicitors. Since 1967 the Fund has had two principal. sources of income, namely interest earned on solicitor’s trust accounts and compulsory contributions made to it by all practising solicitors. Between 1968 and 1980 the overwhelming majority of money paid to the Fund came from interest earned on solicitors’ trust accounts; contributions from solicitors comprised less than 10 per cent of the Funds total income.3 In 1981, however, we suggested in our Discussion Paper that solicitor’s contributions should comprise a larger proportion of the Fund.4 Since that time contributions have been increased very substantially and in 1983-84 they comprised more than one - third of the Fund’s total income of $5.2 million.5
C. Interest on Solicitors’ Trust Accounts
2.5 Interest is earned on solicitor’s trust accounts by two different processes. First every solicitors required to deposit each year with the Law Society an amount equal to two-thirds of the lowest balance in his or her trust account during the previous year.6 This amount is known commonly as the “statutory deposit”. The money deposited is then invested by the Law Society and the interest thus earned is paid into a Statutory Interest Account. This Account is owned and managed by the Law Society and, subject to the consent of the Attorney General, can be allocated between the Solicitors’ Fidelity Fund, the Legal Services Commission the Law Foundation of New South Wales and purposes which will promote and further legal education.7
2.6 Secondly, in early 1983 the Law Society reached agreement with the major banks operating in New South Wales for the payment to the Law Society of interest on solicitor’s trust accounts balances.8 The banks did not agree to be bound to pay any moneys but indicated a preparedness to make “ex gratia” payments. The payments were to represent interest at an agreed rate calculated by reference to the total of the minimum monthly balance of all solicitor’s trust accounts held by each bank.
2.7 The Attorney General was advised by the Law Society of the agreements and an interim trust arrangement was proposed to enable the payments made under the agreement to be accumulated and distributed. A trust deed was executed on 3rd February 1984 providing for two trustees nominated by the Law Society and one trustee nominated by the Attorney General to administer a central fund to be known as the Solicitors’ Trust Account Fund. The trustees are required to act unanimously. The purposes for which the Fund can be distributed are the same as those applying to the Statutory Interest Account, which we have listed above.
D. The Law Governing Solicitors’ Trust Accounts
2.8 The general law relating to trustees applies to solicitors when acting as trustees of other people’s money. In addition particular rules governing solicitor’s handling of trust moneys are laid down by the Legal Practitioners Act 1898,9 and the Solicitors Trust Account Regulations made under that Act.10 The Act defines in general terms the circumstances in which money must or may be paid into, and must or may be paid out of, solicitor’s trust accounts. The Regulations consist principally of “book-keeping” rules about the manner in which trust account records must be kept-
II. GENERAL PREVALENCE AND COST OF MISHANDLING
Introduction
2.9 There are compelling reasons for grave public and professional concern about the prevalence and cost of mishandling of solicitors’ trust accounts in this State. Each year, hundreds, and probably even thousands, of millions of dollars are entrusted to solicitors. The great bulk of this money is handled satisfactorily but, at least in recent years, very substantial amounts have not been accounted for satisfactorily by the solicitors to whom they were entrusted, and their clients have had to seek compensation from other sources.
Evidence from the Fidelity Fund
2.10 Some idea of the magnitude of the problems which arise can be obtained from the records of the Solicitors’ Fidelity Fund for the five-year period to 30 June 1984.11
- During that period, the Fund paid a total of $16.5 million to compensate clients for loss of money entrusted to their solicitors.12
- In addition the Fund spent a total of $9.6 million investigating and handling clients’ claims, administering the affairs of aberrant solicitors, paying the Law Society for its attempts to reduce the incidence of mishandled trust funds, and in other ways funding the regulation of solicitor’s activities in this area.13
In order to finance this expenditure, the Fund received a total of $14.4 million generated by money belonging to members of the public (ie. interest earned on money entrusted to solicitors) and $4.8 million dollars of the profession’s money (ie. compulsory contributions). A further $1.4 million was derived from interest on moneys held in the Fund.
2.11 During the same five-year period, there were four instances of the Fidelity Fund re-paying more than $1 million in relation to a particular solicitor’s practice.14 The largest of these repayments was $2.6 million. There were 14 instances of a re-payment to a particular client in excess of $100,000 and the largest re-payment to a single client was $540,000. During the six-year period to 1 st April 1984, repayments were made in relation to 53 solicitors, and in 22 of these instances the total re-payment arising from the solicitor’s defalcations was more than $200,000. In a further 12 instances it was between $100,000 and $200,000.
2.12 The position is even more serious than the above statistics indicate. For example, at 30th June 1984 the Fund
- had paid out $2.9 million on claims in the preceding year;
- had decided to pay out a further $1.2 million;
- had made provision in its accounts for a further $1.5 million which it considered it was likely to pay out on claims already received; and
- had a “deficiency of funds” of $2.7 million.
In addition, the Fund’s financial statements indicated “contingent liabilities” of $2.8 million comprising
- claims totalling $1.1 million which the fund had received but was disputing or was expecting to dispute; and
- intended claims totalling $1.7 million of which the Fund had received notice.15
2.13 These heavy demands on the Fidelity Fund have meant that very large amounts of the funds in the Statutory Interest Account and the Solicitors’ Trust Account Fund have had to be allocated to the Fidelity Fund rather than to other purposes for which they might be allocated, such as legal aid and legal education.16 During the five years to 30th June 1984 more than one-third ($14.4 m) of total allocations from these sources went to the Fidelity Fund.17 Moreover, the profession is now paying more than $1.7 million to the Fidelity Fund each year. This cost forms part of solicitor’s overheads and, ultimately must be met from fees paid by clients.
Accordingly, it clearly would be incorrect to regard the Fidelity Fund as a kind of cornucopia that does not really cost anyone anything.
Other Considerations
2.14 As the above statistics demonstrate, many clients whose money is dishonestly mishandled and lost by solicitors subsequently receive re-payment from the Solicitors’ Fidelity Fund. However, this re-payment may not always compensate fully for the loss suffered. For example, it may come too late for a client to purchase the house or business which the solicitor was instructed to buy with the money entrusted to him or her. Moreover, the Fund does not provide compensation for the stress suffered by victims nor for the time which they must devote to pursuing their claims for re - payment.
2.15 It must also be borne in mind that the Fidelity Fund figures to which we have referred do not indicate the mishandling which goes entirely undetected, is eventually compensated for by the solicitor (or his or her partners, relatives or friends), or arises from causes other than dishonesty. The Law Society’s professional indemnity insurance scheme covers liabilities arising from negligence and other non - dishonest conduct by solicitors.18 Since its inception in 1980, the scheme has paid out hundreds of thousands of dollars on claims arising from the manner in which solicitors have handled moneys entrusted to them.19 The cost of meeting these claims is met entirely by premiums set at a standard figure, and therefore is borne by all solicitors no matter how carefully they handle their own trust accounts.
2.16 A further indication of the gravity of the situation in New South Wales can be obtained from statistics of disciplinary action for breaches of the law relating to trust accounts. During the three years to 30th June 1984, 32 of the 33 solicitors who were struck off the Roll had committed breaches of this kind, as had 528 of the solicitors who incurred lesser disciplinary sanctions.20 It should also be noted that in 1979 the Royal Commission into Drug Trafficking in New South Wales expressed grave concern about the ways in which certain solicitors had allowed their trust accounts to be used to the advantage of drug traffickers with whom they were associated.21 Similar activities by solicitors in both Australia and New Zealand were mentioned in the report of a subsequent joint Royal Commission into Drug Trafficking in both countries.22 The Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union which conducted Australia-wide investigations, reported in 1984:
“There is no doubt on a great deal of the evidence before me that certain solicitors have allowed their trust account, if not their strong rooms, to be employed as repositories for monies, the source of which, on any rational view, could only be illegal enterprises. By depositing monies with such solicitors, some hope or expectation is held that law enforcement agencies will have difficulty in locating the funds and in seeking explanations for them.”23
Recent Trends
2.17 Assertions have been made from time to time over the last five years or so that the level of misappropriation of trust funds is decreasing and the situation is now well in hand. As the following table indicates, however, there seems to be no evidence of sustained improvement.24
Solicitors’ Fidelity Fund
| Year | Claims Paid During Year | Accumulated Balance at End of Year |
 | | |
| 1978 | $1.4m | -$132,000 (deficit) |
| 1979 | $1.8m | $159,000 |
| 1980 | $4.4m | $28,000 |
| 1981 | $2.8m | $277,000 |
| 1982 | $1.6m | -$2.2m (deficit) |
| 1983 | $4.9m | -$2.5m (deficit) |
| 1984 | $2.9m | -$2.7m (deficit) |
2.18 There has been a very substantial increase in recent years in the amount of money paid by the Fidelity Fund to the Law Society for the latter’s supervisory and educative activities aimed at reducing the incidence of misappropriation. The annual total grew from $820,000 in 1978-79 to $1,777,000 in 1983-84.25
Comparison with Other Jurisdictions
2.19 The bad record of losses from solicitors’ trust accounts in New South Wales is frequently remarked upon at national, and even international, conferences of lawyers. It shares this dubious distinction with Victoria but in fact records of the last 10 years show that the losses in that State, although very substantial, are well below those in New South Wales. The following table26 throws light on the record in these States and in several other jurisdictions for the five years 1978-1983.
| | Total Claims Paid by Fidelity Fund or Equivalent | Approximate Number of Solicitors in Practice as at 30th June 1983 |
| | |
| New South Wales | $15,390,062 | 7,100 |
| Victoria | $2,630,752 | 5,200 |
| New Zealand | $707,554** | 4,500 |
| Queensland | $861,100* | 1,900 |
| Western Australia | $75,137 | 1,100 |
* figures for five years to December 1984.
** conversion rate as at 30 June 1983: NZ$1.33 = A$1
2.20 Certain aspects of the law and practice relating to solicitors and their trust accounts, and to the Fidelity Fund or equivalent, differ somewhat between the various jurisdictions.27 Accordingly, considerable caution is necessary when drawing conclusions from the above table. Nevertheless, it is remarkable that in New South Wales the level of Fidelity Fund payments per practising solicitor has been, in recent years, in the order of
- four times higher than in Victoria and Queensland; and
- more than 10 times higher than in New Zealand.
III. TYPES OF MISHANDLING
2.21 In order to obtain expert information about the types of error which occur in the handling of solicitor’s trust accounts, we commissioned the report from Yarwood Vane & Co. to which we referred earlier.28 This Sydney firm of accountants has had long and detailed experience in the field of solicitor’s trust accounts. In the 11 years prior to its report in 1979 the firm carried out no less than 127 investigations of solicitor’s trust accounts at the request of the Law Society.29 It has continued to be very active in this area and both advised us In 1984 that the report remains valid in the light of subsequent experience.
2.22 We quote below the report’s list of “practices which have been found to be in default of present [Solicitors Trust Account] Regulations”.30
“[A. Moneys not banked in trust bank account]
1 .Moneys which should have been banked in the trust bank account have been deliberately banked in the office (or general) bank account; or
2. have been banked in the private bank account of the solicitor or some other bank account under his sole control; or
3. have been paid into a Building Society Account or similar account; or
4. have been used by endorsement for the payment of debts due by the solicitor or some other person; or
5. have been banked in error to the office (or general) account and have remained in that account indefinitely or until the error has been discovered.
[B. Solicitors Trust Account Regulations not observed in the keeping of trust account books]
Generally, the breaches of the Regulations occur because the solicitor has not taken the trouble to read and understand what are a very simple and straightforward set of Regulations, or if he has made himself conversant with the Regulations he has failed to ensure that his bookkeeper and/or other employees fully understand and follow the Regulations. There is also the failure to supervise and check from time to time the quality of the work being prepared and its conformity with the Regulations.
2. The most common default is the failure to keep the trust account records strictly in accordance with the Solicitors Trust Account Regulations.
3. In a very small practice the solicitor may keep the records himself and in some cases the quality of the bookkeeping and the hand-writing leaves much to be desired, resulting in inaccuracies and non-observance of the elementary rules of bookkeeping.
4. The books may not be written up regularly or in some cases not for months at a time.
5. Monthly bank reconciliations may be abandoned and prepared at the end of each three months to coincide with the preparation of the trial balance statements.
6. The lack of sufficient particulars to identify transactions is common particularly in the cash book and journal entries.
7. Many less serious breaches occur in relation to the stamping and initialling of the carbon duplicate bank deposit forms by the bank officers and the failure to endorse the date of preparation on the trial balance statements.
[C. Falsification of trust account books and records]
1. The payees shown on trust cheques obtained from the solicitor’s bank being different from the payees shown in the trust cash book and ledger;
2. Transferring moneys from the trust bank account to the office or other bank account for costs for which no bill of costs has been prepared at the time of the transfer and for which, possibly, no work has been done;
3. Transferring moneys from the trust bank account to the office or other bank account in reimbursement of disbursements which have not been paid by the solicitor and which may never be paid;
4. Overcharging of costs and disbursements;
5. Falsification of trust bank account reconciliations by creating non-existent deposits and drawing moneys from the trust bank account against the fictitious credits, which are allowed to remain as outstanding reconciling items until covered, if they ever are;
6. Transferring moneys from trust ledger accounts in credit to eliminate debits which have occurred by design or error in other trust ledger accounts;
7. Preparation of documents relating to the investment of clients’ funds such as mortgages and epitomes, which are false in particulars and where the signatures on mortgages may be forgeries;
8. Clients’ title deeds held for them being used as security for unauthorised borrowings sometimes from other clients. The moneys so obtained are often used to cover up shortages in trust funds.
[D. Law Society Special Account Deposits insufficient or non-existent]
[E. Clients’ instructions not observed]
1. Investment of clients’ funds contrary to instructions or without obtaining instructions;
2. Borrowings by the solicitor, members of his family or by companies in which he has an interest without disclosing his interest and advising the client concerned that he should obtain independent legal advice before agreeing to the investment;
3. Failing adequately to secure the investment by registering the mortgage;
4. Investing in other than a first mortgage unless the client has agreed to a lower ranking security;
5. Failing to inform clients of the investment of their funds in what is known as ‘contributory mortgage’ and failing to prepare deed of trust if the solicitor is shown on the mortgage as the mortgagee;
6. Failing to obtain a valuation of the property on which the loan is secured to ensure that the client’s loan is within the recognised limits disclosed by the valuation;
7. Failing to ensure that a current and adequate insurance cover is maintained on the property if insurance is required;
8. Using clients’ funds, held for conveyancing matters and for estates of deceased clients, etc., temporarily for the benefit of other clients without the consent or knowledge of the clients whose funds are used.”31
2.23 Our other principal sources of information about types of mishandling are the judgements of the Solicitors’ Statutory Committee in disciplinary cases involving trust accounts, two statistical surveys of complaints made about lawyers to the Law Society and the Law Reform Commission respectively,32 and discussions with officers of the Law Society.33 These sources, together with the report by Yarwood Vane & Co., lead us to conclude that in recent years the most prevalent and serious types of mishandling have included
- transferring from trust accounts to general accounts moneys which are incorrectly believed, or alleged, to be due for costs and disbursements;
- investing clients’ money without instructions or contrary to instructions;
- borrowing money from clients without disclosing that it is for the personal use of the solicitor (or a relative or associated company) and without advising the client to obtain independent legal advice.
IV. TYPES OF WORK AND OF PRACTITIONER
2.24 The report by Yarwood Vane & Co. also included comments about whether some types of work and of practitioner are more likely than others to give rise to mishandling.
“Our experience is that it is not possible to draw a character picture of a solicitor, or a class of solicitors, likely to default.
In the 1970’s, however, it is clear that some solicitors, seeing profits to be made and being made by the clients in a booming real estate market, were tempted to try their hand at speculating, using their clients’ money for that purpose.
When a slump came in the land market they were, of course, caught as were all speculators with inadequate capital.
Hence, one class of solicitor deserving attention perhaps would be one known to be interested in real estate or with a close connection with land speculators or even real estate agents.
It is possible that the sole practitioner is more vulnerable to the temptation provided by his position of trust than one in partnership with others. Partners tend to know what each other are doing, although we have dealt with cases where this has not been so.
Another vulnerable class of a solicitor is the ageing sole practitioner who has enjoyed a reasonably high standard of living most of his life and his personal spending habits may have become inappropriate to his present earning capacity.”34
2.25 This aspect of the report - in conjunction with other sources of information lead us to identify two principal areas of concern First - there is the high incidence of mishandling by sole practitioners. More than 60 per cent of the 33 solicitors struck off the Roll in the three years to 30th June 1984 for matters relating to trust accounts were sole practitioners, yet sole practitioners comprised less than 20 per cent of all practising solicitors in the State.35 Our statistical surveys of complaints made about lawyers during the mid - and late-1970s indicated that the great majority of complaints about investment of clients’ money, and almost 50 per cent of complaints about trust funds, related to sole practitioners.36 Our investigations do not indicate that these proportions have changed substantially in more recent times. It must be borne in mind, however, that in some instances mishandling by a partner may not give rise to a complaint to the Law Society or to a disciplinary charge because other partners remedy the situation from their own resources.
2.26 Secondly, there is the prevalence of mishandling in the course of investing clients’ money, especially where solicitors conduct another business enterprise (such as that of land speculator, property developer, financier or mortgage broker) in association with their legal practice. These associated activities can give rise to real or apparent conflicts between the respective interests of solicitors and their clients. Thirty-four (62 per cent) of the solicitors struck off the Roll in the five years to 30th June 1984 were charged with matters arising from investment of clients’ moneys.37 In 25 of these 34 cases an associated business enterprise of the solicitor was involved.38 Our statistical survey of complaints to the Law Society in the mid - and late 1970s found that 22 out of 24 complaints about trust funds related to investment of clients’ money.39 Our survey of complaints made to us in 1977 and 1978 about lawyers found that 30 per cent of complaints about investment transactions alleged that the solicitor involved had a conflict of interest.40
2.27 The report by Yarwood Vane & Co. drew particular attention in this context to “the ageing sole practitioner.” Our statistical survey of complaints made to the Commission in 1977 and 1978 found that all of the complaints about investment of clients moneys, and about three-quarters of those about trust funds generally, were in relation to practitioners of at least 15 years standing.41 It is not clear how many of these practitioners were in sole practice.
2.28 Yarwood Vane & Co. also threw light in their report on personal characteristics, difficulties, and motivations which may lead solicitors into trouble with their trust funds.
“The character traits most commonly found appear to emanate from -
Deliberate fraud
Cupidity
Gambling
Philanthropy
Laziness
Carelessness
Stupidity
Some of these weaknesses may have been inherent in the solicitors’ characters; they may also have been triggered by the many mental and physical ills which beset mankind, such as -
Nervous disorders resulting in nervous breakdowns and paranoia,
Alcoholism and drugs,
Marital problems,
Blackmail,
Accidents to themselves and their families, illness and disease in all its forms, and also to business reversals and economic recessions.
Although our experience in relation to the above is confined to members of the legal profession, this cannot be construed as an indictment of the members of that profession as the percentage of the discovered transgressors is very small compared with the total number in practice.
The weaknesses observed are also found throughout the community ...
There have been the cases where the solicitor has not been the guilty party, but due to his neglect carelessness, lack of supervision or misplaced trust, the moneys under his control have been stolen by his employees and sometimes by his partner.
The incidence of philanthropy is an interesting phenomenon which has been found on many occasions where the solicitor has, no doubt with humane intentions, made loans, in some cases of large sums, to clients for various reasons such as -
Bridging finance for home purchases;
Advances in workers compensation and traffic accident cases before verdicts have been given;
Advances to beneficiaries in deceased estates, sometimes before a grant of probate;
Advances to deceased estates to pay death and estate duties by due date so as to avoid interest penalty;
For the clients private use to settle debts and other pressing commitments.
In these cases, the solicitor’s motives were no doubt charitable, not at his own expense but at the expenses of his clients generally, whose funds happened to be in the trust account at the time.”42
FOOTNOTES
1. In some circumstances money belonging to the solicitor maybe paid into the trust account - For example, where a client pays by one cheque a sum of money which is owed to the solicitor and another stun which is being entrusted to the solicitor for a particular purpose.
2. Legal Practitioners Act 1898, ss.45,5 1. See also our Discussion Paper, Solicitors’ Trust Accounts and the Solicitors’ Fidelity Fund (hereafter referred to as “Discussion Paper”), chs.5.9.
3. See our Discussion Paper, para. 10.16.
4. Id., at paras.10.9-10.42.
5. See Law Society of N.S.W., Annual Report 1983-84, p.30. The Annual Report is printed in the Law Society Journal (Oct. 1984), vol.22, no.9.
6. Legal Practitioners Act. 1898, s.42A (3AA). See also our Discussion Paper, paras.10.2-10.4.
7. Legal practitioners Act 1898, s.44A.
8. This and the following paragraph rely on information provided by the Attorney General’s Department. The terms of the arrangements with the banks, and of the trust deed, have not been made public.
9. See especially ss.41-44.
10. The current Regulations are reproduced in Appendix II of this Report.
11. The Fund’s financial statements, from which statistics in this and succeeding paragraphs are derived. are contained in the Annual Reports of the Law Society of New South Wales which are printed each year in the October edition of the Law Society Journal.
12. These totals represent the net cost to the Fund - ie. moneys recovered by the fund and applied to repayments to clients have been deducted.
13. Expenditure of these kinds is said to be authorised by s.49 of the Legal Practitioners Act, 1898.
14. Statistics in this paragraph are derived from information provided to the Commission by the Law Society.
15. This latter total includes amounts payable if the Society exercises its discretion under the Legal Practitioners Act, 1898 (s.57A) to meet in full any claims against a solicitor which, in total, exceed $200,000. It is the Policy of the Council that, where possible, all claims should be paid in full and, to date, it has always done so although full payment has sometimes been delayed for lengthy periods.
16. See para.2.5 above.
17. $14.4 million out of a total of $40.3 million. Allocations from the Statutory Interest Account are published in the Annual Reports of the Society of New South Wales (see note 2.10.1 above). Allocations from the Solicitors’ Trust Account Fund to the Solicitors’ Fidelity, Fund began in the year ending ; 30th June 1984 and were published in the Annual Report for that period.
18. In relation to the scheme generally, see our Discussion Paper. Professional Indemnity Insurance (1979).
19. See also para.11.2 below.
20. Statistics supplied by the Law Society of New South Wales at the request of the Commission.
21. See, eg. Royal Commission into Drug Trafficking (the Woodward Commission), Report (1979), pp.1123-1132, 1182-1186, 1235, 1286-7, 1301-2, 1305-6, 1314, 1316 and 1324.
22. See Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking, Report (1983), eg. at pp.619, 630.
23. Final Report (1984), vol.2. para 8.003.
24. The table is derived front Annual Reports of the Fidelity Fund (see note 2.10.1 above).
25. See note 2.1.1 above.
26. This table is derived from the Annual Reports of the Fidelity Funds in the jurisdictions in question and from information provided by the various law societies.
27. For example, the definition of the types of claim which may be made on the Fidelity Fund, and the procedure for establishing the claim, differs between jurisdictions. See our Discussion Paper, Solicitors’ Trust Accounts and the Solicitors Fidelity Fund (1981), esp. chaps. 9, 11 and 12.
28. Yarwood Vane & Co, “Study and Analysis of Available Experience of Investigation of Solicitors in Default of Trust account Regulations” (1979).
29. Id, p.7.
30. Id, p.10.
31. Id, pp.10-16.
32. The two surveys are reported in our Background Paper - III. On matters referred to in this paragraph see, in particular, pp.58, 61, 107, 120, 121 and 55 of that paper.
33. See also a paper by a Law Society officer, Mr. K. Garling, in University of Sydney Institute of Crime and the Professions - The Legal Profession (1983).
34. Yarwood Vane & Co. Report (see note 2.21-1 above). pp.9-10.
35. Information supplied by the Law Society at the request of the Commission.
36. Background Paper - III, pp.70, 154.
37. Figures supplied by the Law Society it the request of the Commission.
38. Id.
39. Background Paper - III, p. 155,
40. Id., p.61.
41. Background Paper - III, pp.63, 64.
42. Yarwood Vane & Co. Report (see note 2.21.1 above), pp. 7-9.
