5 10 15 20 have enjoyed the benefit of the scheme. But today times have changed. It is of the essence of the promotion and furtherance of education in any form in Sierra Leone, whether in the Colony or the Protectorate, that there should be no discrimination between male natives of the Protectorate and male natives of the Colony. To continue a scheme which perpetuates such a discrimination is to antagonize the people of the Protectorate in respect of those of the Colony, more especially as the property is situated in a portion of the Protectorate where the support and goodwill of the people of the Protectorate is necessary. There is evidence that to restrict the membership to male natives of the Colony would also have the effect of defeating the object of the charity, as students from the Colony are not forthcoming in sufficient numbers. In the circumstances I make the order and modify the scheme or objects of the charity by substituting the words "male natives of Sierra Leone," meaning both the Colony and the Protectorate, for the words “male natives of the Colony" in paras. 10, 11, 13 and 14 of the will. The costs of this application are to be taxed as between solicitor and client and paid out of the estate. Application granted. 25 30 35 40 IN RE ROGERS-WRIGHT (A LEGAL PRACTITIONER) and IN RE SUPREME COURT (Smith, C.J.): February 11th, 1950 [1] Legal Profession-disciplinary proceedings-conduct tending to bring [3] Legal Profession-disciplinary proceedings-conduct tending to bring S.C. and he has a duty not to withhold any information which should [4] Legal Profession-disciplinary proceedings-conduct tending to bring [5] Legal Profession-disciplinary proceedings-conduct tending to bring profession into disrepute-solicitor who knowingly allows false affidavit to be made guilty of professional misconduct: A solicitor who allows his client to make an affidavit containing a statement which the solicitor knows to be false may be suspended from practising for professional misconduct (page 20, lines 16-18). [6] Legal Profession-professional etiquette-relationship with other practitioners-solicitor should act honourably in dealings with client's adversary: See [3] above. The applicant sought an order suspending the respondent legal practitioner from practising within the jurisdiction of the court, or alternatively striking him off the Roll of the court for professional misconduct and improper conduct. A grant of administration with will annexed in respect of an estate was made to the Official Administrator. Fourteen relatives of the deceased hired the respondent to contest the grant. The respondent instituted three separate suits on behalf of different groups of these relatives and signed the writs in respect of these suits. Affidavits which were later shown to contain false statements were also prepared in the respondent's office. The Attorney-General instituted the present proceedings against the respondent in respect of professional misconduct in accepting three different sets of clients with conflicting interests and in allowing two false affidavits to be filed. The Supreme Court considered what amounted to professional misconduct on the part of a solicitor, and whether the respondent had been guilty of it in the circumstances of the case. Cases referred to: (1) Allinson v. General Council of Medical Education & Registration, [1894] 1 Q.B. 750; [1891-4] All E.R. Rep. 768, dictum of Lopes, L.J. applied. (2) Ex p. Brounsall (1778), 2 Cowp. 829; 98 E.R. 1385, dictum of Lord Mansfield applied. 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 (3) In re Cooke (1889), 5 T.L.R. 407; 33 Sol. Jo. 397, dictum of Lord Esher, M.R. applied. (4) In re Davies (1898), 14 T.L.R. 332. (5) In re Gray, ex p. Inc. Law Socy. (1869), 20 L.T. 730, applied. (6) Myers v. Elman, [1940] A.C. 282; [1939] 4 All E.R. 484. (7) In re a Solicitor, ex p. Law Socy., [1912] 1 K.B. 302; [1911-13] All E.R. Rep. 202, dicta of Darling, J. applied. The applicant appeared in person with Benka-Coker, Ag. Sol.-Gen. SMITH, C.J.: In this case the court is moved by the Attorney-General under s.26 of the Legal Practitioners (Disciplinary Committee) Ordinance (cap. 118). The respondent, Mr. C.B. Rogers-Wright, is a barrister and solicitor of the Supreme Court of Sierra Leone within the meaning of s.2 of the Legal Practitioners Ordinance (cap. 117) and a legal practitioner within the meaning of s.2 of the Legal Practitioners (Disciplinary Committee) Ordinance (cap. 118). By his motion paper, dated November 18th, 1949, the Attorney-General asks for an order that the court may suspend Cyril Bunting Rogers-Wright, a legal practitioner of the court, from practising within the jurisdiction of the court for any specific period, or that the court may order the Master to strike the name of the said Cyril Bunting RogersWright off the Roll of the court for professional misconduct and improper conduct: "1. On or about July 16th, 1948, as legal practitioner of the said court he caused to be issued out of the said court on behalf of three separate and different sets of clients three writs of summons, namely Civil Cases 220/48, 221/48 and 222/48, indorsed with inconsistent and conflicting claims as to the testacy or intestacy of one Mormodu Allie, late of No. 8 Magazine Street, Freetown, in the Colony of Sierra Leone, who died on January 22nd, 1948. 2. As legal practitioner of the said court he prepared and caused to be sworn to, filed and delivered the following affidavits as to the testacy or intestacy of the said Mormodu Allie, deceased, one or two of which he, the said Cyril Bunting Rogers-Wright, knew or ought to have known to be wholly or substantially false: (i) In a suit, Civil Case 220/48, issued out of the said court S.C. The motion was supported by an affidavit by the AttorneyGeneral and in the course of the proceedings further affidavits were filed on his behalf. Mr. Kempson, an advocate of the Supreme Court, gave evidence in support of the motion and produced a letter dated September 1st, 1948, which he received from the respondent. The assistant Master and Registrar also gave evidence and produced the records in Suits Nos. 220/48, 221/48 and 222/48. He also produced three duplicate receipt books in use in the Master and Registrar's office in July and September 1948. The advocate for the respondent subsequently produced, under protest, the relevant original receipts. The respondent and others filed affidavits in opposition to the motion. One of the deponents, Marie Cole, was cross-examined on her affidavit and, as a so-called managing clerk, gave a pitiable exhibition. After a careful and anxious examination of all the evidence, I have no hesitation in finding that the allegations contained in paras. 1 and 2 of the motion paper have been proved. I am in agreement with the submission of the learned Solicitor-General that the note to O.XIX, r.4 of the Rules of the Supreme Court in the Annual Practice, 1948, at 364, headed "Alternative and Inconsistent Allegations," has no bearing on this case. In view of the above finding of fact I have now to consider whether the conduct of the respondent amounts to professional misconduct and/or improper conduct. In the case of In re a Solicitor, ex p. Law Socy. (7), Darling, J. says ([1912] 1 K.B. at 311-312; [1911-13] All E.R. Rep. at 204): "I do not think I need attempt to add anything to the definition 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 5 10 15 20 25 30 335 40 which was given in Allinson v. General Council of Medical Education & Registration [(1) ([1894] 1 Q.B. at 763; [1891-4] All E.R. Rep. at 773)]. In that case Lopes L.J. said: "The Master of the Rolls has adopted a definition which, with his assistance and that of my brother Davey, I prepared. I will read it again: "If it is shown that a medical man, in the pursuit of his profession, has done something with regard to it which would be reasonably regarded as disgraceful or dishonourable by his professional brethren of good repute and competency, then it is open to the General Medical Council to say that he has been guilty of infamous conduct in a professional respect." ... The Law Society are very good judges of what is professional misconduct as a solicitor, just as the General Medical Council are very good judges of what is misconduct as a medical man." In the case of In re Gray, ex p. Inc. Law Socy. (4), a solicitor who had allowed his client to make an affidavit containing a statement which he knew to be false was suspended from practising. I would next quote from the judgment of Lord Esher, M.R. in In re Cooke (3) (5 T.L.R. at 408; 33 Sol. Jo. at 397): "A solicitor had no relation with his client's adversary which gave rise to any duty between them. His duty was, however, not to fight unfairly, and that arose from his duty to himself not to do anything which was degrading to himself as a gentleman and a man of honour. He had, however, a duty to the Court, and it was part of that duty that he should not keep back from the Court any information which ought to be before it, and that he should in no way mislead the Court by stating facts which were untrue. If either a solicitor or a barrister were wilfully to mislead the Court he would be guilty of dishonourable conduct." I would also refer to the cases of In re Davies (4) and Myers v. Elman (6) and more especially to the opinions of Lord Atkin and Lord Wright therein. In the result I find that the respondent herein was personally guilty of professional misconduct (a) in accepting three different sets of clients with what he knew or should have known were conflicting interests, and in issuing the three writs in Suits Nos. 220/48, 221/48 and 222/48; and (b) in allowing two affidavits, one of which he must have known or should have known to be false, to be filed. As regards the question of in what manner the respondent |