,I VICTORIAN BAR NEWS f '
SEPTEMBER, 1972
NO.4
As this issue O£ i the Bar News will coincide approximately with the publication of the Annual Report, which will contain a deal of iriformation as to the activities of the Bar Council., the Editors considered that a more "literary" flavour mght be ' in order. .We are most grateful to Dr. E.G. Coppel~ "·t.M.G., Q:~C. for his reminiscence of early days at the Bar.
".
"
We also have included an extract from the report of R. v Goodere Mahony & White (1740), which may be of interest to thosemembers of the Bar holding prosecution briefs, whether as permanent prosecutors for the Queen or otherwise. We are not in a position to say whether.the prosecutor in that case was an ancestor of a well-known member of the Bar today who is perhaps more accu~tomed to appearances at the other end of tqe table in criminal_. tx;ials. , ,;
I;
For those whose interest lies in more mundane matters, a comparison o£ fCounsel's fees in Victoria compared' with those in other States' is also published. , '
*************** Earlier . Days at th.e Bar By Dr. E.G. CORpel, .9.M.G., Q.C. The great majority of members of the Victorian Bar were not born when I joined the Bar in 1922 and I thought it might be interesting to them to learn what the Bar was like in those days. The most striking difference, of course,.is. in the numbers of men p~actising at the Bar. I doubt if more than 80 were actively practising in 1922 though there were in addition a number who woul~, now be described as non-practising members. . . Of the total about half a dozen had taken silk. The smallness of the number or silks was · a legacy or the depression which rell on the Bar arter the collapse of the banks in the 1890's. Work fell off to an alarming extent and even the ablest men were unwilling to take silk. Thus among men appointed to the Bench the fOllowing were "stuff goWnsmen" - Cussen, Starke, Schutt, Mann and later Lowe. Corporate life was almost unknown. There was a "Committee of Counsel" elected annually which dealt with matters of ethics and very little else. There was an annual Bar Dinner' at which new appointees to the Bench were the guests. This lack of corporate activity undoubtedly stemmed from the passing of the Legal Profession· Practice Act 1891 which set out to abolish the distinction between barristers and solicitorS. Notwithstanding the Act the Bar continued to accept briefs as before from established firms of solicitors. After a rew years ' a Roll of Counsel was established and everyone wishing to join the Bar was req~ired on signing the Roll to give an undertaking that he would practise exclusively as counsel.. The existence of a separate Bar depended solely on these. undertakings. It was not recognised by law until the Act of 1946 required an audit of solicitors' trust accounts. For the purpose of that Act "solicitor Jl did not include a member of the profession who practised exclusively as a barrister. This, at least implicitly, recognised the exist'ence of a separate Bar. These legal obstacles to corporate action were reinforced by the notion that a barrister was an individua list and that . the Bar was no more than a collection of individuals. The leader of the Bar was Sir ,Edward Mitchell, K.C.' Who, from the inception of the High Court, had appeared in most of the early constitutional cases. He was beginning to be overtaken by two young silks - Latham and Dixon - and his practice gradually rell away. He died in poverty. There were six Supreme Co.u rt Judges who rotated month by month between the various lists. There ., ,
,
"