balance due by the client to the Edinburgh Agent. The local Agent, on receiving the Edinburgh Agent's account, makes up his own account (exclusively for his own work) per Table of Fees, the two accounts being then sent to the client. The proportion (ordinarily one-third) of the Edinburgh Solicitor's account which is usually allowed to the local Agent is calculated on the Edinburgh Agent's "extra-judicial account"; that is to say, on his full fees, whether or not these are recoverable from the unsuccessful party.

If the litigant is unsuccessful, there is of course nothing to be credited to the client; but the accounts are made up on the same principle as in a successful litigation, and the "Agency Terms" are calculated in the same way.

Some of the witnesses we examined urged that this practice should be stopped, and that each agent should receive the charges earned by his own contribution of work, and neither more nor less than those charges. Others thought that it should be regulated by fixing a maximum percentage of the Edinburgh Agent's fees, beyond which participation should be made illegal. Yet others were in favour of leaving the practice alone.

Prior to the passage of the Law Agents Act, 1873 (36 and 37 Vic. c. 63, s. 21), agreements to share fees between two agents acting for the same client were illegal. It is interesting to observe that this was first decided in a case in which an Edinburgh Agent practising before the Court of Session made an agreement with an agent practising before the Inferior Courts in the same city to share the fees of the latter for litigations in such Inferior Courts sent to him by the former (Brashe v. McKinnon, F.C., 9th March 1820). At that time the right to practise before the Court of Session and before the Inferior Courts of Edinburgh, Glasgow, and Aberdeen respectively was exclusive in each of these Courts. The ground of decision both in the case just referred to and in the later one of Gilfillan v. Henderson (1832, 10 S. 523; 6 W. & S. 489) was that agreements of this kind tended to encourage useless litigation in the interests of the agents employed rather than in those of the litigants themselves.

The evidence taken by the Law Commission of 1868 disclosed a general desire on the part of both local Agents and Edinburgh Solicitors to have the sharing of the latter's fees legalised; and Parliament met this desire by the provision in the Law Agents Act, 1873, cited above. The provision in question applies, however, not merely to the relations of Edinburgh and local Solicitors with regard to actions in the Court of Session, but, generally, to the relations of any two Scottish Solicitors anywhere, with regard to business of any kind done for one and the same client at the same time. It should be observed also that this change in the law was accompanied by the abolition of all exclusive rights to practise before any Court, including the Court of Session (s. 2).

There is no doubt that the Procurators Act, 1865 (28 and 29 Vic. c. 85), had already effected a material improvement in the position and qualifications of local practitioners throughout Scotland, and one of the main objects of the Act of 1873 was to

secure still further improvement in the same direction. Whether on account of the raising of the professional standard which has taken place during the last sixty years, or owing to some other cause, there is no reason to suppose that the system of sharing fees legalised by the Act of 1873 has operated in the direction of encouraging useless litigation. It has probably given local Solicitors a greater interest in litigation in the Court of Session, and it has certainly increased their control of it.

The system of sharing fees was fully developed in England, as between town and country Solicitors, long before the Act of 1873. It is now widely established in Scotland; and in practice it is by no means confined to the expenses of Court of Session litigation.

So far as the interests of litigants are concerned, the system is not harmful so long as it does not lead to inflation of charges. The Table only allows certain fees for Court of Session work, even as between agent and client; and if these are fairly charged, it matters nothing to the litigant how they are shared. The only risk of inflation involved in the employment of two agents to do one piece of business is that "double agency" charges (that is, duplicated charges for the same work) may, without any wrongful intention, slip into the two agents' accounts. But this has no direct connection with the system of sharing fees. It could only be effectively checked by a simultaneous taxation by the Auditor of Court of the total charges made by the two agents against the litigant, in all cases. The litigant rarely requires such taxation, though always entitled to insist on it; and if it were made compulsory, the full taxed amount would probably always be exacted, whereas under present circumstances agents are often content to charge a restricted sum.

There is, however, another and a wider point of view. The public would gain nothing, but on the contrary lose much, if the system of sharing fees were to be prostituted to the purpose of touting for business, or exploited with the object of exacting unreasonable terms. It is so far satisfactory that we have heard nothing during the evidence to warrant a conclusion that the system is seriously abused in this way. But it is sufficiently clear that the legalisation of it in 1873 has resulted in making it almost impossible for any agent,-in Edinburgh or elsewhere-instructed by a local correspondent, to avoid succumbing to it; and there has been brought to our notice the case of bank-agents in one part of the country who are said to have gone the length of demanding a share of the fees of local solicitors to whom they send their clients for legal assistance. This argues the need for regulation; because, so long as the system depends on agreement in each case, and remains without regulation, it wears the unfavourable aspect of a commission exacted by a middleman for his patronage.

We think that "Agency Terms" should be restricted to not more than one-third of the fees (excluding those for clerks' writings) earned by the non-local agent, and that the local agent who receives this share should in all cases be bound to disclose to his

client both the fact of his receiving it and the amount so received; and further, that in all cases in which one solicitor gets a share of another solicitor's fees in respect of a piece of business sent by the former to the latter, the instructing solicitor should be allowed no fees for communications between him and the solicitor he instructs. These communications might well be covered, in fairness, by the allowance of agency terms.

(1) THAT " AGENCY TERMS " BETWEEN SCOTTISH SOLICITORS SHOULD BE RESTRICTED ΤΟ ONE-THIRD (EXCLUDING CLERKS' WRITINGS);

(2) THAT, IN ALL CASES IN WHICH " AGENCY TERMS" ARE AGREED UPON, THE LOCAL CORRESPONDENT SHOULD BE BOUND TO DISCLOSE TO HIS CLIENT THE FACT OF HIS RECEIVING A SHARE OF THE FEES OF THE SOLICITOR INSTRUCTED BY HIM, AND THE AMOUNT OF SUCH SHARE;

(3) THAT, IN

SUCH CASES, THE INSTRUCTING SOLICITOR SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO RECOVER ANY FEES FOR COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN HIM AND HIS CORRESPONDENT.

It will be seen that the above recommendations are general, and apply to all cases in which the Law Agents Act, 1873, legalised the sharing of fees between two agents acting for the same client at the same time. They apply, for instance, to the case of A's agent in X who instructs another agent in Y to conduct an action on behalf of A in the Sheriff Court of Y. The system of " Agency Terms" applies in practice to such a case, in the same way as to an action conducted in the Court of Session. Owing to the limits of our Reference, we have felt some hesitation in putting forward any recommendations that affect the relations of two agents acting in the interests of the same client at the same time, otherwise than in connection with proceedings in the Court of Session. But the matter is one which could not, either fairly or reasonably, be dealt with piecemeal. If the proposed restrictions are to apply to the relations between an Edinburgh solicitor and his local correspondent in a Court of Session litigation, it is obvious that they must equally apply to all cases in which the Law Agents Act, 1873, legalised the sharing of fees. Our recommendations are therefore made upon the footing that it will be found possible to deal legislatively with the whole question at one and the same time.

Printing and Boxing.-Generally speaking, all papers that require to be printed, either under Act of Parliament or by practice, must be "boxed." "Boxing" consists in lodging altogether twenty-seven copies of the print in the Enrolling Room of the Parliament House, whereof thirteen are for the Judges-being available for the use of all of them in the event of the case being ordered to be sent to the whole Court (6 Geo. IV c. 120, ss. 23 and 24)— and the rest for the Law Reporters, and a variety of Professors and

learned societies. Thus, all Closed Records must under the present procedure be printed, and in practice it is found desirable to print a sufficient number of copies to meet the contingency that they may require to be boxed later on in the event of the case going to the Inner House. All Reclaiming Notes, and all proofs and documents submitted to the Inner House in connection therewith, must be both printed and boxed, this requirement being partly statutory and partly established by practice (see 6 Geo. IV c. 120, s. 18; but cf. 31 and 32 Vic. c. 100, s. 28; 1 and 2 Vic. c. 114, s. 20). So also must Appeals from the Sheriff Courts and other Inferior Courts and Authorities, together with the relative proofs and documents; and the same rule applies to cases remitted from the Sheriff Courts under the Sheriff Courts Act, 1907. As regards Petitions, the rule is less general, because a number of classes of Petitions are competently presented to the Court in writing. As a rule, Inner House Petitions must be printed and boxed; and so must all Petitions at present dealt with in the Bill Chamber. For further details, reference may be made to Maclaren's Court of Session Practice (pp. 835-6).

In view of the rise in the cost of printing which followed on the War, a partial relaxation of these requirements was made by the Court, copies of proofs and documents being allowed to be. presented to the Inner House made by other means of reproduction (such as the "Gestetner process "), provided certain regulations with regard to form, size, and the like were observed. In so far as these relaxations applied to papers printing of which is required by Statute, they were only justified by resort to the power which the Court has always exercised to dispense with printing in special cases. A fall in the price of paper has recently brought down the high level of printing costs which prevailed immediately after the war; but the other elements of cost show no sign of following a similar tendency. The initial cost of type-setting is, we were informed, about six-sevenths of the whole. It is no wonder under these circumstances that for a relatively small number of copies the "Gestetner process" is cheaper, and that up to something like fifty copies a very material saving can be effected by it. In a heavy case with a long proof and numerous documents the printing bill can run into four figures, and it rarely falls (in any case) below five per cent of the total Account of Expenses. Print is undoubtedly the best medium of reproduction for papers that have to be often and minutely studied; but to make it any longer compulsory in the face of the high price which still prevails, and of the experience which the Court has had of an efficient and cheaper substitute, .would, we think, be difficult to justify. We think that any paper requiring to be presented to the Court should be competently presented in such form of reproduction as the Court itself from time to time by Act of Sederunt may approve. At the same time, we think that the number of copies requiring to be "boxed " should be limited to twelve-four for the judges of the Inner House, three for preservation by the Faculty of Advocates, the Society of Writers to the Signet, and the Society of Solicitors

practising before the Supreme Courts of Scotland respectively, two for the Law Reporters, and three spare copies. With regard to Petitions, we think it should be unnecessary to box any Petition or the Answers thereto (if any), except in the event of the Lord Ordinary's decision being reclaimed against, or in the case of one of the classes of Petitions reserved to the Inner House (see Chapter III). The rules about printing, as well as boxing, applicable to these Petitions should be the same as those applicable to Appeals from Inferior Courts.

We therefore recommend that PRINTING SHOULD CEASE TO BE COMPULSORY IN ANY CASE, AND THAT BOXING SHOULD BE RESTRICTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ABOVE SUGGESTIONS.

Shorthand Writers.-The oral evidence taken at proofs and jury trials is universally recorded by shorthand writers, who at the commencement of the trial are sworn by the presiding judge to the faithful discharge of their office. At present these shorthand writers are remunerated by the parties, but suggestions were made to us that they should be salaried public officials on the establishment of the Court of Session, and that the charges for their attendance and extensions of evidence should be collected by means of a Court stamp adjusted to meet the expense thus thrown upon the Treasury. This proposal was put forward on the ground that it would diminish the present cost to litigants of this service. As matters stand, it is open to any shorthand writer to be employed, provided the presiding judge is satisfied of his competency. But the practical necessity for having a number of men immediately available at any time-not merely proficient shorthand writers, but trained in the art of reducing their notes to narrative form (which in itself effects a very considerable economy as compared with the "question and answer" method)-makes it impossible to rely on casual employment. An efficient service was organised many years ago by the late Mr Irvine Smith, and has been carried on by his successors in that enterprise ever since. Mr Smith was not, nor have his successors been, officially recognised by the Court; but practically the business has been and is in their hands. Their fees are regulated by the Court in the same way as are the fees of law agents, and they make their own arrangements for the payment of the writers they employ.

The difficulties in connection with making the shorthand writers salaried officials and fee-funding their earnings are that (1) transcription is as a rule necessarily done out of office hours if there is not to be delay; (2) as a consequence, the hours of the salaried writers would be irregular, their output could not be guaranteed as it is under the piecework principle, and co-operation between writers and their typing assistants would be difficult to arrange; (3) a larger whole-time staff would be required than the aggregate of work would justify, because an official staff would necessarily lack the elasticity of the personal staff of a contractor who does other work when Court work is slack. Lack of elasticity and probable difficulties in securing the requisite degree of