AN APPLICATION by MARILYN REYES BOS to BE a PUBLIC NOTARY No. SCCIV-02-1688
[2003] SASC 320
•12 September 2003
IN THE MATTER OF THE LEGAL PRACTITIONERS ACT 1981
AND IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY
MARILYN REYES BOS TO BE A PUBLIC NOTARY
[2003] SASC 320Civil
DEBELLE J By ex parte summons, Marilyn Reyes Bos (“the applicant”) applied to be admitted to practise as a public notary in South Australia. The application was made pursuant to s 91 of the Legal Practitioners Act 1981. A Master of this Court directed that the application be served upon the Law Society. After hearing argument, the Master directed that, by reason of the general importance of the matter and the public interest, the application should be heard by a judge.
When the application was listed before me, I directed the filing of affidavits. Both the applicant and the Law Society have done so. The evidence comprises the following affidavits:
• affidavit of the applicant sworn 15 November 2002,
• affidavit of the applicant sworn 23 April 2003, and
• affidavit of Mr Peter Zablud sworn 13 March 2003.
Mr Zablud is a legal practitioner in Victoria, a notary public in that State, and vice president of the Society of Notaries of Victoria Inc. He is also Director of Notarial Studies at the Sir Zelman Cowan Centre for Continuing Legal Education in Melbourne. In addition, the parties agreed to the admission of a testimony as to the character of the applicant made by Mr Robert Gray. The applicant was examined on her affidavit.
The applicant is aged 62 years. She was born in the Philippines and has been employed in Manila. In 1963 she obtained a law degree from Manuel Luis Quezon University in Manila. In 1969 she was commissioned as a notary public in Manila. According to the applicant, a notary public in Manila must have a law degree. A commission as a notary in the Philippines is for a term of two years. The applicant renewed her commission in 1971 and ceased to hold it in 1972. She has not practised as a notary public since.
On graduating as a lawyer in Manila, the applicant was employed in a law firm as a law clerk. After about three years, the applicant took up employment as a legal officer in the personnel department of a large industrial company. Her duties involved the handling of credit, collection of debts and legal matters associated with staff. She prepared contracts for the company. At that time she was practising as a notary public certifying the due execution of contracts between the company and its employees as well as other contracts made by the company. She did not ever protest a bill of exchange in the Philippines or enter a ship’s protest.
In 1972 the applicant left Manila to go to Hong Kong to join her family. She married in 1976 and came to Australia. She has resided in Adelaide.
I am satisfied that the applicant is of good character. I accept the evidence of Mr Gray and find that the applicant is a person of good standing who enjoys a good reputation in the community, especially among its Filipino members. She has worked for many years in voluntary community work. She has received a certificate of appreciation for her contribution to multicultural activities in South Australia awarded in November 2000 by the then Premier, Mr John Olsen MP, a certificate of recognition for valuable contribution to community life in October 2001 awarded by the Honourable Robert Lawson MLC, the then Minister for Ageing, and in 2001 a certificate and trophy for being voted as the Female Senior Citizen of the year in the City of Tea Tree Gully awarded by the Mayor of that city.
In her affidavit, sworn on 15 November 2002, the applicant referred to her community service and continued:
“That as a public notary, I would be able to give or offer more service to the community more particularly, the Filipino Community and/or to other individuals, who may wish to complete or need legal, commercial and other relevant documentation with institutions or organizations which require notarial certificates or certified notarial copies.”
That assertion is not consistent with what she said in para 14 of her affidavit sworn on 23 April 2003:
“I say in general that it is my primary intention to engage in notarial practice in the jurisdiction of South Australia among members of the Filippino (sic) expatriate community. I have no intention at this stage to engage in practice of this kind more widely. There is a clear need for a qualified notary in this jurisdiction and I am not presently aware of any such person engaging in notarial practice with a view to providing services to the Filippino (sic) community in this State.”
In her evidence, the applicant said that she has been asked by members of the Filipino community in Adelaide to notarise such documents as wills, powers of attorney, statutory declarations and what she called “extra judicial partition”, which she explained was in the Philippines a form of extra judicial compromise of claims of heirs where parents die intestate. In cross-examination, she said that she wished to limit her notarial activities to notarising such documents as wills, powers of attorney and extra judicial settlements. The inconsistencies in her evidence did not instil any feeling of confidence. On occasions, I wondered whether the applicant was seeking to be able to conduct a legal practice limited to the preparation of wills, powers of attorney and other personal documents. I find that she seeks to practise as a public notary in a very restricted way, mainly to assist the Filipino community in the manner already noted.
The applicant deposes to the fact that she has made herself familiar with relevant passages of Halsbury’s Laws of England (4th edition) and with Brooke’s Notary, a treatise on the Office and Practice of Public Notary of England, as well as Australian commentary in relation to notaries public. She says she has also perused the Notarial Register with a view to becoming familiar with the functions performed by the office of a public notary.
The applicant asserted that she has a general knowledge of the functions and duties of public notaries in the Commonwealth of Australia. I do not accept that assertion. Her evidence was not convincing. She also asserted that she has “a high general familiarity with the legal and justice systems in the Commonwealth of Australia and the underpinning legal principles which govern routine, commercial and other practice in this regard”. Her evidence indicated, however, that she has no more than a general familiarity at best with such matters. She did not inspire any confidence as to the extent of her knowledge and understanding of what would be required of a public notary in South Australia. The applicant is entirely unaware of the existence of Halsbury’s Laws of Australia. This indicates her general unfamiliarity with one of the more obvious references for Australian law. The applicant is not a legal practitioner in South Australia.
The Office of Public Notary
An understanding of some of the main events in the history and development of the office of a public notary will assist. The history is set out in detail in Chapter 1 of Brooke’s Notary (12th edition). The following brief summary of that history has been taken from and is based on that chapter.
The office of a public notary is a public office. It has a long and distinguished history. The office has its origin in the civil institutions of ancient Rome. Public officials, called “scribae”, that is to say, scribes, rose in rank from being mere copiers and transcribers to a learned profession prominent in private and public affairs. Some were permanent officials attached to the Senate and courts of law whose duties were to record public proceedings, transcribe state papers, supply magistrates with legal forms, and register the decrees and judgments of magistrates.
In the last century of the Republic, probably in the time of Cicero, a new form of shorthand was invented and certain arbitrary marks and signs, called “notae”, were substituted for words in common use. A writer who adopted the new method was called a “notarius”. Originally, a notary was one who took down statements in shorthand and wrote them out in the form of memoranda or minutes. Later, the title “notarius” was applied almost exclusively to registrars attached to high government officials, including provincial governors and secretaries to the Emperor.
Notwithstanding the collapse of the Western Empire in the 5th century AD, the notary remained a figure of some importance in many parts of continental Europe throughout the Dark Ages. When the civil law experienced its renaissance in medieval Italy from the 12th century onwards, the notary was established as a central institution of that law, a position which still obtains in countries whose legal systems are derived from the civil law.
The separate development of the common law in England, free from most of the influences of Roman law, meant that notaries were not introduced into England until later in the 13th and 14th centuries. At first, notaries in England were appointed by the Papal legate. In 1279 the Archbishop of Canterbury was authorised by the Pope to appoint notaries. Not surprisingly, in those early days, many of the notaries were members of the clergy. In the course of time, members of the clergy ceased to take part in secular business and laymen, especially in towns and trading centres, began to assume the official character and functions of a modern notary.
The Reformation produced no material change in the position and functions of notaries in England. However, in 1533 the enactment of “the Act Concerning Peter’s Pence and Dispensations” (The Ecclesiastical Licences Act, 1533) terminated the power of the Pope to appoint notaries and vested that power in the King. The Act also established a Court of Faculties which was attached to the Archbishop of Canterbury and to this Court the appointment of notaries in England was – and still is – assigned. The officer who presides over the Court of Faculties is called the Master of the Faculties. The Master of the Faculties has a discretionary power to grant or refuse a faculty to act as a notary.
The notary has never achieved the same prominence in the common law system as that enjoyed by notaries in continental Europe. As is noted on page 1 of Brooke’s Notary:
“The importance of the English notary resides not in the functions which he performs within his own legal system, but rather in the link he provides between the institutions of the common law and those of the civil law. It is for this reason that the office of the English notary has been so jealously safeguarded in a legal system in which in many ways he is an anomalous figure.”
These last observations apply with equal force in this country. Here, as in England, the importance of the notary is essentially grounded on the link the office provides between the institutions of the common law and those of the civil law.
Public Notaries in South Australia
From the foundation of the colony of South Australia until 1859, the appointment of persons as notaries public was made by the Governor under his letters patent. In the mid 1850s, Governor MacDonnell refused to appoint notaries public believing he had no authority to do so and notwithstanding that appointments of notaries had been made by his predecessors. To remove all doubt and difficulties, the Parliament enacted the Public Notaries Act, 1859. In 1936 the Legal Practitioners Act, 1936 repealed the Public Notaries Act, 1859 and incorporated the relevant provisions into the Legal Practitioners Act. The regulation of the appointment of notaries has since been prescribed by the Legal Practitioners Act as amended or re-enacted.
The profession of notaries public, in this State called “public notaries”, is regulated by Part 7 of the Legal Practitioners Act 1981 (s 91 to s 94). Section 91 provides:
“ 91. (1) A person who desires to be admitted as a public notary may apply to the Supreme Court for an order admitting the person as such.
(2) The Court has power to admit the applicant as a notary or to dismiss the application as, in its discretion, it thinks fit.
(3) A person admitted as a public notary under this Part must make an oath in the prescribed form before the Registrar of the Supreme Court or a Commissioner authorised to take affidavits in the Supreme Court.
(4) A person admitted as a notary under this Part has all the powers and authorities (including the power to take affidavits) exercisable by law or custom by public notaries.”
It will be immediately noticed that it is not a prerequisite for appointment as a public notary that the applicant be a legal practitioner. In all other States of Australia, except Queensland, a person must be a legal practitioner of some years standing, the length of experience varying between the States. As far as I am aware, in Queensland, the appointment is still made by the Court of Faculties in the United Kingdom. In the Australian Capital Territory, a person must be a legal practitioner in order to be able to apply to be a notary. In the Northern Territory, it is not necessary that the applicant be a legal practitioner. That, no doubt, reflects the fact that the Northern Territory for many years applied the laws and practices of this State.
The fact that the admission of notaries is regulated by the Legal Practitioners Act 1981 might imply that an applicant for the office of notary must also be a legal practitioner. However, that construction is denied by the history of the legislation regulating notaries in this State. The first statute regulating notaries was the Act No. 14 of 1859, the Public Notaries Act, 1859, to which reference has already been made. It had the long title, “An Act to provide for the appointment of Public Notaries in South Australia, and to confirm appointments heretofore made of such Notaries”. Section 3 of the Act provided for applications for a notary to be made to the Supreme Court. It was in these terms:
“ 3. Every person who shall be desirous of obtaining an appointment to act as a Public Notary in the said Province shall apply, by petition, to the Supreme Court of the said Province for that purpose, setting forth such facts therein as he may deem expedient for the purpose of satisfying the said Court as to his fitness and qualification to discharge the duties and exercise the functions of a Public Notary, and such other facts as he may deem necessary for the information of the said Court, and every such petition shall be filed in the said Court, and shall be verified by the affidavit of the petitioner, which shall also be filed, as aforesaid; and the said Court, or any Judge thereof, shall, on the hearing of the said petition, have full power to make an order therein, and either to comply with the prayer of the petition, or to dismiss the said petition, or to make such other order therein as to the said Court, or Judge, shall seem expedient.”
Thus, it was not necessary for the applicant to be a legal practitioner.
On its face, s 3 permitted any person to be a notary. However, in In re Kitson [1920] SALR 230, it was held that the Supreme Court could not appoint women to the office, notwithstanding that women were entitled to be admitted as legal practitioners. The woman applying in that case was a legal practitioner. The effect of the decision was reversed some nine months later by the enactment of the Sex Disqualification (Removal) Act, 1921 which, by s 2, expressly provided that a person would not be disqualified by sex or marriage from being appointed a public notary. Any person, therefore, whether a legal practitioner or not, may apply to be a public notary.
The Functions of a Notary
The functions of a notary are not prescribed by statute. They are wholly based on practice and, indeed, that is recognised by the terms of s 91(4) of the Legal Practitioners Act. The duties and functions of notaries public in England are described in Brooke’s Notary at p 19 in these terms:
“ Generally speaking, a notary public in England may be described as an officer of the law … whose public office and duty it is to draw, attest or certify under his official seal, for use anywhere in the world, deeds and other documents, including wills or other testamentary documents, conveyances of real and personal property and powers of attorney; to authenticate such documents under his signature and official seal in such a manner as to render them acceptable, as proof of the matters attested by him, to the judicial or other public authorities in the country where they are to be used, whether by means of issuing a notarial certificate as to the due execution of such documents or by drawing them in the form of public instruments; to keep a protocol containing originals of all instruments which he makes in the public form and to issue authentic copies of such instruments; to administer oaths and declarations for use in proceedings in England and elsewhere; to note or certify transactions relating to negotiable instruments, and to draw up protests or other formal papers relating to occurrences on the voyages of ships and their navigation as well as the carriage of cargo in ships.” [Footnotes omitted.]
That summary obscures some of the important matters of detail required for the proper discharge of the duties of a notary.
Here, as in England, an important and a frequent task of notaries is the certification of the due execution of contracts or other instruments which, when sealed with a notary’s seal, are recorded by the notary in a register maintained by the notary. These are known as notarial acts. The notarial act has a particular import in civil law jurisdictions in that it is evidence in court or administrative proceedings that the matter verified by the notarial act needs no further proof. Notarial acts may either be in public form or in private form.
As McLelland J noted in Application of Michaelis (unreported, Supreme Court of NSW, 6 May 1996), in international legal practice, great reliance is placed by authorities of one country on the accuracy and validity of notarial acts performed in other countries. This is particularly so in jurisdictions founded on the civil law in which notarial acts are regarded as probative in court proceedings. McLelland J also noted the public nature of the office and emphasised the need for complete independence on the part of a public notary. He said:
“However, it is important to recognise the other ‘public’ aspect of the office, namely that the authority conferred on a public notary is, in a sense, an emanation of the authority of the State itself, attracting requirements of impartiality and disinterestedness analogous to those associated with quasi-judicial administrative functions.”
The public nature of the office serves to underline the importance of ensuring that an applicant has the skills and experience to discharge the duties and functions of the office both efficiently and competently.
A typical notarial act is the noting in public form of a power of attorney by a director on behalf of a company. The notary must be satisfied as to at least 10 facts before certifying the document. It is necessary to institute particular enquiries and examine the relevant documents in order to discharge that task. Plainly, a knowledge of commercial law and practice is required to do so. Another important part of notarial practice deals with the powers of attorney. If the power is to be used abroad, it is usually executed in the presence of two witnesses before a notary who is attested by the latter under his hand and official seal: Brooke’s Notary. There are particular requirements for the protest of a bill of exchange and for the noting and drawing up of ships’ protests. There is a heavy onus upon a notary to be satisfied that any notarial act is in order.
It is evident, therefore, that, as a general rule, a person applying to be a notary should be a legal practitioner of some years standing and experience.
The Criteria for Admission
Section 91(2) of the Legal Practitioners Act invests the Court with a wide discretion when exercising the power to admit a person as a public notary. No criteria for admission are prescribed in s 91 or in any other provision in Part 7 of the Legal Practitioners Act. Plainly, an applicant must be of good character. But I do not think that is the only matter which must be established. The applicant must also satisfy the court that he has qualifications or experience or both which equip him to discharge competently the important duties of a public notary.
An application for admission invokes an administrative function of the court in which considerations relating to the public interest and the interests of persons other than the applicant may play a substantive role: Application of Michaelis (supra). The need to give effect to such considerations may require some departure from procedural rules and practices applicable to the determination of purely private rights: Application of Michaelis (supra).
As a general rule, an applicant should be a legal practitioner of several years standing at least. Even a cursory perusal of texts on the duties and functions of a public notary demonstrates that a number of those functions and duties require at the very least a sound working knowledge of Australian law and commercial practice. In other words, the preparation of a notarial act plainly requires a sound knowledge of law and practice in Australia especially of the due preparation and execution of commercial and contractual instruments. It is essential that notaries in this State have a sufficient level of training, qualification and status to enable them efficiently and effectively to discharge the functions of the office.
In its report, Study of the Legal Profession published in March 1994, the Trade Practices Commission (as it was then called) recommended:
“All levels of government should adopt measures to open the supply of legal services to appropriately qualified non-lawyers to the maximum extent that is consistent with the public interest. There should be no necessary presumption that any area of legal work should be reserved to lawyers without scrutiny.”
The critical words in that recommendation are “appropriately qualified”. I note that, notwithstanding the view of the Trade Practices Commission, The Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee of the Parliament of Victoria, in its report on proposed legislation concerning public notaries published in October 1996, concluded, after considering a range of factors, that the public interest was best served by allowing only qualified barristers and solicitors to be admitted as notaries public: Review of the Role and Appointment of Public Notaries (October 1996, para 9.60). In that report the Committee recommended legislation regulating the appointment of public notaries. In 2001 the Victorian Parliament enacted the Public Notaries Act. Section 4 of that Act requires applicants for public notaries to be legal practitioners who have held a practising certificate for five years. An applicant must also have completed a course of study related to notarial practice approved by the Council of Legal Education in that State.
The question whether a person not a legal practitioner should be admitted as a notary public was examined in Bailleau v The Victorian Society of Notaries [1904] P. 180. In that case, Mr Arthur Sydney Bailleau had applied to the College of Faculties for appointment as a notary public to practise in Victoria. Mr Bailleau was the equivalent of what today is a chartered accountant. He was also a registered trustee under insolvency legislation, a company auditor, and a commissioner for taking affidavits in Victoria and in three other States of Australia. His application was supported by a petition of several members of the Executive Council and the Legislative Assembly of Victoria. It was supported by representatives of leading banks, insurance companies and mercantile houses in Melbourne, the Chairman of the Melbourne Stock Exchange, the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth (Mr Isaac Isaacs KC as he then was), and the Chief Clerk of the Supreme Court of Victoria. It was supported by a long list of persons holding high political and ecclesiastical positions. The application was opposed by the Victorian Society of Notaries on several grounds, one of which was that Mr Bailleau was not a solicitor.
The application was heard by the Master of the Faculties, Sir Lewis Dibdin KC. Having noted that in the previous 25 years all notaries admitted to practise in the State of Victoria had been a solicitor, he continued:
“While this seems to me a wise practice, and one which is for the protection of the public and to be maintained, I am not prepared to say that under no circumstances, however exceptional, will this Court ever depart from it. What I do say is that in order to induce me to depart from it the case must be very exceptional, and I must be satisfied that the applicant’s ability to perform the duties of a notary, of which the fact of being a solicitor is taken as evidence, has been established in some other way. I think this is such a case. Mr. Bailleau is not a solicitor, but he holds an official position demanding from its occupant familiarity with legal documents and a certain amount of legal knowledge. He is a commissioner of the Supreme Court for taking affidavits in four of the Australian States, and, in addition to other evidence that he fulfils the duties of those various offices efficiently, I have a certificate of Holroyd J., one of the judges of the Supreme Court of Victoria, given on the strength of long personal knowledge, that Mr. Bailleau is a fit and proper person to be appointed a notary. I have also a certificate from three notaries (one of whom was till his recent death President of the Society of Notaries of Victoria, who are the opponents before me), who testify that Mr. Bailleau is ‘a person fitly qualified to be created a notary public.’ I think in the face of these facts it would be wrong to hold that this gentleman must nevertheless be deemed incompetent to do the work of a notary because he is not a solicitor. I am satisfied he is well able to do the work, and, as I am not prevented either by statute or the practice of my predecessors from appointing him because he is not a solicitor, I think this ground of objection fails.”
Thus, the clearly preferred position was that an applicant should be a solicitor. A person who is not a legal practitioner should not be admitted as a public notary except in exceptional circumstances. Mr Bailleau was admitted only by reason of the fact that he discharged duties which required an extensive familiarity with legal documents and had thereby acquired a degree of legal knowledge. For these reasons, I hold that, if not legally qualified, the applicant for admission as a notary must demonstrate that he or she has other qualifications and experience which establish fitness for office.
I have examined the roll of public notaries. Since 1960, 184 persons have signed the roll. It seems that in 1964 South Australia had a higher proportion of notaries than any other State or Territory of the Commonwealth: J L Leyser, Notaries in Australia, (1964) 37 ALJ 308. I am not aware of more recent statistics. Since 1960, 21 of the persons admitted as notaries were not lawyers. Three of those 21 persons were patent attorneys. As patent attorneys are trained in drafting documents relating to the protection of intellectual property, they might thereby gain the skills necessary to be public notaries. That will depend on the experience of each applicant and is a matter to be examined on the hearing of the application. If the patent attorneys are excluded, less than 10 per cent of persons who have been admitted as notaries in this State were not lawyers. I do not think sufficient regard has been had in the past to the qualifications and experience necessary for admission as a notary.
This Application
I have carefully considered this application. The first and controlling interest is the convenience of the public: Bailleau’s Case (supra) at 183. However, it is equally important that the public is protected by ensuring that only persons who have knowledge and experience of legal and commercial affairs are appointed and only in an exceptional case will a person who is not a legal practitioner be admitted: Bailleau’s Case at 185. In my view, the applicant for admission who is not a legal practitioner must satisfy the court that he or she is of good character and has by reason of experience or qualification a wide knowledge of legal and commercial affairs.
Although a great deal of weight must be given to the fact that the applicant will be able to perform a useful service for members of the Filipino community, the predominant consideration must be whether the applicant is qualified to discharge the functions required of a notary. It is now some 30 years since the applicant practised as a notary and that was in a foreign jurisdiction. She has never practised law in this country. Although she has engaged in a good deal of service to the community, her evidence disclosed that she has not been involved in legal or commercial affairs in such a way as to give her that depth of knowledge and experience which will equip her to discharge the duties of a public notary. The very fact that she seeks to limit the extent to which she will engage in notarial practice reinforces the conclusion that she does not have the capacities to discharge the duties. Her evidence indicates that her involvement in legal and commercial affairs is no different from any lay person in the community. By no means does she have the knowledge, skills or experience to qualify her to be admitted as a public notary.
Mr Riggall, who appeared for the applicant, contended that as the applicant intended to limit her notarial practice to assisting members of the Filipino community, it was appropriate to admit her as a public notary subject to conditions as to the kinds of notarial functions she might discharge. Section 91 of the Legal Practitioners Act does not expressly invest the court with power to admit a public notary conditionally. That stands in stark contrast to other provisions in the Act which invest the court with power to impose conditions on the right of a person to practise as a legal practitioner. The nature of the duties of a public notary and the public interest tends to suggest that conditional appointments should not be made. Furthermore, it will always be extremely difficult to enforce compliance with conditions. I do not think that s 91 invests the court with power to make a conditional appointment.
For these reasons, I am not satisfied that the applicant has the qualifications to be admitted as a public notary. I therefore dismiss her application.
Law Reform
Section 91 is silent as to the practice to be adopted when a person seeks to be admitted as a public notary and the principles to be applied. I believe that the practices and standards in the past have been inadequate. There is a real question whether the Court has been sufficiently rigorous in the principles it has applied. In my view, all applications to be a public notary should be advertised in the same way as an applicant for admission as a legal practitioner and notice in writing should be given to the Law Society: see also In the matter of the Public Notaries Act1985, Applications of Fitzpatrick and Partington (1989) 18 NSWLR 11 at 21. The Law Society should have the right to be heard as amicus curiae as it was on this occasion. The Notaries Society of South Australia Inc should also receive notice and it too should have a right to be heard as amicus curiae: cf. Bailleau v Victorian Society of Notaries (supra). A former President of the Law Society who himself is a public notary, has stated that it has hitherto been sufficient for an applicant to depose that he or she has read Brooke’s Notary, Halsbury’s Laws of England and the Australian Encyclopaedia of Forms and Precedents: J M Harley, Law Society of South Australia Bulletin, February 1998 p. 8. In my view, that is a wholly inadequate standard for admission to the point of being risible. An applicant should be able to demonstrate that he or she is a person of good character, has legal qualifications and a sufficient knowledge of commercial and legal affairs as to qualify for practice as a notary and is otherwise a fit and proper person to discharge the office. There is much to be said for requiring an applicant for a notary to undertake a course of study in notarial practice. Courses are conducted by the College of Law in New South Wales and by the Council for Legal Education in Victoria. The duties of a public notary have not in this State been accorded the recognition they deserve. The requirements for admission should be more stringent than in the past. It is time that position was remedied. The absence of any prescribed requirements on matters such as insurance is a matter for concern. While notaries who are legal practitioners are subject to that obligation, notaries who are not legal practitioners are not. It is absurd that such a difference should exist. Some legislative intervention is necessary. There is much to be said for following the example of Victoria and enacting legislation which requires that a public notary should be a person who is admitted to legal practice, has a period of not less than five years standing as a legal practitioner and has completed an approved course of study relating to notarial practice.
0
0
0