The Irish Law Society is, to a large extent, a discredited entity and as such its members should not be trusted

In 2001 solicitor Thomas Byrne, now serving 12 years for theft and fraud, removed over €500,000 from a client’s account without the client’s permission.

The Director General of the Law Society Ken Murphy described this sum as ‘not a huge amount’ and proceeded to defend what Byrne had done (The Pat Kenny Show, 6th minute).

It wasn’t a huge amount, it was made good immediately, there was no client loss; it was down to poor book keeping by Byrne.

To my knowledge, no action was taken against Byrne.

In 2012 postmaster Derek Tierney removed €4,000 from a client’s account without the client’s permission (Irish Independent).

Tierney claimed he took the money to cover shortfalls in the daily cash flow. The full €4,000 was returned, there was no client loss.

The full force of the criminal justice system was brought to bear on Tierney for his crime. He was quickly brought to court, sentenced to four months jail, lost his job and is publicly disgraced.

The judge in the case said Tierney had been in a position of trust and he had breached that trust.

In 2005 solicitor Byrne removed €1.7 million from a client’s account without the client’s permission.

The Director General of the Law Society, Ken Murphy, made the following excuses for Byrne’s actions.

His bookkeeper had died, his records were in a mess, the loss was made up immediately, there was no loss to the client.

On this occasion the Law Society decided to act, presumably because Byrne had moved on from removing ‘small’ half-million sums from his client’s accounts to somewhat larger amounts.

Byrne was not dragged through the public courts as postmaster Derek Tierney was.

Instead he was brought before the Solicitor’s Disciplinary Authority. This ‘court’ is, effectively, a private ‘justice system’ for solicitors and is, effectively, conducted behind closed doors.

Byrne was fined a paltry €15,000 for illegally removing the €1.7 million from a client’s account.

Remember, postmaster Tierney got four months jail and lost his job for illegally removing a mere €4,000.

The Director General of the Law Society, Ken Murphy was asked did he expect Byrne to be struck off for his actions.

There would need to be evidence of dishonesty and theft really before somebody would be likely to be struck off, to lose their livelihood.

Independent of the Disciplinary Authority, the Law Society appointed a forensic accountant to keep an eye on Byrne.

This accountant was required to report to the Law Society on Byrne’s activities every two months.

Apparently, under the ‘watchful’ eye of this forensic accountant Byrne went on to rob and defraud his clients of €54 million.

The Director General of the Law Society is a past master in waffle and the art of doublespeak but neither he nor his fellow solicitors can deny the disgraceful reality:

The Irish Law Society is, to a large extent, a discredited entity and as such its members should not be trusted.

Copy to:
The Irish Law Society

Why the Magdalene women need to be protected from the legal profession

The most common theme running through all discussion regarding what compensation should be paid to the Magdalene women is:

For pity’s sake, make sure the women are protected from the vultures that infest the legal profession.

This justified fear that greedy solicitors will exploit the women is a measure of how low the legal system and its representatives have allowed themselves sink in their ruthless pursuit of money.

In particular, people are remembering how dozens, if not hundreds, of greedy solicitors swooped on abuse victims appearing before the Redress Board and robbed them, literally, as they emerged with their compensation money.

This wholesale theft by members of the legal profession was the third brutal abuse of the victims following their experiences at the hands of the Catholic Church and the State.

I wrote extensively about this scandal in 2005. I provide below just a sample of how some of the victims were robbed.

The following facts should be kept in mind as the sample is read.

Before the Redress Board began its work the State had already agreed to pay all legal expenses incurred.

It is illegal for a solicitor to deduct money from a client’s compensation award.

THE Solicitors Amendment Act which became law in 1994 Section 68 (3).

A solicitor shall not deduct or appropriate any amount in respect of all or any part of his charges from the amount of any damages or other moneys that become payable to a client of that solicitor arising out of any contentious business carried out on behalf of that client by that solicitor.

By law, solicitors are required to provide clients with an itemised bill or at least a fair estimate of fees.

Rita: €13,000 demanded as percentage of award minutes before facing redress board, eventual ‘settlement’ €7,000. Told there was a shortfall. Money deducted directly by solicitor before victim saw the cheque. No itemised bill provided.

Norman: €11,000 demanded minutes after getting his award. Told there was a shortfall. No itemised bill provided.

Marie: €3,000 demanded. Money deducted from cheque. No itemised bill provided.

Nora: 4% of award demanded. No itemised bill provided.

Jack: €5,000 demanded. Money deducted after solicitor lodged cheque in bank. No itemised bill provided.

Maura: €5,000 demanded and deducted. Told there was a shortfall. Solicitor refused to give itemised bill. Maura’s cheque had her solicitors name on it. She was provided with a photocopy of her original cheque.

Margaret: €3,000 demanded and deducted minutes after getting award. Told there was a shortfall. No itemised bill provided.

Mary: €12,000 demanded and deducted on day of award. Solicitor claims he had her permission to take the money. Work involved 15 letters and one phone call.

Mark: 10% of award demanded just after getting his award. Mark challenged the demand, solicitor ran away.

Peter: €7,000 demanded and deducted. Told there was a shortfall. No itemised bill.

Chris: €5,000 demanded immediately after award. Chris challenged the demand, solicitor ran away.

Joan: €7,600 demanded. Told there was a shortfall. No itemised bill provided. She was told that envelopes cost €300. She received two letters in all.

I ended this particular piece by writing:

Because these thieves operate in a state that is itself corrupt means that not one of them will face real justice.

Needless to say, none of them did.

Official regulation of legal profession needed

Letter in today’s Irish Examiner.

Official regulation of legal profession needed

The embezzlement of clients funds is becoming an all too familiar story among the legal profession.

A growing number of solicitors are being struck off annually for misconduct and fraud with substantial sums of money involved.

The scale of fraud in some cases has been astonishing and it is quite clear that many of those who run the justice system are behaving like hardened criminals, who flee the jurisdiction when they are found out.

Members of the legal profession are in very powerful positions as a result of their escrow services or any other financial activities which they may provide.

The risk to their clients is all too obvious and it is becoming clear that banking-type services are being practised by solicitors with no minimum safeguards against money held.

To date, the legal profession has been a self-regulating body. This is a situation that can no longer be tolerated, given the current ethics crisis within the profession.

Maurice Fitzgerald
Shanbally
Co Cork

Special arrangements for special people

The fraudster Jim Flavin of DCC is walking around a free man because Fyffes, in their own interests, decided to take a civil rather than a criminal case against him. Despite the Supreme Court’s conclusion that Flavin was guilty of insider trading to the tune of €83 million the Irish State has made no move to press criminal charges.

The rogue solicitor Michael Lynn is also enjoying the benefits of being dealt with under civil rather than criminal law. Lynn, whose alleged fraud also involves a figure of around €80 million, is due to give evidence from London via video link next month in a case unrelated to his own dodgy activities.

For reasons best known to himself the DPP has decided not to initiate criminal charges against Lynn. This situation makes life very easy for the rogue solicitor; he can come and go as he please so long as he doesn’t return to Ireland.

The Garda Fraud Bureau investigation into Lynn is slow and cumbersome and according to Garda sources will not be completed for a number of months.

When the investigation is complete the DPP must then make a decision on whether criminal charges should be brought. According to a report in today’s Irish Independent this will also take several months. We are not told why a decision like this should take so long.

Here’s what I think.

Civil rather than criminal proceedings allow Lynn the freedom to continue operating his businesses. This means he can work away at trying to resolve his ‘difficulties’.

Meanwhile, the low key and long drawn out process here in Ireland, whether intentional or co-incidental, leaves the way open for a deal to be eventually worked out to the satisfaction of all parties.

We shouldn’t therefore be surprised if at some point there’s an announcement that ‘arrangements’ have been made between the interested parties and the DPP doesn’t have to resort to all that embarrassing and nasty criminal proceedings stuff after all.

The powers that be can then continue to operate under the illusion that Ireland is on a par with other Western jurisdictions where the rule of law is seen as vital to a healthy democracy.

Simple homemaker meets Scarlet Pimpernel

Ahhhh, Isn’t it lovely to see that Michael Lynn and the wife are still seeing each other. Still in contact, still able to meet in secret despite all those pesky police allegedly searching high and low for the bold Michael (Nine News, 9th report).

I was in tears as I heard Brid Murphy’s explanation that she’s just a simple housewife.

“My role is to make a home; when Michael asks me to sign a document I do so without reading it because I trust Michael.”

Brid should be careful here, she could have the entire Yes side in the referendum campaign banging on her door pleading with her to explain to the Irish people how easy it is to sign a document purely on the basis of trust.

Anyway, Brid tells us that the whole thing is very difficult and she’s still trying to figure it all out. Well, she’s in good company there. Legal and law enforcement agencies here are also having a difficult time trying to figure it all out.

Their job could be made a great deal easier if Brid could only tell them where her scarlet pimpernel husband is presently hiding out. He headed off to Portugal she said but didn’t give specific details.

I wonder has it occurred to enforcement agencies to ask her for a contact number so that when the next tryst is being arranged they could tag along.

The ultimate oxymoran

While browsing the website of the Law Society of Ireland this morning in search of some information I came across this little gem.

RULE OF LAW IN THE DEVELOPING WORLD
The objective of the Rule of Law Project is for the Law Society, through its members, to develop and enhance the Rule of Law in the developing world with the assistance of Irish Aid or otherwise, so that human rights, democracy, good governance and justice may be available to all people. This project is being run in cooperation with the Bar Council.

The Irish Law Society; is a quasi-secret society that both represents and allegedly regulates its members. An organisation whose members, mmm…let’s be charitable and say, are often involved in dodgy activities but yet, miraculously, never seem to find themselves made accountable under the same law as the rest of us mere mortals.

This crowd is now off to the developing world to enhance the rule of law. It’s the ultimate oxymoran.

Shocked solicitor

I see in the today’s Irish Times that I have shocked a solicitor. That’s one to note in the calendar.

The core issue for solicitors is simple.

They can opt to remain within their unassailable legal fortress where they can do pretty much as they like with the single drawback of being rightfully seen as a largely disreputable profession.

Or

They can come out into the open and submit themselves to regulation by the law just like everybody else.

They will benefit greatly if the decide on the latter. The unacceptable number of dodgy solicitors will be quickly rooted out and the profession will begin to regain public trust and respect.

Here’s my ‘shocking’ letter and the solicitor’s reply.

Madam,

Several solicitors have expressed concerns (November 2nd, 3rd, 6th) arising from the activities of two of their colleagues, Michael Lynn and Thomas Byrne.

Some blame the situation on the intense pressure solicitors are under, the exploitation of solicitors by the banks and the greed of some clients who are prepared to risk paying peanuts for monkeys.

Also, in mitigation of their profession, they trot out the old canard that only a few rotten apples are involved – thus suggesting that, by and large, the legal profession has its house in order.

The reality is different. In recent years it has become obvious that solicitors, operating under the privileged protection of self-regulation, are among the least accountable groups in society. It is ridiculous and unacceptable that the Law Society should regulate and at the same time represent its members.

This scandal is just the latest in a series that have brought the profession into disrepute. The disgraceful rip-off by solicitors of abuse victims appearing before the Residential Institution Redress Board has yet to be resolved more than two years after the victims were assured by the Law Society that their cases would be dealt with immediately and transparently through a fast-track system.

In his letter of November 2nd, Muredach Doherty is highly critical of the banks, claiming they are at least morally deserving of the difficulties they find themselves in as a result of the activities of Byrne and Lynn.

He and his colleagues would be well advised to examine the quality of morality in their own profession in order to preserve a rapidly dwindling level of public trust. – Yours, etc,

ANTHONY SHERIDAN,

Madam, – I am shocked by Anthony Sheridan’s conclusion that, because of the recent controversies, we solicitors are now morally suspect (November 7th).

It presupposes that as a profession we are some sort of moral supermen and superwomen who are not subject to human failing.
I, at least, claim no moral superiority or insight and am a human being subject to the same failings as everyone else.
He and other commentators are correct, however, in concluding that The Law Society cannot be both a representative body and a regulatory body.

It has now become oppressive to practising solicitors in its attempt to assure the public of its regulatory role. It no longer functions as an effective representative body for solicitors.

It is only right that when solicitors fail legally and morally, an effective regulatory body should hold them to account. It is also right that when solicitors fail they have a representative body to speak for them. The present system is satisfactory for neither solicitors nor clients.

I do not care who regulates me. If they do not do their job the public will let them know. I do care who represents me.

Yours, etc,

RODERICK TYRRELL, Solicitor, Haddington Road, Dublin 4.

Sharp practice by solicitors

Letter in today’s Irish Times

SHARP PRACTICE BY SOLICITORS

Madam,

Several solicitors have expressed concerns (November 2nd, 3rd, 6th) arising from the activities of two of their colleagues, Michael Lynn and Thomas Byrne.

Some blame the situation on the intense pressure solicitors are under, the exploitation of solicitors by the banks and the greed of some clients who are prepared to risk paying peanuts for monkeys.

Also, in mitigation of their profession, they trot out the old canard that only a few rotten apples are involved – thus suggesting that, by and large, the legal profession has its house in order.

The reality is different. In recent years it has become obvious that solicitors, operating under the privileged protection of self-regulation, are among the least accountable groups in society. It is ridiculous and unacceptable that the Law Society should regulate and at the same time represent its members.

This scandal is just the latest in a series that have brought the profession into disrepute. The disgraceful rip-off by solicitors of abuse victims appearing before the Residential Institution Redress Board has yet to be resolved more than two years after the victims were assured by the Law Society that their cases would be dealt with immediately and transparently through a fast-track system.

In his letter of November 2nd, Muredach Doherty is highly critical of the banks, claiming they are at least morally deserving of the difficulties they find themselves in as a result of the activities of Byrne and Lynn.

He and his colleagues would be well advised to examine the quality of morality in their own profession in order to preserve a rapidly dwindling level of public trust. – Yours, etc,

ANTHONY SHERIDAN, Cobh, Co Cork.