Michael Lynn - The Irish Casey Serin Strikes!


That last bit is confusing. He says loans to Lynn were approved by Fingleton, but then says that it was loans to Byrne that were appealed to Fingleton.

My head hurts.



Claiming Fingleton approved both men

***note to self

check golf club membership registers**


[**‘Scapegoat’ banker claims boss approved solicitor loan * * (https://www.independent.ie/national-news/scapegoat-banker-claims-boss-approved-solicitor-loan-1229553.html)


Did you know that the nation of Japan, with 120,000,000 people, has only 10,000 lawyers?

Isn’t that interesting?


Its more than double that figure. The goverment is planning to double it again in the next 10 years.


Still, it’s a rather low number for what is still the 2nd richest country on Earth.

In the same way that the sun is rather warm


Innocent bystanders getting sucked down along with dodgy solicitors.

independent.ie/national-news … 31109.html



Where is the bloody Law Society?

Shouldn’t this be at the top of their list?


Really? You don’t think protecting their reputation and their finances are their primary motivation? Or maybe it’s protecting their independence from any sort of consumer-based oversight?


God bless their innocence…

An unamed solicitor in the times was quoted as advocating a separation between the representative and regulatory functions of the Law society… because…

Brace yourselves…





Even if that is their main motivation, isn’t the best way to protect your reputation so behave well. If word gets out that your money isn’t safe with a solicitor how does that help their reputation or their finances?

As soon as a profession sets as it’s goal the avoidance of external oversight, that is precisely when external oversight is most needed.

Am I right in thinking that the law society compensation fund would be directed towards clients of the solicitors like these people, rather than towards banks.

Or can the fund be drawn on to compensate anyone who has dealings with a solicitor? If so then this couple could be screwed. Hopefully, innocent clients have some sort of prior claim to compensation before banks who contributed to the mess get a look in.




mmmm I don’t think so first up best dressed …

Hence the unseemly scrum to secure judgements…


From the Law Society website:

If they have any interest in:

  • protecting the reputation and confidence in the legal profession;
  • acting to protect clients placed at risk by improper practice by one of the (regulated) members

surely they would have made an immediate assessment of all clients who were potentially at risk (i.e. those who should have had funds in the client account) and taken necessary steps to quickly address and resolve the situation.


What they should do and what they are doing are somewhat at odds. I agree that the function of an oversight body should be to protect the innocent. Like yourself and daltonr, I think that public confidence in the Law Society is best served by protecting clients of “rogue” solicitors. I just don’t see any evidence of this, from the dismissal of initial complaints against these solicitors over a number of years leading up to this fiasco, to their CYA attitude to freezing the funds of these solicitors and trying to establish first call on the client accounts.


More poor bastards getting stung by this joker.

independent.ie/national-news … 31110.html

I really hope that these people are the first in the queue to get compensation from the Law Society’s fund.


If a solicitor is barred from practicing shouldn’t the law society have somebody take over the cases immediately?


Lots of “shouldn’t they” type questions about the Law Society.

If politicians were behind all of this there would be a Tribunal with members of the Law Society creaming it as they try to get to the bottom of things.