Stress in Legal Circles

[2Pack]

2 separate articles in the Times, ouch.

irishtimes.com/newspaper/ire … 28238.html

FOUR SOLICITORS have been ordered by the High Court not to practise until they have obtained insurance cover. Their coverage ran out last December and they were unsuccessful in obtaining new cover, the court heard yesterday.

They are

Mary Kennedy, practising as Barrington Solicitors, Middle Abbey Street, Dublin
Michael O’Sullivan (otherwise Michael Ó Suilleabháin) Baggot Hall, Baggot Street, also Dublin.

The judge made the orders in their absence.

Lawyers for the other two solicitors –
Lorna Burke, practising as Burke and Co, Kiltartan House, Forster Street, Galway, and
Timothy McEniry, Lower Camden Street, Dublin – asked for adjournments

Meanwhile , in a more rarified place.

irishtimes.com/newspaper/ire … 28219.html

Nama for the Bar

A NUMBER of informal and general inquiries have been made to the Bar Council about the position of barristers who might face bankruptcy, The Irish Times has learned.

Barristers who are declared bankrupt may be able to continue to practise, according to the chairman of the Bar Council.

I suspect the ghost of Derek Quinlan will forever haunt the north quays

[tullibardine]

Poor Barrasterds!

[tiger]

I thought it was going to be this article:
Bank takes action against legal firm
irishtimes.com/newspaper/bre … ing80.html

Bank of Ireland is suing a firm of solicitors for allegedly failing to put in place the necessary charges to ensure the bank had security for loans advanced for several property deals.

[Honest_Barrister]

This is the piece which refers to the cause of the stress:

irishtimes.com/newspaper/pro … 01090.html

No glee please. A few investments going south, which seemed like a good idea because everyone else was getting into property plays [one of which is near the courts] & causing you to lose everything you have earned for 20 years is quite tragic.

[ewd3]

@Honest Barrister

This is the piece which refers to the cause of the stress:

irishtimes.com/newspaper/pro … 01090.html

No glee please. A few investments going south, which seemed like a good idea because everyone else was getting into property plays [one of which is near the courts] & causing you to lose everything you have **earned **for 20 years is quite tragic.

cry me a river

given the levels of fees charged by barristers I would suggest substituting acquired above for many of our top legal eagles

[2Pack]

Some rather smart barristers have been totally cleaned out on private equity schemes. Some even borrowed their equity for the private equity schemes.

[yoganmahew]

@Honest Barrister

This is the piece which refers to the cause of the stress:

irishtimes.com/newspaper/pro … 01090.html

No glee please. A few investments going south, which seemed like a good idea because everyone else was getting into property plays [one of which is near the courts] & causing you to lose everything you have earned for 20 years is quite tragic.

as bankrupt barristers and solicitors would no longer be permitted to practise law, this matter is proving to be of grave concern to all concerned.

We’re hearing it both ways - one that it would be possible to continue to practice and another that it would not. Any idea which it really is Honest?

Personally, I don’t see the problem - it would surely benefit the creditors and the bankruptee if s/he could earn their way out of their bankruptcy (the 50% repayment thingy).

[2Pack]

@yoganmahew

We’re hearing it both ways - one that it would be possible to continue to practice and another that it would not. Any idea which it really is Honest?

Grey area, I assume that it depends on why they are bankrupt and whether any malfeasance / lying on loan application forms or fraud is involved.

There is no law that automatically disbars them on bankruptcy where there is for solicitors but the latter handle client funds and barristers do not.

[Honest_Barrister]

I don’t have a view about whether bankruptcy should be fatal to a career at the Bar. (There will probably be some variety of Beverly Cooper Flynn challenge if someone was told to vacate their desk in the Law Library in any event.) The cause of the bankruptcy should be treated separately - i.e. even if your fraudulent ways did not bankrupt you, it should still lead to you being disbarred.

[2Pack]

Back to the solicitors. Lorna Burke has previous and her husband Frank could be said to have been struck off 3 times.

That is “Lorna Burke, practising as Burke and Co, Kiltartan House, Forster Street, Galway”

independent.ie/national-news … 33159.html

Unsurprisingly the insurance industry found she was a risk. I will get to the story of Frank in a mo.

Friday November 30 2007

A solicitor who has been censured seven times for professional misconduct has not been sent forward by the Law Society to High Court to be struck off, despite a recommendation that she was not fit to practise.

Lorna Burke, a self-confessed alcoholic who has paid over €12,500 since 2004 to the solicitor’s compensation fund, for numerous breaches of the solicitor’s acts – including failure to comply with undertakings and failing to discharge judgment mortgages – was recommended to be struck off the Roll of Solicitors by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal last year.

The SDT, an independent statutory tribunal appointed by the President of the High Court to consider complaints against solicitors, recommended that Ms Burke be struck off after it concluded that she was not fit to practice.

But yesterday the Law Society said that it did not act on the SDT’s recommendation because it did not want to jeopardise other cases affecting the solicitor’s practice, based in Prospect Hill, Galway.

She was censured again in 2008

thepost.ie/story/text/mhgbcwsnmh/

anyway to Frank.

Frank was also found guilty and recommended for a strike off by the law society in 1985, the judge saved him and fined him £20k which was the highest ever fine for a solicitor in the High Court at that time. He was struck off finally for other matters like a £120k client fund deficit in 1990 but in 1994 he was passing himself off as a solicitor in Lornas office

It all came out in the Supreme Court in 2001 when Frank tried to get himself struck back ON in effect …and was refused.

bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cg … method=all

“IN THE MATTER OF FRANK BURKE AND LORNA BURKE CARRYING ON PRACTICE AS FRANK BURKE AND COMPANY”

A further complaint in relation to the solicitor came before the High Court on 29th March 1995. This related to a visit by a Mr. Philip Von Der Recke to an office where Mr. Burke ’s wife was practising as a solicitor on the 16th May 1994. Mr. Von Der Recke, who was accompanied by his two brothers, met Mr. Burke on that occasion and said that the latter conducted himself as though he were a solicitor and never indicated at any stage that he was not. That incident led to the issuing of injunction proceedings by the Society, which were compromised by a consent entered into on the 25th March 1995 with Mr. Burke undertaking to the court that he would not attend at or in any premises at which his wife was carrying on or might carry on in the future her practice as a solicitor. He also made a contribution of £5,000 towards the costs of the plaintiff.

I would say that between Frank and Lorna there are near 50 separate findings of misconduct by the disciplinary tribunal including at least 3 strikeoff recommendations over the years and yet it will be the Insurance Companies who will finally shut her/him/them down.

The President of the High Court said, and this should be read carefully by the bar too .

I do not believe that the applicant is a fit and proper person to practise as a solicitor. I form that opinion based upon the fact that neither the applicant himself nor the reputable solicitors who he has called to support his application consider that he is a proper person to exercise control over money which may be entrusted to him by clients. I do not lose sight of the fact that the applicant seeks only a limited certificate which will not involve his handling clients money or being responsible for it. However, I believe that I accurately summarise the position by saying that neither he nor any of his witnesses consider that it would be safe for him to be in the position of controlling clients funds. In these circumstances, how can it be said that he is a ‘fit and proper person to practise as a solicitor’? I draw attention to the fact that the subsection does not in any way differentiate between a solicitor holding a full certificate and a solicitor holding a limited certificate. In my view it is not open to the court to draw any such distinction. Either the applicant is a fit and proper person to be a practising solicitor or he is not. If he is then it is open to the court to make the order sought. If he is not a fit and proper person to practise as a solicitor then it is not.

The Supreme Court went on.

A member of either branch of the legal profession enjoys rights and privileges in representing and advising members of the public denied to others. The public are, accordingly, entitled to repose a high degree of trust in both barristers and solicitors in the conduct of their respective professions.

Unlike barristers, solicitors are regularly entrusted with the custody of monies belonging to their clients and, if public confidence in the solicitors’ profession is to be maintained, any abuse of that trust must inevitably have serious consequences for the solicitor concerned. Viewed in that context, the range of cases in which a solicitor who has been struck off because of dishonesty can properly be restored to the register pursuant to subsection (4) is, of necessity, significantly limited. In a case where the acts of dishonesty appear to have been wholly out of character and were committed when the solicitor was under severe pressures of some kind, the exercise of the discretion vested in the court in his or her favour may be justifiable. The fact, if it be the fact, that in his or her subsequent career, the solicitor had been entrusted with positions of trust and responsibility without any further lapses would be an additional factor in enabling the court to exercise the jurisdiction in his or her favour. However, it would be inappropriate to attempt an exhaustive definition of the circumstances in which a solicitor might properly be restored to the rolls in cases to which subsection (4) apply: it is sufficient to emphasise again that the category of cases in which re-admission to the profession is permissible will inevitably be limited. That this is the approach which should be adopted is, I think, borne out by the authorities from other jurisdictions which were cited in the course of argument: see the observations of Lord Donaldson MR in In the Matter of a Solicitor No. 5 of 1990 and In the Matter of the Solicitors Act 1974 (unreported: judgment delivered Friday, 27th April 1990) and of the majority of the High Court of Australia in Ex-parte Lenehan (1948) 77 CLR 403.

and MOST pertinent if you are still reading HB

It must, regrettably, be pointed out that the conduct which ultimately led to the applicant being struck off was not in any sense an isolated act explicable, if not justifiable, because of special circumstances.

“An Isolated Act Explicable Because of Special Circumstances” …that is the defence case at the bar council for ya. PM me your learned monograph

[Olympia]

Didn’t Daniel O’Connell kill someone in a duel? Didn’t stop him from practicing law if memory serves…

[Inis_Man]

@Honest Barrister

I don’t have a view about whether bankruptcy should be fatal to a career at the Bar…

Plain English translation: I do have a view about whether bankruptcy should be fatal to a career, and my view is it should not…

[wii4miinow]

@Inis Man

@Honest Barrister

I don’t have a view about whether bankruptcy should be fatal to a career at the Bar…

Plain English translation: I do have a view about whether bankruptcy should be fatal to a career, and my view is it should not…

[johnnyskeleton]

@ym, even if it was against the barrister’s code of conduct, they can always change it. @olympia, he said he was sorry so it was ok. Insisted on wearing a funky single glove though.

[Honest_Barrister]

So long as they can still get professional indemnity insurance and no complaints have been made about them it probably is better for society if they earn something and pay off their debts. But if the profession is deemed to be sufficiently special that the stigma of bankruptcy is thought to be repugnant to them continuing to practice, well that’s fine too (in fact it’s a back handed compliment from the proletariat).

I don’t see any reference to it in the Code of Conduct, but I’ve heard people talking about the fact that the Official Assignee in Bankruptcy would have to approve expenditure on your subscriptions, insurance, secretary, expense account for boozy lunches and all of the other items of expenditure necessary for a career at the Bar.

[The_Unwelcome_Guest]

@Honest Barrister

So long as they can still get professional indemnity insurance and no complaints have been made about them it probably is better for society if they earn something and pay off their debts. But if the profession is deemed to be sufficiently special that the stigma of bankruptcy is thought to be repugnant to them continuing to practice, well that’s fine too (in fact it’s a back handed compliment from the proletariat).

I don’t see any reference to it in the Code of Conduct, but I’ve heard people talking about the fact that the Official Assignee in Bankruptcy would have to approve expenditure on your subscriptions, insurance, secretary, expense account for boozy lunches and all of the other items of expenditure necessary for a career at the Bar.

Tell ya wha’, get Lynner to come back and face up to a wig and we’ll talk…

“Better for society…” sheesh!

[yoganmahew]

@Honest Barrister

I don’t see any reference to it in the Code of Conduct, but I’ve heard people talking about the fact that the Official Assignee in Bankruptcy would have to approve expenditure on your subscriptions, insurance, secretary, expense account for boozy lunches and all of the other items of expenditure necessary for a career at the Bar.