Solicitor given more time by court.

ircoha

http://www.rte.ie/business/2008/0404/solicitor.html

I found it astonishing that someone who has stolen a million euro from his clients could get get such preferential treatment, until I realised he is a solicitor being tried by his own kind.:mad:

johnnyskeleton

He was given more time to get the money together so that he can repay it to his client accound, which would resolve the problem. This is preferable to the court making an order which might not be enforceable (and therefore the money doesn't get repaid by the solicitor).

There's nothing to suggest they were given preferential treatment, and there is no mention of "stealing" so be careful with that.

By the way, Judge Johnson was a barrister not a solicitor.

BanzaiBk

Preferential treatment? LOL! Clearly you've never been in contact with the Law Society.

Maximilian

There's a million euro hole in his client account which the solicitor needs to make up himself. To do that he will have to get a loan. Naming him before he has a loan agreement might destroy his chances of getting such a loan and being able to replace the money, thus damaging the clients whose money was taken.

The only people being preferred are his clients whose money was taken. Don't be so quick to judge. Judge Johnson is one of the country's leading judges.

Tom Young

Having a hole of a million in a client account might be nothing more than a mis-posted cheque for a house. I've not followed this, but I agree with Maximilian in relation to Johnson J.

Trial by media in this country is a major problem. We are not Brittain yet .....

elgransenor

The court 'decided' on Thursday that if he did not have his letters of approval by Friday, they would have to release his name as the Law Society requested in the interests of openness etc.
However he did not have his letters of approval by Friday;nevertheless he was given more time.
The court actually did a u-turn on what it had stated the previous day.
The Law soc. already met with this guy on 4 occasions to allow him put the matter right.
I have to agree with the preferential treatment view.

Maximilian

I can promise you that the Law Society would not give a solicitor preferential treatment. The Courts even more so. Especially not in the present environment, what with the Michael Lynn and Thomas Byrne scandals. The only people being protected are the clients of this solicitor. The Law Society is merciless these days when it comes to this sort of thing. They apply to have solicitors struck off in circumstances where before they might have sought a lesser punishment. For example, in the recent case where two solicitors were found to have engaged in tax evasion, the Society was refused in its application to have them struck off.

Sure, the guy was given a few more days by the High Court; in my view, in order to ensure no client loses money. What difference will a few days make. Possibly a lot, if you are a client whose money has gone bye-bye. That is the most important thing here.

Ancarraig

haha maximilian are u ken murphy in disguise? we all know that that the law society=trade union for solicitors They knew bout M Lynn and T Byrne for over at least 8 yrs and turned a blind eye The only reason they acted was cos they could not sweep this mess under the carpet this time If they could they would have The law society also gave him a chance to do a runner by letting him get a solicitor from england It was all planned Ircoha go to [edited by mod - no links to defamatory sites please] to see more corupt robbers Remember this is only the tip of the iceberg The only 1s the law society will strike off are old farts that are past it anyway

Maximilian

No I'm not - are you John Gill in disguise?

I don't know where to start as regards the unfathomable ignorance of your last post. This is not the place to spew bile just because you may have a chip on your shoulder.

Any more posts like that and you will be banned permanently from Legal Discussion.

Ancarraig

haha maximilian get a life "unfathomable ignorance" what does that mean I have no chip on my shoulder Its all true

Maximilian

Adios amigo.

Amazotheamazing

Ancarraig wrote: »

haha maximilian are u ken murphy in disguise? we all know that that the law society=trade union for solicitors They knew bout M Lynn and T Byrne for over at least 8 yrs and turned a blind eye The only reason they acted was cos they could not sweep this mess under the carpet this time If they could they would have The law society also gave him a chance to do a runner by letting him get a solicitor from england It was all planned Ircoha go to [edited by mod - no links to defamatory sites please] to see more corupt robbers Remember this is only the tip of the iceberg The only 1s the law society will strike off are old farts that are past it anyway

Here have a few full stops........ I have plenty spare and you're clearly short of them, as well as common sense and the rudiments of constructing a coherent sentence.

Victor

Surely, if the solicitor is not named, the bank(s) are potentially giving out a loan that might turn into a dud? Or might the court insist that the banks know?

Maximilian

What I think happened in another case is that a naughty solicitor got a loan to fill the hole in the client account immediately, while he puts say an investment property on the market to repay the loan.

No idea what the story is here but its a good point Victor. Maybe he will sell his share in the practice to a partner (if he has one) and repay the loan from the proceeds. In any event, at e1,000,000, the loan will be secured on some asset, should he fail to repay.

johnnyskeleton

Victor wrote: »

Surely, if the solicitor is not named, the bank(s) are potentially giving out a loan that might turn into a dud? Or might the court insist that the banks know?

The banks will not lend to anybody (Solicitor or otherwise) who does not furnish financial records, and to be honest, if they give an unsecured loan of a million euro to someone who can't pay it back it's their own loss.

However, if it is just a cashflow issue, they'll know the score. Plus, as Tom points out, a million euro might only be one property purchase price gone astray.

johnnyskeleton

Maximilian wrote: »

Adios amigo.

I guess he'll never find that solicitor he was looking for.

Maximilian

Well apparently he can do a better job himself.

Victor

A piece on RTÉ today about the Lynn case - Lynn may be fined and struck off - http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0422/lynnm.html

"The disciplinary tribunal ruled that Michael Lynn was unfit to be a solicitor" - he got caught. Which is going to be worse from the solicitors point of view - law society action or state action?

Maximilian

Victor wrote: »

A piece on RTÉ today about the Lynn case - Lynn may be fined and struck off - http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0422/lynnm.html

"The disciplinary tribunal ruled that Michael Lynn was unfit to be a solicitor" - he got caught. Which is going to be worse from the solicitors point of view - law society action or state action?

Hopefully State action. A lot of people are grumbling about how Lynn hasn't been struck off yet but I think there were reasons for that. I'm not sure but I think it might have voided his Professional Indemnity insurance, hence the delay in actually taking this action. I could be wrong though.

madmayomary

solicitor given more time yet again haha how many chances is that now???

Maximilian

madmayomary (a.k.a. ancarraig) banned.