A row brewing

Ken.

A row brewing in Naas.

http://www.leinsterleader.ie/news/local/row-as-local-solicitors-feel-pressure-from-dublin-firms-1-5333116

It’s been claimed that over the past 12 months Kildare-based solicitors are being squeezed out by Dublin based legal firms.
According to one local solicitor, Tony Hanahoe, up to 50% of the people due to appear before Naas District Court last Wednesday, July 23, were represented by Dublin-based legal firms.

What complicates the matter is that neither of the new solicitors, Treacy Horan or John Woods, who are partners in the same legal firm, was present in court.
Instead, Sarah Connolly, a young barrister, had been instructed to represent the two sisters.
There was a suspicion that several legal rules were being broken - rules that members of the public likely never heard of.
It is against the rules for solicitors and barristers, or anyone on their behalf, to approach a defendant and offer to represent them.
This is known as touting. The defendant must do the approaching.
In the case of barristers, it is even more constrictive.



But with the barrister’s fee as little as €50 per case, farming out a case, especially if the defendant is granted legal aid, can be a handy little earner for the legal firm.
Naas’s relative proximity to Dublin has made it susceptible to this phenomenon.

“Judge may I......” Sarah Connolly rose to her feet to respond.
“No, sit down, sit down,” the Judge told her.
It should be pointed out that at no point was Ms. Connolly accused of breaking any rules, and the two solicitors and the Judge were careful, while making their comments, to avoid any such inference.
“First of all this is an abuse of my time here,” Judge Zaidan said.
He criticised Mr. Wood and Ms. Horan for “not having the courtesy to be here”.


He urged Mr. Hanahoe and Mr. Kennelly to bring the matter to the Law Society and the Bar Council (the representative organisations for solicitors and barristers.)

hullaballoo

€251.57 for 6 bottles of alcohol? Should've gone to Lidl.

godtabh

I dont get the issue. Are solicitors and barristers not allowed to work outside of the county they have their offices in?

Obviously the touting for business is one thing

Ken.

godtabh wrote: »

I dont get the issue. Are solicitors and barristers not allowed to work outside of the county they have their offices in?

Obviously the touting for business is one thing

I think(and I may be wrong) the problem is how would a Dublin firm get so much business in Naas unless they come down and tout for it.

littlemac1980

Sure Naas is in Dublin. ;-)

lawlibraryhead

That article was clearly instigated by some serious hypocrites. It was probably the most pathetic and legally inaccurate article I have ever read in my entire life. A barrister need not be attended by their instructing solicitor in the district court, and indeed a district court judge was judicially reviewed in the high court on that very point before. It is also stated in the bar council regulations as such. Its also interesting to note that two foreign defendants were instructing two local solicitors that morning, well, how did they come to instruct these local solicitors????? The Leinster Leader should probably do a little research before they go to press.

Pro Hoc Vice

lawlibraryhead wrote: »

That article was clearly instigated by some serious hypocrites. It was probably the most pathetic and legally inaccurate article I have ever read in my entire life. A barrister need not be attended by their instructing solicitor in the district court, and indeed a district court judge was judicially reviewed in the high court on that very point before. It is also stated in the bar council regulations as such. Its also interesting to note that two foreign defendants were instructing two local solicitors that morning, well, how did they come to instruct these local solicitors????? The Leinster Leader should probably do a little research before they go to press.

While it is clear that a barrister may appear in the district court unattended, but only when that barrister has received full and proper instructions from his solicitor. The issue here is if another solicitor was on record and that solicitor did not give barrister instructions, and the solicitor wishing to come on record was not in court the judge was correct to question had the solicitor got proper instructions from the client and given same to the barrister.

http://www.briefcounsel.ie/downloads/Heinullian.pdf

nuac

Dublin solicitors, even the most eminent, were never above seeking the better type of business from the better clients anywhere. That of course was always done with great discretion

However pitching for DC business shows desperation.

Cody Pomeray

Of course it shows desperation, these are pretty desperate times. I'm sure the law society will wet itself over this, and some old heads at the Bar Council might need a sit down at the thought of Rumpole being instructed by a Romanian, but it's a storm in a teacup.

And another thing.

infosys wrote: »

The issue here is if another solicitor was on record and that solicitor did not give barrister instructions, and the solicitor wishing to come on record was not in court the judge was correct to question had the solicitor got proper instructions from the client and given same to the barrister.

He didn't 'question' it. The judge accepted the protestations of the defendant's previous solicitor, and seems to have silenced Sarah Connolly's interjections.

If the judge had listened to her he would have discovered that the Kildare solicitors had been dismissed but hadn't been informed by their own staff.

Consequently, there seems to have been no reason to suppose that the non-attending solicitor had not instructed counsel for the defendants.

Tom Young

The case of Heinullian v The Governor of Cloverhill Prison determines the issue of attendance by solicitors on Counsel at the District Court beyond any doubt.

The Judgment was given by Mr Justice John Hedigan on the 20th of May 2010.

Further, Barristers appear in any Court in Ireland by right, not by invitation. Despite what a District Judge might have to say or view in the circumstances.

Tom

Pro Hoc Vice

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Of course it shows desperation, these are pretty desperate times. I'm sure the law society will wet itself over this, and some old heads at the Bar Council might need a sit down at the thought of Rumpole being instructed by a Romanian, but it's a storm in a teacup.

And another thing.


He didn't 'question' it. The judge accepted the protestations of the defendant's previous solicitor, and seems to have silenced Sarah Connolly's interjections.

If the judge had listened to her he would have discovered that the Kildare solicitors had been dismissed but hadn't been informed by their own staff.

Consequently, there seems to have been no reason to suppose that the non-attending solicitor had not instructed counsel for the defendants.

The court could not hear her as the solicitor on record informed the court he knew nothing about the change. Do the court fid the right thing and adjourned the matter to get the issue sorted out.

Pro Hoc Vice

Tom Young wrote: »

The case of Heinullian v The Governor of Cloverhill Prison determines the issue of attendance by solicitors on Counsel at the District Court beyond any doubt.

The Judgment was given by Mr Justice John Hedigan on the 20th of May 2010.

Further, Barristers appear in any Court in Ireland by right, not by invitation. Despite what a District Judge might have to say or view in the circumstances.

Tom

I linked to that case above, I think the court did the correct thing in light of the information before it.

Tom Young

infosys wrote: »

I linked to that case above, I think the court did the correct thing in light of the information before it.

Nothing personal, but I didn't read that part of the thread. Apologies.

Pro Hoc Vice

Tom Young wrote: »

Nothing personal, but I didn't read that part of the thread. Apologies.

Nothing personal taken sorry if it can across that way. My excuse am at a boozy end of term lunch.

lawlibraryhead

It was a disgrace how these two Dublin Solicitors were treated by the Court and by the Leinster Leader pure and simple. One rule for Naas Solicitors and another Dublin Solicitors.....And I feel so sorry for the poor Barrister. The Solicitor who was quoted in the Leinster Leader, He seemed to be talking with some great authority, like he thinks he owns Naas Court house. That makes me laugh.... My mother always told me, if I have nothing nice to say about someone, then say nothing at all. I rest my case.

Pat Mustard

lawlibraryhead wrote: »

It was a disgrace how these two Dublin Solicitors were treated by the Court and by the Leinster Leader pure and simple. One rule for Naas Solicitors and another Dublin Solicitors.....And I feel so sorry for the poor Barrister. The Solicitor who was quoted in the Leinster Leader, He seemed to be talking with some great authority, like he thinks he owns Naas Court house. That makes me laugh.... My mother always told me, if I have nothing nice to say about someone, then say nothing at all. I rest my case.

What?

nuac

1. Client instructs solicitor A to appear at a District Court hearing.

2. Later same client instructs solicitor B to appear for him

3. If appears neither client nor solicitor B informed solicitor A of the change before case was called..

4. If solicitor B knew that solicitor A had already been instructed (s)he should as a matter of courtesy contacted solicitor A prior to taking over the case,

camphor

It is pathetic that members of the legal profession have to get into a public spat about a pretty small piece of business. Unattended Counsel are the norm in some Dublin courts and have been for years. In Cloverhill District court it has often been the case that no solicitors were present and all defendants were represented by barristers.

carpejugulum

I am sorry your anti-competitive anti-consumer rip-off scheme is in danger...

john.han

I'm a bit confused... there was confusion as to who was to represent the defendants, the local solicitors thought they were but weren't sure, a barrister who had been briefed by the Dublin solicitors tried to explain to the judge that she had been instructed and was to represent the defendants but the Judge wouldn't listen to her? Do I have that right?

First of all it appears the judge could of just listened to the barrister to clarify the situation (that's based upon the newspaper article being accurate and given it's general tone and quality I find that doubtful).

As for the other issues, the legal profession has resembled a cartel for a long time and as for a solicitor whinging about losing business to people from outside the parish? Cry me a river, it's a free market,and I'd hoped we'd moved on from that kind of closed shop parochial nonsense.

Pro Hoc Vice

john.han wrote: »

I'm a bit confused... there was confusion as to who was to represent the defendants, the local solicitors thought they were but weren't sure, a barrister who had been briefed by the Dublin solicitors tried to explain to the judge that she had been instructed and was to represent the defendants but the Judge wouldn't listen to her? Do I have that right?

First of all it appears the judge could of just listened to the barrister to clarify the situation (that's based upon the newspaper article being accurate and given it's general tone and quality I find that doubtful).

As for the other issues, the legal profession has resembled a cartel for a long time and as for a solicitor whinging about losing business to people from outside the parish? Cry me a river, it's a free market,and I'd hoped we'd moved on from that kind of closed shop parochial nonsense.

The issue as I see it is in the following paragraph,

"When the case was called, Mr. Kennelly told the court that both he and Mr. Hanahoe had believed that they were representing the two women and that they had taken instructions from them, via an interpretor (the sisters are Romanian), as recently as 11am that same day."

So solicitor says to Court, I spoke to the accused a few hours ago, and it was confirmed I was instructed. Now a couple of hours later the court is being told no its another solicitor, who is not present, but a barrister is present. The court asked a simple question how could this barrister have been instructed by another solicitor who has not been present in court today, when it seems the defendant instructed a local solicitor a few hours ago. The Court could not hear the barrister as there was a different solicitor on record, and the judge wanted to get to the bottom of the issue hence why he adjourned the matter.

john.han

infosys wrote: »

The issue as I see it is in the following paragraph,

"When the case was called, Mr. Kennelly told the court that both he and Mr. Hanahoe had believed that they were representing the two women and that they had taken instructions from them, via an interpretor (the sisters are Romanian), as recently as 11am that same day."

So solicitor says to Court, I spoke to the accused a few hours ago, and it was confirmed I was instructed. Now a couple of hours later the court is being told no its another solicitor, who is not present, but a barrister is present. The court asked a simple question how could this barrister have been instructed by another solicitor who has not been present in court today, when it seems the defendant instructed a local solicitor a few hours ago. The Court could not hear the barrister as there was a different solicitor on record, and the judge wanted to get to the bottom of the issue hence why he adjourned the matter.

Was the defendant and interpretor there?

Pro Hoc Vice

john.han wrote: »

Was the defendant and interpretor there?

Yes from my reading of the Article that is what the solicitor was saying. I assume the reason he made it clear there was an interpreter was there was to exclude any issue of misunderstanding.

Pat Mustard

camphor wrote: »

Unattended Counsel are the norm in some Dublin courts and have been for years. In Cloverhill District court it has often been the case that no solicitors were present and all defendants were represented by barristers.

Nobody really gives a hoot about unattended Counsel. The journalist's reference to this complicating matters is a bit of a red herring, really. It's not the real issue.

carpejugulum wrote: »

I am sorry your anti-competitive anti-consumer rip-off scheme is in danger...

This isn't about local solicitors attempting to see off competition from the outside. Any solicitor is entitled to act in any District Court, whether it is located in Donegal or Naas or wherever, whether that solicitor is based in Dublin or Kenmare or anywhere else in the land.

JustAThought

The most telling point in this article is the statement by the judge/barristor of young barristers forced to work for as little as e50 a day & this being called nothing short of slavery & a disgrace.

Its a pity those with some capacity to challenge these slavery practices for the young & qualified, don't challenge those responsible for forcing tens of thousands to take up slavery roles for e50 a week - Job bridge that is.

hullaballoo

JustAThought wrote: »

The most telling point in this article is the statement by the judge/barristor of young barristers forced to work for as little as e50 a day & this being called nothing short of slavery & a disgrace.

Its a pity those with some capacity to challenge these slavery practices for the young & qualified, don't challenge those responsible for forcing tens of thousands to take up slavery roles for e50 a week - Job bridge that is.

Either you've misread the article or it was incorrectly reported but new barristers don't earn anything close to €50 a day.

I earned about €4 a day in my first 3 years and I was happy to be getting it. It's less for most others, I was lucky. I got a couple of well-paid gigs each year. Most would tell you they earned less than €1,000 per year (or €2.74 per day) for their first few years. They're not lying.

Anyway, you're totally wrong about both barristers' pay and jobsbridge because the €50 extra that's paid is a weekly amount. You've also forgotten to add that €188 + €50 = €238. I would happily take a constant stream of €238 a week over what the bar has to offer, the only problem is that I can't stand doing nothing.