Britain and Ireland have similar, but different, legal systems. In Britain it is permitted for solicitors and barristers to agree to act for no, or a reduced, fee, conditional on being entitled, on winning the case, to charge the client (and a losing opponent) an enhanced fee (one larger than the norm). This is known as “a conditional fee agreement” (CFA).

This is not possible in Ireland.

In Britain, these CFA arrangements are most common in personal injury claims. In Ireland the principal law applicable to such claims and the terms to be agreed between solicitors and clients is S.I. No. 518/2002 — The Solicitors Acts, 1954 To 2002 Solicitors (Advertising) Regulations, 2002

Under the Regulations it is illegal for a solicitor to advertise “No win, no Fee”. Solicitors are not permitted to calculate their fees by reference to a percentage of the compensation recovered for the client. (Or as the Regulations put it, “In contentious business, a solicitor may not calculate fees or other charges as a percentage or proportion of any award or settlement”.

Furthermore, not only are solicitors subject to the foregoing restrictions but are also restricted from offering “legal services involving contentious business… at no cost or reduced cost to the client”

Indeed, it is the obligation of a solicitor to give an estimate of the costs of the legal services to the client in writing, at the commencement of the engagement.

Finally, the Regulations provide, inter alia, advertisements shall not “be published in an inappropriate location”.

(We know for sure that the back of a bus is an inappropriate location).

In 1775 the East India company sent out Lord Pigot with instructions to restore the Rajah of Tanjore to his Madras territories. These had been annexed in 1773 by the Nawob of the Carnatic. In fact the Nawob was a puppet; the employees of the East India company were the real powers in Madras and Bengal. One of the principal persons in this regard was Paul Benfield (1740-1810). Benfield was nominally answerable to the Court of Directors of the East India company: in reality he was more powerful than his employers. The unlucky Lord Pigot was thrown into a dungeon by company troops (by order of Benfield) where he died in 1775. Benfield amassed one of the largest fortunes ever brought home from India. He was recalled in 1781 as a result of the Pigot scandal and successfully petitioned to return to his position in India. The vote in his favour in the Court of Proprietors of the East India company was 368 to 302. Edmund Burke had purchased a shareholding in the East India company in order to block Benfield’s reinstatement. One of his “Heads of Objections” read;
“That the immense Magnitude of the Sums alleged by him to be due to the said Paul Benfield, furnishes a just Cause to doubt, whether the Money (if really advanced as pretended) could be acquired by lawful means, considering Mr. Benfield’s Rank in the Service, the nature of his Trade, and the time of his residence in India.” Paul Benfield was a man of the world. The shareholders of the East India company were also beneficiaries of the extortion and theft practised in India and if appearances could be maintained, they would not and did not change the status quo.

We, all of us, act on our perceptions, albeit that they are of varied quality. We perforce have views on the climate of Tierra del Fuego; the nature of society in Saudi Arabia; the quality of cakes in Vienna, all without having been in these places.

We cannot know everything about these matters, but we can know enough. After all, the most likely practical consequence of these particular perceptions would be, at most, a visit to Vienna; and what harm could flow from that?

Well, we could be persuaded that Empire and Baroque architectural styles are oppressive and cakes are bad for us and abandon plans to visit Vienna.

Would we then decide to visit Belgium instead? Probably not; not as a substitute anyway.

Maybe we are deterred when, as this writer experienced, a colleague alludes, in conversation, to “children in basements in Brussels”.

What is going on here?

Perhaps we have a general sense of unhappiness about Belgium. We remember the Belgian police; they caught Marc Dutroux, but they failed to do their duty. The consequences of their failures were so profound that it was generally accepted that they were not simply inept, and that perception, now ineradicable, is the established Irish view of the police of Belgium.

We also recall that Belgium throws up, now and again, political/business scandals.

To make sense of this we may invoke the saying – “a fish rots from the head”.

We experience the rottenness and conclude that it is systemic.

This is reasonable. Perhaps, as has happened to this writer, a Government minister claims, in conversation, that litigation is controversy and controversy implies a defensible position on both sides until resolution is arrived at in the form of a judgment from a court.

That conflates process with product. A Government of that character does not subscribe to an objective standard of truth or principle.

Worse than that, it suggests that the Government feels confident of its control of the “process”.

That’s enough. When enough people make that judgment every word uttered in defence of that Government is further evidence of the depth of a crisis, a legitimation crisis.

Contrary to conventional thinking, the critical conversation is, often, not the conversation of the client with his/her solicitor, but the conversation of the solicitor with an expert.

This is definitely the case in medical negligence actions.

The issue in a medical negligence action is whether the defendant deviated from approved or appropriate practice. It is an error, usually, to think that the plaintiff will succeed if he/she proves that there would have been no injury had the defendant followed a different course of action. (The exceptional case where it would not be an error would be one where the court was persuaded that the conventional practice carried such obvious defects that it was indefensible and where the court effectively condemns the defendant and the practice.)

Thus, in the conversation with the expert, the solicitor is assessing the likelihood of the success of a defence claiming conventional merit for the defendant’s actions.

Incidentally, the solicitor is also assessing the quality of the expert.

Sometimes the quality of an expert shines out.

Former Supreme Court judge Donal Barrington, for instance, has seriously misled the general public (some) of the quality of our judges following his appearance on Nightly News with Vincent Browne. They have assumed that all our judges are of his high quality.

Would that it were so.

Often, in the conversation between the solicitor and the expert, the expert is not aware of any body of opinion supporting the defendant’s actions. This implies a criticism either of the expert or of the defendant.

It is the solicitor’s job to correctly judge whether the expert or the defendant is wrong.

For solicitors in Ireland income from conveyancing has “fallen off a cliff”. Solicitors practicing in that area were very likely to have taken an investment share in some development or other. (There is a marketing opportunity here for tee-shirts; “the devil made me …..” (insert suitable words)).

For some, the black hole of bankruptcy may loom. (A bankrupt may not practice as a solicitor in Ireland). That aside, these entrepreneurs can hold their heads high; after all, Ireland itself has too much debt.

They cannot, however, flee to New York to practice law. They appear very strict on debt levels for lawyers there.

Mr. Robert Bowman was assessed by a committee of New York lawyers on his application for admission to the New York bar. He passed with flying colours.

His creditor, it seems, was not so happy. Mr. Bowman had a heavy student loan outstanding. In the way of creditors (some) they did the counter-intuitive thing; they appealed the committee’s decision, successfully.

Five judges thought he was unworthy to practice law. As George V. Higgins has remarked; “ … a judge is a guy who used to be a lawyer”.

So, the former lawyers may just possibly have done Mr. Bowman a favour. He has now become a plaintiff, with his creditor as his defendant, and has challenged the judges’ decision.

It appears that he does not, in law or otherwise, owe all the sums claimed by the creditor. The creditor has, it appears, “churned” the debt, doubling it in size over just two years.

Mr. Bowman has appeared, photographed, in “the New York Times” with a complimentary CV attached.

Lucky breaks arrive in strange circumstances.

Accidents from errors in manual handling are the commonest source of injury in Irish workplaces.

If such an injury happens it invokes, potentially at least, the assessment of the event from the perspective of the duties of employers regarding such events. Chapter 4 of the General Application Regulations 2007 (SI 299/2007) particularly apply.

Any injury may result for these errors, but back injury dominates.

An employer is obliged

a) to seek alternative methods to manual handling;
b) to keep any such alternatives in working order;
c) to train staff in the techniques of manual handling as required;
d) to up-date training where this appears necessary;
e) to ensure that staff do not lift weights heavier than those stipulated in the weights guidelines (Health and Safety Authority);
f) generally to assess the risk where manual handling is unavoidable

Below are whimsical examples of pleading in a personal injury claim. The pleadings are not in order and do not conform to current pleading requirements for personal injury actions. Nevertheless they reflect the strange world of conflict in a personal injury lawsuit.

2009 No. 123
The High Court

BETWEEN Joseph Brush Plaintiff

and

Plastic Surfaces Ltd. Defendant

STATEMENT OF CLAIM

Delivered the 1st Day of April 2009 by
Skin & Bone Solicitors for the plaintiff
of Victory House Broad Street Dublin 1

1. The Plaintiff is a housepainter and he resides at 54 Shady Lane Rathcormac Dublin 10.

2. At all material times hereto the plaintiff was employed as a painter at the defendant’ s plastic-coated fabrics factory at Leafy Hollow Rathcormac Dublin 10 which said premises is owned and managed by the defendant.

3. It was a term of the said contract of employment between the plaintiff and the defendant and/or it was the duty of the defendant to take all reasonable precautions for the safety of the plaintiff while he was engaged upon his work, not to expose him to a risk of damage or injury of which they knew or ought to have known, to provide and maintain safe and adequate and suitable plant, tackle and appliances to enable the plaintiff to carry out his work in safety, to take all reasonable measures to ensure that the place where he carried out his work was safe and to provide and maintain a safe and proper system of work.

4. On or about the 1st day of March 2009 the plaintiff was in the course of his aforesaid work, lifting a roll of plastic- coated fabric when he injured his back. In descending a set of steps immediately following his back injury the plaintiff slipped on the said steps and lost his footing and fell down several steps, knocking over and burning himself with the contents of an open jar of hydrochloric acid which was standing at the bottom of the said steps.

5. The plaintiff injured his back, fell and burned himself with hydrochloric acid as aforesaid owing to the negligence and breach of duty on the part of the aforesaid defendant its servants or agents, in or about the management, maintenance and supervision of the aforesaid premises and the prevention of grave risk to the plaintiff.

Particulars of Negligence and Breach of Duty (including Statutory Duty)

A. Failed to provide the plaintiff with safe or adequate mechanical lifting equipment or assistance in the performance of his task of lifting the roll of plastic-coated fabric as aforesaid.

B. Failed to instruct the plaintiff in respect of safe and adequate lifting arrangements for the lifting of heavy or awkward loads.

C. Required the plaintiff to perform the said lifting operation without assistance.

D. Failed to take appropriate or any steps to obviate the said back injury accident.

E. Failing to provide any or any adequate lighting on the said staircase when they knew or ought to have known that the presence of slippy plastic or other foreign material was a common hazard on the said staircase which could not be spotted by the person using the said staircase in the absence of adequate lighting thereon;

F. Failing to take any or any adequate precautions for the safety of the plaintiff while he was engaged on his aforesaid work;

G. Exposing the plaintiff to a risk of damage or injury of which they knew or ought to have known;

H. Failing to provide a safe and proper system of work;

I. Failing to provide any or any adequate supervision;

J. Exposing the plaintiff to unnecessary and avoidable risk;

K. Failing to warn the plaintiff of the dangers presented by slippy plastic and other foreign material on the said staircase when the lighting thereon was inadequate;

L. Failing to provide competent workmates;

M. Failing to provide a safe place of work.

N. Leaving a jar of dangerous and corrosive chemical open where it might be spilled and injure the plaintiff especially in his distressed state.

O. Failing to warn the plaintiff of the dangers presented by the jar of hydrochloric acid on the said staircase.

P. Requiring or permitting the plaintiff to lift and move a load which was heavy and likely to cause him injury in breach of Article 68 of the General Application Regulations 2007 (SI 299/2007).

6. As a result of the aforesaid matters the plaintiff suffered severe personal injury, other loss and damage.

Particulars of Personal Injury
The plaintiff experienced severe pain in his lower back on lifting the roll of fabric. He suffered further pain on falling down the staircase further injuring his back and his right foot. On striking the jar of hydrochloric acid the contents spilled out onto both of the legs of the plaintiff and pooled about him as he sat on the landing. It burned his hands, legs, feet and buttocks.
The plaintiff was taken to St. Cuthbert’s Hospital where he was examined on arrival. He was conscious but in considerable pain. He had two degree burns on his legs and feet with three degree burns on his hands and buttocks. His burns were dressed and he was then X-rayed for his back and leg complaints. Soft tissue injury of his back was diagnosed and he was prescribed bed rest and physiotherapy as soon as the acid burn injuries allowed. A fracture of the cuboid was first suspected based on the X-rays of the right leg. The plaintiff suffered severe pain from his back at this juncture and was prescribed pain killers. The plaintiff was suffering from pain in the lower back region, radiating down the right leg. He was found to have restriction of movement in the lumbar spine together with tenderness in the right lower and lumbar and buttock region. Straight leg raising was restricted.
The plaintiff’s above injuries caused and continue to cause severe pain and discomfort. His capacity to enjoy his work and life generally has been severely diminished by his injuries. His complaints continue, may be permanent and the onset of adverse sequalae cannot be ruled out.

Particulars of Special Damage

Hospital Bills (unascertained and continuing)
Doctors’ Bills (unascertained and continuing)
Chemists’ Bills (unascertained and continuing)
Travelling Expenses (unascertained and continuing)
Loss of Wages (unascertained and continuing)
Damage to Clothing (unascertained and continuing)

Michael Soap B.L.

To the Registrar
Central Office
Four Courts
Dublin 7

And:
Fat & Smooth
Solicitors for the Defendant
Corkscrew Lane
The Highway
Dublin 2

________________________________
2009 No. 123
The High Court

BETWEEN Joseph Brush Plaintiff

and

Plastic Surfaces Ltd. Defendant

DEFENCE

Delivered the 2nd Day of April 2009 by
Fat & Smooth Solicitors for the Defendant
Corkscrew Lane, The Highway Dublin 2

1. The defendant denies that the plaintiff was employed as a housepainter at their premises in Leafy Lane Rathcormac Dublin 10 as is alleged or at all.

2. The defendant denies that the plaintiff was lifting a roll of plastic-coated fabric as is alleged or at all.

3. The defendant denies that the plaintiff fell on descending the staircase as is alleged or at all.

4. The defendant denies that the plaintiff struck a jar of hydrochloric acid on the staircase or that same spilled on him as is alleged or at all.

5. The defendant denies that the plaintiff was caused to suffer, or did suffer, the onset of severe back pain as is alleged or at all.

6. The defendant denies that the plaintiff was caused to suffer an injury to his right leg as is alleged or at all.

7. The defendant denies that the plaintiff was caused to suffer burns to his legs, feet, hands and buttocks as is alleged or at all.

8. The defendant denies that the plaintiff suffered severe personal injuries, loss or damage as is alleged or at all.

9. If the plaintiff did suffer personal injury, loss or damage (which is denied) the defendant denies that the same was caused by the negligence or breach of duty of this defendant, it’s servants or agents, as is alleged or at all.

10. If the plaintiff did suffer personal injuries, loss or damage (which is denied) then the defendant says that the same was suffered or alternatively contributed to by the negligence of the plaintiff.

Joe Sunlight B.L.

To the Registrar
Central Office
Four Courts
Dublin 7

And:
Skin & Bone
Solicitors for the Plaintiff
Victory House
Broad St.
Dublin 1