An unknown number of the Council members of the Law Society are insured with the SMDF. They are, consequently, members of the SMDF. Although unknown, the number must be large because they chose as their spokesman a person who is a member of the SMDF.
The bailout by the Law Society will allow them, like war criminals amongst refugees, to discard their “uniforms”, destroy their party records and vanish, for a time at least, into the general population of innocent solicitors.
The Council of the Law Society has denied that the author of the supportive opinion on the Council’s bailout plan is Dermot Gleeson SC, former Chairman of Aillied Irish Banks. The denial came weeks after a journalist cited him as the author of a critical opinion commissioned by the Council.
Then perhaps the Law Society would treat its members with respect and convey those answers (or rebuff!) to the members before they come to vote on the SMDF bailout.
There are big problems for the Council in adopting this course of action: either their own legal advisor will appear to have been chosen for underhand reasons of chicanery or/and the Council will be deprived of the very best advice on the issues most affecting the SMDF and its members. Surely the SMDF and its advisors are the experts in that area?
In the same vein, is it not obvious that no solicitor induced to take “insurance” cover with SMDF can be said to be acting in the interests of the Law Society when he or she votes in the postal poll?
As for the directors of SMDF, there are two questions.
A) Do you accept responsibility for the mis-management of SMDF, resulting in its insolvency?
B) If you deny SMDF is (or will be) insolvent how do you think you can persuade a court to appoint a liquidator to a solvent company, as your letter seems to suggest?
o, the evidence of implausibility in the Law Society narrative is this; there is no evidence of admission by the directors of SMDF of their presumed disgrace.