She was defending her cousin on a dangerous dog prosecution but had to be escorted from court after kissing a solicitor, swearing at an usher and insulting the prosecutor while “fortified” with brandy.
Finally, if there exists a Judicial Review list in the High Court consisting of cases from the work of one judge, is it not time to look at the judge, as well as his errors?
Here are some issues not addressed so far (in the papers I read). (A) Quinn Insurance has a board of Directors. Sean Quinn is not on that board. The board has said nothing about the seizure of the company by the Provisional Administrators. Sean Quinn never stops talking about it and issuing press releases and public statements, including TV interviews. Is he in fact in charge of Quinn Insurance? This is possible. Under Section 27 of the Companies Act 1990:- […]
This can cause difficulty for the insured person, but more often than not, it causes profound difficulties for the insurance company.
Generally, the liability of a solicitor (arising out of his/her professional practise) is unlimited.
Failure to settle a case, or failure to settle until “the door of the court” may be caused by a failure to assess where the balance in the case lies, or it may be evidence of a deferment of settlement to the day of trial to maximize the compensation discount a defendant would like to get from an injured plaintiff.
But we should see him as he is, warts and all. We should not have to endure the consequence of more mythical thinking by the judiciary (and the Law Library). The Attorney General is down in the arena with everybody else. He fights for his clients. He represents their interests. He should not be accorded the deference he gets from the judiciary and the Law Library.
1. It was (arguably) beyond the remit of the High Court inspector to make exhaustive comment on the giving of legal advice to Mr. Jim Flavin (“Flavin”) on the legality of the sale by Flavin of Fyffes’ shares. 2. However, the advice was wrong, the inspector says. (He could hardly say anything else, given that the Supreme Court effectively said the same thing). 3. Consequently, the question as to whether the solicitor who gave that advice was negligent could arise. […]
The client has voluntarily transferred, or directed the transfer, of the money to the solicitor. On that ground alone the average policeman is immediately bemused at the beginning of any hypothetical investigation of a client’s complaint. It takes a specialised policeman, from a fraud squad, to conduct that investigation. In Ireland we have inadequate resources to investigate fraud.
As a practical matter, therefore, it is a necessary evil that the regulation of solicitors exist and that it apply with full force to the management of clients’ money.
Having been cavalier about its “regulatory�? function, it was forced to cede that responsibility to the Legal Services Board. The Board is one of those independent bodies to which there is always appended the word “independent�? when it is mentioned by its spokespersons and mentors.