The Morality of Lawyers acting for Banks

Eviction in Ireland around 1879 (“Land War”) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I qualified over thirty years ago. During that time I’ve had the pleasure of meeting with and acting against some great lawyers, both solicitors and barristers. They fight tooth and nail for their clients and after an exhausting battle, we retire for coffee, or stronger and engage with each other as colleagues. I have great memories over those years and sadly some of these people have died and moved on to greener pastures. They epitomised what the law was about. The battle was by and large, a clean one. You didn’t have to watch your back, just concentrate on the job in hand. Your clients interests were what it was about. There was always a great satisfaction when the job was done and your client went off happy. As I am not in the habit of losing cases, I can say that this was nearly always the case. That might sound smug. It’s not meant to be. I have always surrounded myself with the best team available and this has been the recipe for success.

Unfortunately, all encounters have not been as described above. When dealing with the Irish Nationwide on behalf of a client who was in financial difficulties, I encountered a somewhat different story. The client was clearly in arrears but upon investigation I couldn’t make head nor tail of the figures. No matter how I read them, they didn’t add up. The Nationwide’s solicitors just wanted an Order for Possession and were not prepared to engage in any manner so the matter proceeded in the Circuit Court. Judge Frank Roe, then President of the Circuit Court had the same difficulty with the case as I had and decided to strike out their case and awarded costs to my client. Some days later I received a phone call from the Solicitor for the Building Society. It took me aback somewhat. He told me that he was phoning me on the instructions of his client. He named his instructing Arrears Manager and said he had instructions to call me  ‘a Liar’. I asked him to repeat what he had just said and indeed he did. I asked him did he do everything his client told him to do? He replied Yes, of course. I hung up on him after a few brief words which I will not repeat.

When I was qualified a couple of years I was asked by my local friendly Bank if I would take a look at something for them. As I knew the Assistant Manager, I said ‘No problem’. I was expecting something of a personal nature as I do get the odd call from them when they encounter matrimonial difficulties and such like. What I was presented with was a list of debts outstanding at the branch. I browsed through the list and was horrified as it was like reading a list of old age pensioners in the area. The amounts varied from Fifteen to One Thousand pounds. I stormed into the Bank and informed them that under no circumstances would I take action on their behalf against these pensioners and in fact if they pursued them I would act for free for them against the Bank. I think about three of the pensioners came into me and happily all arrears were written off. It opened my eyes as to how the Banks treat weak and vulnerable people and I made a decision that day that I would never act on behalf of a Bank or Building Society ever, as a matter of principle.

Some months ago I was disgusted, while listened to the Morning Show on Newstalk, to hear a Solicitor talking about how he was really doing well acting in repossessions for the local Banks. He had no qualms about so acting. He went on to say that since the recession had taken a grip that he was now dealing with ‘a better class of client’.  I sometimes wonder about the morality of acting on behalf of some people. If solicitors really valued their clients and by clients I mean people, the citizens of this country, would they not think twice and look beyond the professional fee. How can you in all honesty act for such institutions as the Banks and the cohorts in having someone evicted from their family home ?  Do they have a conscience?  While in other countries lawyers are to the forefront of social reform and indeed put their lives on the line for their principles, it would seem that in Ireland today the lure of manna is all that excites some people who I would once have expected to be men and women of integrity.

LegalEagleStar , Wednesday , 25th. April , 2012 .

My Blog tomorrow deals with Divorce in Ireland today in this Economic Downturn

Image via Wikipedia

Today in Ireland, unlike in prior times, the unfortunate person faced with Family Law Breakdown is facing  a dilemma. Irish Banks and Building Society’s are refusing to rearrange mortgages and in so doing are frustrating the terms of many a Divorce. Also, what lawyer should you instruct? Do you pay high fees to Big Name Firms? Are they worth it or are they ripping you off? What is the Barrister’s role in the process and how do I get the best to act for me?

In tomorrow’s Blog I will give my views on Divorce in Ireland today and shed some light on the whole legal drama.

Solicitors Mutual Defence Fund Debacle

Image by saxarocks via Flickr

Many years ago when I heard about the formation of the SMDF,  I was excited because I felt this was a great idea that my Professional Body was endorsing something by Solicitors for the benefit of Solicitors. Great idea. I immediately joined and remained with the SMDF until I observed practises which I disliked. I aired my views and this resulted in one of their senior Solicitors telling me that if the SMDF didn’t cover me then nobody would. I took exception to these remarks and immediately contacted the late Padraic Smith, Insurance Broker who arranged an Insurance Policy for me, at a fraction of what I was paying in Premiums to the SMDF. Remember it is a Defence Fund, not a Policy of Insurance. At the end of the following January I had a visit from The Law Society. This was not a problem and a very nice gentleman carried out an inspection of my Accounts. Upon completion I asked if this was a random visit or were they looking for something in particular. I was horrified to be told that The Law Society had been advised that I was practising without Insurance and I was told (He said “Don’t quote me”) who had reported me. I was horrified, no I was disgusted.

This year, all solicitors, bar the Elite, have had horrendous problems renewing their Insurance Policies. No help was forthcoming from the Law Society. In fact a colleague told me the Society had referred him to the SMDF as a Fund of last resort but had heard nothing back from them. Thankfully he finally got Insurance. There is talk of a New Policy to cover the profession but now I am told this will not take place this coming year because of one reason or another.

We are now being asked, like the Irish People were by Brian Lenihan to trust in him. That the Banks needed saving and we must Guarantee them. We now as a profession are being asked something similar by those who may well have advised Mr Lenihan on his course of action. Instead of the use of the word ‘collegiality’, Lenihan used the word ‘patriotism’.

We have heard both arguments as to why we should or should not Vote for the present Proposal. To ‘save our colleagues’ or not, some say. That is not my reading of the situation. It would appear to me, from a perusal of the very limited information now to hand that some questionable decisions were made by the SMDF as to investment of Funds etc. Maybe the SMDF Members should be investigating the operation of the fund and demanding to know what questions were put to Counsel and what they received by way of Advice. There are too many unanswered questions. To now ask the profession as a whole to Vote Yea or Nay without a full Brief is, I feel erroneous. A lot of Firms have made a hell of a lot of money in Legal Fees as a result of their acting in many Court actions for the SMDF. To now expect the average solicitor, who has been put to the pin of his/her collar in recent times to pay up is quite extraordinary. A lot of solicitors have lost their jobs and many of those who did succeed in getting Insurance Cover have had to dig deep into their own pockets to pay the premiums as many Banks have refused to fund the cost of this Insurance. Where was the leadership of The Law Society when we all needed help then? From the Memorandum of Vincent Crowley provided to us, it shows clearly that The Law Society want to ensure a Yes Vote at all costs. They cannot afford to lose face. They are telling the profession how to Vote not asking them for a Direction. Don’t get me wrong. I admire the majority of the people working in Blackhall Place. They are good people. My grievance is with the Elite, the politicians who want to control us and these people have great power. The majority should be represented not the powerful minority.

Remember when PIAB was proposed by Dorothea Dowling on the instructions of Mary Harney T.D., there were a lot of Conferences convened to discuss the Proposal. I attended one in Trinity College where Ms Dowling clearly set out the proposals and referred to PIAB as a ‘solicitor free zone’. Ken Murphy attended and spoke at this conference on behalf on the Law Society. He said that the Law Society had reservations about PIAB but were not simply against it. At the luncheon recess I was in the company of Ms Dowling and I spoke with Mr Murphy who responded to me that he and the Law Society didn’t agree with my views on PIAB. My views were to fight for the right of the citizen to bring their case before a Court instead of having to have it first submitted to a Government Agency. The introduction of PIAB has contributed greatly to the loss of jobs in the profession. Clearly, The Law Society showed no concern for them as they were “solicitors who advertised” and suchlike. As regards the change in procedure where Solicitors must now give a Certificate of Title to The Financial Institutions instead of the previous system where you closed the purchase at the Offices of the Solicitor for the said Institution, who will stand up and take credit for that disaster? That decision alone has been detrimental to the legal profession. How many jobs lost to the profession by that stroke of genius ? Hasn’t the Profession been brought into disrepute by the actions of some of its members who used this daft change in procedures to enrich themselves? A lot of us spoke about such a thing being possible many years ago but the Law Society was unconcerned.

Please use your Vote, make up your own mind and don’t be taken in by the argument that there are no other options. We are lawyers and deserve better than being told that we must Vote without full disclosure of all the facts. How would you advise your own clients if they sought your advice on such a Vote?

LegalEagleStar , Tuesday , 7th. June 2011.