Posts Tagged ‘Law Society’
I’ve an App for that …. Law without a Lawyer
A day doesn’t go by without us being bombarded by Apps. Sign up and get a free App for your iPhone. We have more Apps on our phones than we can use. Sure they may be handy at some stage in the future i.e. next week !
Over the past while, I’ve been horrified that many people, lawyers included, are saying ‘I’ve an App for that’… when discussing the law. Yes, I admit, some are educational but I am referring to those that are advocating that you can look after your own divorce, house sale or purchase and other such important matters which hugely impact on your life. Why go to College and study law; then spend time in a Law School to get your Practicing Certificate? Well according to these geniuses, no need at all. Sure save your money and use the App. They ask you why you are wasting money on these legal professionals when you can just use their App. Unfortunately, it would appear that many people are being taken in by this dangerous nonsense.
While I for one respect newly qualified lawyers, whether they be at the Bar or from the Law Society, they have their place in the overall legal framework. What most don’t have, is experience. That is only gained from many years of practice in their chosen fields. This experience is what comes into play when taking on a case for a client. The client deserves to go to law with experienced lawyers who have their interests solely at heart. Most spend many hours working up the case for their client and the full weight of their experience is called into play. Every client is unique. Their circumstances are not like any others. There may be similarities e.g. they have four children and have been married for twenty years. But that is where the similarity ends. To act as though two cases are the same would, in my opinion, equate to nothing short of professional negligence.
But I cannot afford thousands of pounds to employ a lawyer, or a team of lawyers as can be the case. Well, you cannot afford not to. How much did you spend on your wedding? That was a big event and a very important day for you. You spent what you could to celebrate in style. Yes, later you cut back on some items, but you didn’t do without what was important on the day. Well, your divorce costs should be thought of in similar terms. I am not suggesting you go to one of the Big Law Firms. They have access to the same Family Law Barristers as your local High Street Family Law Solicitor. Why people go to these firms is quite beyond me. In my experience,these firms are dealing with Corporate matters in the main and are not concerned with the day to day legal matters of the ordinary man and woman. They may take on your case if you’re doing your business with them or else if a relative of yours is. Your High Street Family Law Practitioner will give you a good personal service and instruct the appropriate barrister to get you through this difficult time.
I come across lay litigants a lot more today than I have in the past. While I respect the individual trying to do his own case, I do see the error of their ways. It is a nigh impossible task. To give credit where it is due, many Judges go out of their way to help such people. That alone will not help them get the justice which many deserve. So, when you download that magic App that will get you painlessly through your divorce or other pressing legal matter just remember… Law without a Lawyer is a fool’s paradise.
LegalEagleStar , Thursday , 7th. August , 2014 .
Could the end of the High Street Solicitor be…. around the corner ?
No Solicitors!!! (Photo credit: age3.141592)
I’ve just had the opportunity to glance through the ‘Survey of Irish law firms 2012/13 which landed on my desk today. The authors of the Survey, Smith & Williamson claim that 93 law firms took part in the Survey: 5 of the top 10; 14 mid-tier and 74 small firms. I must be included in the latter category having completed the Survey. I actually had a few minutes one day and decided to do my duty. That said, sadly none of my illuminating comments were reported although they claim that ‘a sample of participants’ comments have been included…’
By and large, in my opinion, the Survey is completely unrepresentative of the views of the majority of the profession. The views expressed are clearly of the Elites in the profession who have absolutely nothing in common with the High Street solicitor who the working man/woman has contact with. It’s interesting to read under the heading Impact of the Legal Services Regulation Bill ‘The Bill proposes the establishment of the Legal Services Regulatory Authority thereby removing the existing self-regulation system by the Law Society and Bar Council…..In spite of concerns regarding Government influence, the Law Society fundamentally altered its stance in April 2012 when it informed members of its formal support for the Authority proposal and stated it would be in the best interest of the public and the profession.’ This is yet another case where the interests of the Elites are indeed served while the independence offered by the High Street Solicitor representing an independent Legal Profession have been dismissed. In future then, the State will control the legal profession with the full support of the Law Society. It’s at times like this that I wonder what my membership of the Law Society is all about. They hold themselves out as representing the interests of the profession. They do not. It is a long time since they have represented my interests or the interests of my colleagues, bar those that serve Government and Multinational Enterprises including the Banks and Insurance Companies. To be fair to the authors of the Survey they do state ‘However, this stance does not appear to currently have the full support of the profession…’
I won’t bore you with further references to the Survey except to say that it is of little or no assistance to the average solicitor who must continue to work hard to etch out a living. Gone are the days of some 50 years ago when the fact of qualifying was enough to guarantee you a certain standard of living. Today the legal professions are not restricted to the sons and daughters of solicitors and those preferred members of society. They are made up of the sons and daughters of the working man who worked hard, night and day, to give their children a chance to pursue a career. The ability to study law was once the preserve of the chosen few. Today lawyers work hard to pursue the rights of their clients regardless of ability to pay and suchlike. That was not always the case. I should, in balance, say that there was always some good people in the profession who acted in such a manner but I believe that they were few and far between.
Over the past couple of years I’d had many a chat with fellow lawyers concerning the future of our profession. Many are close to closing shop. Some time ago, many said, they had purchased the building they worked from with hefty mortgages and now find the cost of repayments are putting an undue strain on their practices. The thought behind this action was to reduce the ever-increasing cost of renting rooms and also to provide for a pension for themselves when they retired. This scenario is not uncommon. It would appear that it is only time for many, before they must cease to practice. The inability to access funds from the Banks among other things has had catastrophic results for them. At a time when they need guidance and assistance from their professional body, they feel ostracised and alone in their fight for survival. Even the need to attend seminars to gain CPD points, while not cheap in itself, has them away from their practices when there are few enough hours in the working week as it is, to complete their legal work for their clients. It is sad the number of good lawyers, both solicitors and barristers who have had to cease practice over the last few years. Not only is it sad, it’s an absolute disgrace. The loss of these good people is being felt by those of us left to continue in practice. Little or no concern has been expressed by the Professional Bodies and one must wonder whether a return to the elitist ‘closed door’ profession of the past, is the prefered way forward for them.
LegalEagleStar , Monday , 10th December , 2012 .
Note: The No Solicitors Graphic used above is done so with a sense of humour as it is American and has a non-lawyer meaning.
Your access to Justice … as prescribed by a Group of Political Elites
Lawyer Bashing Is Fun (Photo credit: rkrichardson)
In the 1980s a meeting of ‘Elite’ politicians took place with the Insurance Industry. ( I could name this Group but will refrain from so doing.) Many such meetings were already happening concerning the banks but this one was composed essentially of the same participants. At this meeting concerns were raised by the Insurance Industry people regarding the changing face of the legal profession. With pressure on the Government to allow lawyers advertise their firms, concern was expressed that if the American Model was followed that profits would take a severe hit and something had to be done to stop this from happening. The lawyers present, and in particular a leading Law Society member expressed the view that the profession would not be allowed go this route and he would make sure that anyone trying to do so would be severely dealt with. Matters were initially laid to rest but it was not long before the ‘new breed’ of lawyer emerged which challenged those ‘traditional’ types. ( I am not referring to those that didn’t advertise. Just a cynical reference to those that controlled the profession.) Then followed more meetings with the interest group and it was not long before they hatched their own plan to deal with the ‘new breed’.
Juries were removed from Personal Injury Cases in 1988. That of course wasn’t enough as it was decided that Judges could not be trusted to reduce awards. It took them all of fifteen years to appoint Mary Harney to attempt to introduce a ‘Lawyer Free’ Personal Injury Assessment Board which in effect continues to this day. The reasoning behind this was not, as stated to assist and help the Citizen to get justice in their cases, in a speedier fashion, but was to kick lawyers out of the system. Sure, the Government had the interests of the citizens at heart. It was those greedy lawyers who ripped the citizen off. Nonetheless the ones to benefit were the Giant Insurance Companies. Thankfully the Courts subsequently found it unlawful to exclude lawyers from dealing with such cases. Today the Insurance Industry spend Millions of Euros each week in expensive television campaigns which denigrate the integrity of the citizen, suggesting that they are crooks ripping off the system. Strangely enough, no mention of the dreaded greedy lawyers in their current advertising campaign. No doubt though they will be the target of a future, more enhanced campaign.
On the family law front, divorce was being heralded as the new way forward. Having dealt a blow to those personal injury lawyers, it was not long before the mantra changed, slightly. We want Divorce and Now was penned but there was an addition to the narrative. We are entitled to Divorce and as a right, we shouldn’t have to pay for it. These chants didn’t fall on deaf ears. (I am not in any way condemning Legal Aid here, a right myself and many others fought hard for.) Those same politicians targeted ‘Divorce Lawyers’ as the scum of the earth. It would seem that it wasn’t just the ‘new breed’ of Personal Injury Lawyers who would be the target of their venom but now the Family Law Lawyer.
When the dreadful lawyers involved in Family Law became the prime target (I exclude Mr Shatter and other such elitist Firms here), we all started receiving documentation regarding mediation. This was the way of the future we were told. In England there had been a move by some lawyers to become involved in the mediation process and there has been a drive in Ireland in the recent past, to mediate as opposed to litigating family law matters. Let me just comment that the work of the lawyer on a daily basis is not what is widely believed. Yes, we issue proceeding to protect the interests of our clients but then meet with our opposing number to try to see what common ground we may have. Many issues are resolved this way. Other matters that are in dispute will be litigated on. The time of the Court is not wasted on matters that are not in dispute. Mediation is part and parcel of the daily work of the lawyer. Yes, it’s paid for by the client, as is mediation. Now we are told that lawyers should be taken out of the equation and let the mediator do the work. Right, so you pay the mediator instead. Then when the process is complete you attend at the office of your lawyer for advice on what had been agree. Well, in my experience the mediated agreement is far from complete and I’ve yet to see a mediated agreement which I couldn’t have done a better job on and been part of the whole process. Remember you still have to go to Court to get your Divorce, Judicial Separation or suchlike. I know this is controversial but I’m not convinced after my more than 30 years in practice that mediation is the way to go in the majority of family law cases.
So, law without a lawyer is the current trend. Just be careful for what you wish for, because a small group of elite politicians, bankers and Insurance Companies are driving this agenda and it is not for the benefit of the Citizen. The ‘new breed’ of lawyer deserve your support. Remember it is you they act for and your interest alone. And what’s refreshing in this day and age is that they will not be bought off. The political elites are in the ascendancy at the present time and becoming more dangerous by the day. Our current Minister for Justice ,who has a distinct distaste for the current ‘independent’ bar wants to do away with the profession as we know it and have a new legal profession which is answerable to him, as Minister for Justice. While I’m no lover of the current Law Society model which is unrepresentative of me and I have told as much, I do fear that under the direct control of the Minister for Justice that my independence will be lost and I will be unable to represent the interests of my client without the State looking over my shoulder and overseeing all my actions. This is not what an independent legal profession is all about. For too long have the Law Society acted only for the elite within the profession and have been unrepresentative of lawyers who acted, not for the Corporate sector but the citizen. They have allowed the elites among them progress at the expense of the grass root solicitor within the community whose sole concern is protecting the rights of the citizen. The loss to the profession of these excellent, and mainly young members, is an absolute disgrace and in years to come, will be regretted by many, when too late to rescue our dying profession.
LegalEagleStar , Thursday , 6th. September , 2012 .
Shatter’s Legal Services Bill spells doom for the young Junior Bar and protects the Elites to the detriment of the Citizen.
Image via Wikipedia
I have spent some time investigating the effects of the proposed changes in legislation by Minister Shatter and discussed same with several members of the Irish Bar. It was only after speaking with a young junior barrister that I realised the full impact of what will in fact take place. The article that follows has been written by a young female barrister and gives an insider’s view of what the reality of the changes will mean in practice. It is clear to me that Alan Shatter certainly did not have the interests of the Irish Citizen at heart when he set about drafting his proposed reforms. While those that know me are well aware on my views on the Troika and their suspicious agenda, I feel that the implementation of the proposed reforms will undermine the practice of law in this country to the detriment of the citizen and should be opposed by all right thinking citizens before it is too late. Beware of the Elites and their hunger for power and control of the citizen. Don’t say you haven’t been warned !
The Legal Services Regulation Bill[1]
The Irish legal profession has always relied on the essential requirement of being a completely independent profession, the new Legal Services Bill completely undermines that notion. Indeed it would seem that it is Minister Shatter’s personal agenda which is at the core of this new bill. An agenda which undermines the core of the Irish Bar; independence. The Bill comes about as a requirement under the EU/IMF bailout and is said to be a necessity in the profession. While it is acceded that some reform in the area of legal services is both needed and welcomed, both by the Bar Council and indeed the Law Society, the Bill in its proposed form goes far beyond the proposals presented both by the Legal Costs Working Group and the Competition Authority as well as going completely beyond and even against international principles in regulating the legal profession.
The public are being wrongly informed that this Bill will reduce costs for the consumer when in fact, the opposite will occur. The ‘independent referral bar’ is an equal opportunity workplace, based in the law library where barristers are sole traders. If the idea of barristers forming partnerships with other barristers, solicitors, tax accountants etc come into place, the independent referral bar will be lost forever. As a Barrister in the early years of practice, the idea of barristers going into such partnerships is a frightening proposition. Many colleagues with years of experience and established practices will have people lining up to form partnerships with them but many young practitioners wont have such luck. Such partnerships would likely divide the legal profession even more in that the big firms would go into partnership with several established, highly ranked and busy practitioners and create a sort of monopoly, not dissimilar to the US financial sector, and look what happened there. Smaller firms would find themselves in significant difficulty trying to complete with such large firms and while the bar in its current form is accessible to all, the proposals make access to barristers and access therefore to justice more restricted.
The proposed changes would create a barrier for those people who wish to join the profession and indeed those younger practitioners wishing to stay and establish themselves within the profession. The UK have a system known as chambers. In the English Bar Council’s 2006 Report, only 17.5% of people graduating from the Bar would obtain a place in chambers. This stage is known as pupilage (similar to what is referred to as ‘deviling’ in this jurisdiction) so this system, if brought about here, would restrict access to the profession even further. It is difficult in the current economic climate to establish yourself as a self-employed person in any area of work, not least the bar. However, the current system, while it is competitive and challenging, what it provides is an equal opportunity for every person who has qualified, a chance to make it in the profession.
A chambers type system, like that which exists in the UK, would see several partnerships consisting of a select few barristers and which would in return be linked to the large firms and therefore increase costs rather than reduce them. Young barristers frequently take on cases on a pro bona basis for several reasons, experience, interest of justice etc but also to establish relationships with solicitors, an obvious essential in creating a practice and living for yourself at the bar. A young barrister, if lucky enough to even get in a chambers or partnership, would not be able to take on such work without the approval of a higher power. This cannot be said to increase access to justice and reduce costs. The barrister is restricted in taking on the work and the consumer cannot then afford to take the case.
While I see these changes from a young practitioners point of view, these partnerships would also cause serious problems for the consumer and access to justice from their point of view. Should they not be able to afford the sometimes inordinate fees which these larger firms charge, they in effect, cannot have access to some of the more established barristers or barristers who have an expertise in a certain area, as they will be in these partnerships. In the current system, whether you go to a large or small firm, if you request a particular barrister for whatever particular reason known to yourself, if they hold themselves out as an expert in a certain area, they must take on your case[2].
The Bill brings about new levies for practitioners, another cost which will impact the small firms and young barristers. The new structure will bring about a situation where barristers liability insurance will be more specific as opposed to general as it is in its current form. As a young barrister, you take work where you can get it and you pay a general insurance amount which covers all areas. The new proposals could change that and your premium could go up depending on your areas of practice and therefore you would have to turn down work, which could be a new area and therefore a new opportunity for you, because you haven’t got insurance to cover you in that specific area. No young barrister would ever or should ever have to turn down work.
A huge issue for the profession in general is that it will effectively be governed entirely by the Government or, more specific, the Minister for Justice, therefore removing the word independent from every area of the legal profession. The proposed Legal Services Regulatory Authority (LSRA) would be the regulatory body which would contain eleven members, seven of which would be entirely Government appointed. Only four from the Bar Council and Law Society. Practitioners would pay for this and the Government would run it. The LSRA would and must refer to the Minister at almost every point or hurdle.
The ‘separation of powers’ which is at the core of the Irish Constitution is in serious jeopardy. Justice must not just be done, but be seen to be done. The former Chief Justice Ronan Keane recently stated that regulators of the legal profession must not only be seen to be independent but be truly independent in every aspect, the Legal Services Regulation Bill completely “Shatters” that notion.
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.
Help ! My Daughter’s a Lawyer.
Image via Wikipedia
The legal profession has come under scrutiny again since the arrival of the IMF on our door step. Reform of the profession is on the Agenda and nearly all of the public feel, well about time. These lawyers are ripping us off and charge enormous fees that’s what they do. Reform is like a stick to beat the lawyers with and very few disagree. It’s like, well they are responsible for all the trouble we’re in, aren’t they?
Today the legal profession is made up of your sons and daughters who have studied hard, gone to College and then entered Law School either in The Law Society for solicitors or The King’s Inns for barristers. Most qualify in their mid 20’s seeking employment. Those who pursue a career at the Bar will spend, say two years ‘deviling’ and with the help of You, their parents, will spend at least another five or six years attempting to establish themselves at the Bar. So by the time they are 30 or so, they may start to make a living. Most do not and must seek employment elsewhere. As for a Solicitor, you must spend a number of years as an apprentice and pay very high fees to the Law Society during your training. Unlike when I was apprenticed, you now can ‘get paid’ during your apprenticeship by your Solicitor. These payments are more like pocket-money and go no way to enabling you to pay your way through your ‘time’. I’m told it’s about Euro 200 a week but not all get paid this. So, many work for nothing as otherwise, needing an apprenticeship, they could not commence their studies at The Law Society. So, after all the expense and time spent at study, the young solicitor needs to seek out employment. Today there are more lawyers seeking employment than at any time in the past. Remember that they could not have qualified as either solicitors or barristers without your help. They are remember, your sons and daughters.
In another era, the law was not a career you could pursue without family connections or else come from a wealthy background and usually have political connections. They were in effect ‘closed’ professions. There was as a result more work for fewer people. If you could work hard for a few years you were guaranteed a good living and for life. Conveyancing fees were 1% plus £100. Think about it. The £100 that is. By dealing with maybe three or four sales you could pay your overheads including rent, staff, expenses, taxes etc. for a full year. Those times are now gone except of course, for the select few. Today the fees from three or four sales would hardly cover one weeks overheads. The more the professions opened up the less lucrative they’ve become. This is not a bad thing in itself but goes some way to show how times have changed. I am not attempting to justify the enormous fees charged by some law firms. But these are indeed the exception.
There is a clear division within the legal profession today. Between those who act for the State, Banks, Insurance companies and such like and then ‘the rest’ of us. If economists and other commentators and I include David McWilliams ( a man I have great respect for ) among those who criticise the lawyers, then they should not tar all with the same brush. Don’t direct your criticism at the average lawyer as to do so is to do a great injustice to those in the legal profession who spend their lives working for ‘the man in the street’. These lawyers represent you on a daily basis and fight to protect you from the abuses of the State and Society. Without them we have no chance to fight to protect the rights of those in society who are most vulnerable. Today those people are You. You have worked hard to provide your family with a home. That home is now under threat from the Banks and their allies in politics and elsewhere. You will be faced down by these Banks and they will employ, yes at great expense, the services of professionals, including lawyers and accountants . How are you to fight for your rights if not by employing the services of your local family solicitor or other lawyers who have in effect your life in their hands? Yes we need reform of the legal system and those of us on the coal front have been screaming for same for years. But we must get a level playing field where your sons and daughters can practise for the benefit of you, the working public and not an elitist minority.
Do not bundle all lawyers into the same group Mr McWilliams. Tribunal Lawyers and the fees they received are not the norm. Lawyers in general have the good of society at heart and spend their lives promoting justice and equality and the rights of the less well off than anyone else. Don’t let those that want to do away with your rights succeed in furthering the notion of ‘a lawyer free zone’. You are the one that will suffer most not those who run the Banks and Large Corporations who will never be short of ‘legal advice’ to pursue their ill-gotten gains.
Next week I will deal with the cosy relationship between the State and the Insurance Industry and how Your Rights have been severely curtailed to increase the wealth of the ‘privileged classes’.
LegalEagleStar , Wednesday 6th. April , 2011
LegalEagleStar 