# Dublin law firm faces €25m damages bill over bank loans



## Brendan Burgess (16 Mar 2012)

From [broken link removed]

*Dublin law firm faces €25m damages bill over bank loans*





> Mr Justice Brian McGovern said the breach of duty by BCM Hanby  Wallace to KBC was “egregious” and “most serious” because the firm not  only failed to ensure proper security was in place but deliberately  misled the bank by either suggesting security was in place or the funds  would not be released to the borrowers until security was in place.
> 
> 
> The  breach of duty amounted to “a deception” because the firm was aware the  required security was not in place but led the bank to believe it was,  he said.
> ...


Or as they say on their [broken link removed]: 



> *Your Legal Business Partners*
> 
> *ByrneWallace is one of the largest, most progressive and dynamic law firms in Ireland.*
> 
> ...


----------



## McCrack (17 Mar 2012)

Have you a question Brendan?


----------



## Brendan Burgess (17 Mar 2012)

Not really.

It's just a very interesting legal case. 

It's extraordinary that a judge would describe the practice of a large legal firm as "deception". 

From today's



> BYRNE WALLACE expressed shock at yesterday’s High Court ruling, and is believed to be considering appealing the decision.“We’re  clearly very disappointed with the outcome and shocked at the  suggestion of deception. We’re considering all our options going  forward,” a spokesman for the legal firm said.



Brendan


----------



## NOAH (2 Apr 2012)

why dont they get struck off???  what else must they do to achieve that accolade??
and we go on about berties few thousand,  now 25 milliion thats a tidy sum.

will await developments


----------



## mercman (3 Apr 2012)

There won't be any major developments. The Law society regulates themselves. A bit like Turkeys voting for Xmas.


----------



## Bronte (3 Apr 2012)

McCrack said:


> Have you a question Brendan?


 
All I can say is WOW. And I'll have to look up egregious unless someone more bright then me can enlighten me. 

What a warning to other solicitors and me as a consumer, don't rely on a solicitors undertaking. Ever. That's my reading of it. And there are solicitors undertakings all the time, on every property transaction in general.

This celtic tiger, it is only unbelievable what went on.


----------



## mathepac (3 Apr 2012)

*egregious:* conspicuously and outrageously bad or reprehensible, heavy stuff from his Judgeship.


----------



## Bronte (3 Apr 2012)

mathepac said:


> *egregious:* conspicuously and outrageously bad or reprehensible, heavy stuff from his Judgeship.


 
Oh so they're that bad. And if I understand correctly they are still in business. 

Their defence, and this from top lawyers was incredible. The bank, our client, shouldn't have loaned the money and therefore we as solicitors, whose sole job it was to secure the properties, did not do so, is that a correct understanding of their defence.


----------



## Purple (3 Apr 2012)

We need a tribunal.
Pay €300'000'000 to the politicians this time so that we can be told what we already know. 

By the way, there's no point in people acting shocked; why should solicitors be immune to the same culture that was endemic in this country for the last 40 years (and probably still is)?


----------



## Bronte (4 Apr 2012)

Purple said:


> By the way, there's no point in people acting shocked; why should solicitors be immune to the same culture that was endemic in this country for the last 40 years (and probably still is)?


 
Sorry but I find this case shocking. That a large Dublin firm could act so negligently, it's the basics of the job to make sure that title is good for the bank. But what I find even more shocking is that they are still in practice. Actually that last bit I'm not shocked at, it is not independant regulation after all. Still and all the boys in Blackhall place can't be too happy with this.  

What's interesting is that the original firm no longer exists, so how are KBC able to take a case against them. Also are the Law Society investigating them for this unbelievable level of work. 

There must a reason that it is now a new firm. I don't believe that any firm can repay 25 million and costs of millions. Will that be from the insurance fund. 

I was incorrect in the previous post on their defence, it was contributory negligence they were aiming at.


----------



## csirl (4 Apr 2012)

Bronte said:


> What's interesting is that the original firm no longer exists, so how are KBC able to take a case against them.
> .


 
Law firms are partnerships between the individual partners. Therefore it is the individuals rather than the firm that is sued. Usually each partner is individually listed as a defendant e.g.

If ABC Ltd sues XYZ Solicitors, who's partners are Joe Bloggs, John Doe and A.N. Other, the case would be:

ABC Ltd v Bloggs, Doe and Other (practising under the name of XYZ solicitors)


----------



## Purple (23 Apr 2012)

Bronte said:


> Sorry but I find this case shocking. That a large Dublin firm could act so negligently, it's the basics of the job to make sure that title is good for the bank.




I agree that it's their job but solicitors are just people doing a job; no better or worse than anyone else. They are just as susceptible to a gradual erosion of adherence to their duty of care as any other group. During the boom banks, investors and the state was playing fast and loose. It would be absurd to think that none of them (all be it a small number) would behave in the same way. Why would solicitors be the only group in the sector not contaminated by the same attitudes?


----------



## oldshaft (23 Apr 2012)

Morals have definitely been eroded in the large legal firms they are now so fee hungry that big firms have no concern about acting for every party to a transaction or set of proceedings. Perhaps they engage in blatant conflicts of interest to pay the high rents for their new Celtic tiger era offices. In addition many of the largest firms decided to invest in property speculation deals and are now hurting financially.

Step 1 in disregarding obvious conflicts of interests is to tell your clients that you have Chinese walls in your practice and supposedly the Solicitors on the first floor will not talk to the Solicitors on the second floor.

A big law firm is more likely to get away with a blatant conflict of interest/Chinese walls on the basis the law firm usually obtains their client's consent to act for a number parties to a transaction. When your client is the state who is used the getting the short end of the stick and the other party may be happy to go along with on the basis that because the firm is acting for each party that the firm should be able to get the matter over the line at the state’s expense.

It is possible that Byrne Wallace was acting for the borrower and became confused as to whose interests it should have protected.


----------

