# Bogus Solicitor



## Mobydick (31 Jul 2009)

Involved in an upcoming court case with neighbour re their animal causing damage to our property.  We are suing the female of the house.  However we received many over the top letters from her solicitor, threatening us and trying to get us to drop case.  I was suspicious and did a bit of detective work and found out that her life partner, who shares house with her, was actually her solicitor tho he used another address. It appears he has some legal background as he definitely know "legal speak". Have also found out thru law society that he is not listed with them and shld not be representing her or anyone else.  Will the judge consider this information when case comes to court.  Her solicitor already tried to represent her at a hearing to have case adjourned on their behalf. Tks Mobydick.


----------



## csirl (31 Jul 2009)

Have you checked if he is trained Barrister? The majority of people who are called to the Bar do not end up working full time in the profession and some work in totally unconnected fields. It's possible that he's a Barrister. Check with the Bar Council.


----------



## Mobydick (31 Jul 2009)

Thanks csirl.  I will check that as well tho when he tried to represent her at court our solicitor informed judge he was not qualified to do so, so judge told him to sit down and butt out.  I was wondering tho will the judge take into fact that he not only tried to "act" as her solicitor for the last 18months, dragging this case out, without letting our solicitor know his relationship with his client and that they actually live together.  I am absolutely furious about their deception and intend to make sure he does not get away with it. Thks Moby


----------



## Brendan Burgess (31 Jul 2009)

Obviously he should not represent himself as a solicitor, so you should report him to the Law Society.

But how does that change your case against her? Either you have a valid case or you don't. The representation should not matter that much.

Brendan


----------



## Mobydick (31 Jul 2009)

Thanks Brendan. We do have a very valid case.  But my main point is surely someone can not pretend to be a solicitor, giving false accusations about my husband in letters to our solicitor which the guards have backed my husband up on and dragging this case on for 18mths, and literally walk into an Irish court and think he can get away with this behaviour.  I have already given his details to Law Society and complained to his embassy.  I just think they have a complete nerve and am determined not to let him get away with it.  Moby


----------



## Towger (31 Jul 2009)

Mobydick said:


> Involved in an upcoming court case with neighbour re their animal causing damage to our property.


 
This might be covered by their house insurance, if so, would it not be easer to just make a claim to their insurance company.?


----------



## Mobydick (31 Jul 2009)

thanks Towger.  They are renting so not sure if they would have house insurance.  Anyway, they just wont admit to owning the dog. Even tho I see them walking it regularly and it sits in the window staring out all day.  They used to just let it out to roam all day which is how the accident happened in the first place, but they having been intend on dragging this out and have now adjourned case twice.  Am I the only one amazed that people would be so stupid to walk into a court and think they could get away with this behaviour? Moby


----------



## billythefish (31 Jul 2009)

If everyone is denying ownership of the dog, call the local dog warden who will most likely come looking for a licence. Tell them you have reason to believe there is an unlicenced dog at the premises.


----------



## Mobydick (31 Jul 2009)

Thanks Billythefish, I rang council to see if I could find out if dog has licence and if so whose name was it in but they wouldn't give me information.  We really don't want anything to happen to the dog itself tho, even tho it is very badly behaved, they are responsible for its actions.  I just can't get over their behaviour.    So after all that she then denies ownership!  Moby.


----------



## NovaFlare77 (31 Jul 2009)

May I suggest that you edit your earlier posts to take out the detail of what happened so as not to potentially prejudice the case? The last thing you'd want is to have someone in the court room having to excuse themselves from the case because they read this thread and potentially setting your case back another period of time. I know it's highly unliklely, but it only needs to happen once.

As for the query raised in your original post, if the man is claiming to be something that he is not, then you should definitely report him to the appropriate authorities/body. Ask your solicitor how to go about this. Also, there _may_ be a conflict of interest as he is living in the premises in which the dog allegedly lives. Again, your solicitor should be able to give you information about this.

As for your point about the man not being Irish, I don't see how this is relevant in anyway, unless he is living in the country illegally.


----------



## Mobydick (31 Jul 2009)

Thanks NovaFlare77. Am new to this board so have edited as you suggested.  The only reason I mentioned he was not Irish was that I then said I complained to his embassy, but you are right, it is not relevant and I shouldn't have mentioned it.  Apologies.


----------



## Ancutza (5 Aug 2009)

> I have already given his details to Law Society and complained to his embassy.



Not at all a legal-eagle but, if he is a non-national, would he not have to have a licence/qualification to practice in Ireland and can he provide it to you?


----------



## Legal Eagle (6 Aug 2009)

Ancutza said:


> Not at all a legal-eagle but, if he is a non-national, would he not have to have a licence/qualification to practice in Ireland and can he provide it to you?


 

Yes, every Solicitor in this state must be registered with the Law Society of Ireland. They are the Governing body over Solicitors in Ireland.


----------



## Bronte (6 Aug 2009)

You are suing a non national who is renting a property, is prepared to deny owning a dog, and is prepared to go into court and send letters purporting to be a legal representative.  How much are you looking for and what are your solicitors fees ?  If you get any significant judgement it may be pointless and it will be you that ends up paying.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (6 Aug 2009)

Bronte said:


> You are suing a non national who is renting a property, is prepared to deny owning a dog, and is prepared to go into court and send letters purporting to be a legal representative.  How much are you looking for and what are your solicitors fees ?  If you get any significant judgement it may be pointless and it will be you that ends up paying.



Very good point. Although the alternative is to do nothing about a nuisance, which is also unpalatable. 

Make sure you get some clear order from the judge which you can ask the Gardai to enforce.

Brendan


----------



## Mobydick (6 Aug 2009)

Thanks everyone for your replies.  The person we are suing is not a non-national, her partner/"solicitor" is. The amount we are looking for is not a huge amount, around 2k, however, it has gone passed that once we realised they were being extremely underhand about the whole thing.  It is a matter of principle now.  As far as we are concerned, if they are prepared to go to court then we are prepared to expose her partners (and her as she was fully aware of what he was doing) activities to the court and the police and let them deal with it.  Are we wrong to do this? Am not getting the feeling that many of you are surprised by this behaviour. Moby


----------



## csirl (6 Aug 2009)

It is possible that this person is a solicitor licensed in another country, so technically speaking they may be telling the truth - has anyone actually asked him about his qualifications to practice? I believe there are circumstances whereby a foreign solicitor can represent someone in court in Ireland.


----------



## Mobydick (6 Aug 2009)

Thanks csirl.  From the beginning our solicitor asked this question of him and he ignored it.  Law Society confirmed to me that if he was not on their list he was not allowed represent anyone.  He also never declared his "interest" in this case. And finally, if his partner does not own the dog, then surely he does. Moby


----------



## Thirsty (6 Aug 2009)

We so need a Judge Judy here....would RTE go for it do you think?


----------



## csirl (6 Aug 2009)

> And finally, if his partner does not own the dog, then surely he does. Moby


 
Maybe he does 

Have you thought about putting the landlords name on as a co-defendant due to the ambiguity over the dog ownership? If it doesnt belong to the tenants, it must belong to the landlord or be there with his permission by logical deduction - tell landlord that he is included because the tenants say its not their dog. No doubt the landlord will clarify matters or get rid of the tenants.


----------



## Mobydick (6 Aug 2009)

Think Judge Judy could settle this one pretty quick Kildrought.

Thank you Csirl. Very worthwhile advice. Much appreciated. Moby.


----------



## Vanilla (6 Aug 2009)

csirl said:


> Maybe he does
> 
> Have you thought about putting the landlords name on as a co-defendant due to the ambiguity over the dog ownership? If it doesnt belong to the tenants, it must belong to the landlord or be there with his permission by logical deduction - tell landlord that he is included because the tenants say its not their dog. No doubt the landlord will clarify matters or get rid of the tenants.


 

Oooh, you're awful but I like you.

Maybe an O'Byrne letter first though?


----------



## nuac (6 Aug 2009)

See Section 2 of DOg COntrol Act 1986 - dog deemed to be householders.   This definition is limited to a licensing prosecution, but will be persuasive for most District Judges.

If Council wont disclose whether dog licensed, try a Freedom of Information request.


----------



## Mobydick (6 Aug 2009)

Nuac, thanks a million. That sounds great, will check into that. Moby.

Vanilla, what is an O'Byrne letter? Moby.


----------



## sam h (6 Aug 2009)

nuac said:


> See Section 2 of DOg COntrol Act 1986 - dog deemed to be householders. This definition is limited to a licensing prosecution, but will be persuasive for most District Judges.
> 
> If Council wont disclose whether dog licensed, try a Freedom of Information request.


 
Nuac, can you clarify when you say "householder, do you mean the tenant or the owner?

Thanks


----------



## Vanilla (6 Aug 2009)

Mobydick said:


> Nuac, thanks a million. That sounds great, will check into that. Moby.
> 
> Vanilla, what is an O'Byrne letter? Moby.


 
An O'Byrne letter is used where you have more than one potential defendant to the action and you cannot know which one is the liable party. If you simply join all parties to your action and subsequently only one is liable, the one who is not liable could look for their costs to be awarded against you. The O'Byrne letter basically is sent to ALL parties and it says to them- one of you is liable and I can't figure out which one so which ever one it is had better own up now cause if I have to sue all of you I'm going to look for all the costs to be awarded against the guilty party. So you're then not held liable for the costs of the innocent party, a neat trick.


----------



## Mobydick (6 Aug 2009)

Thanks Vanilla. Comprendo. Moby.

Btw I still can't believe none of you are mentioning the fact that her boyfriend was pretending to act as her solicitor, using a different address (as if he had nothing to do with her otherwise, just a solicitor she had engaged in this matter).  These people are in their fifties.  I am totally shocked that they would have the nerve to do this, but they have picked on the wrong neighbours........Surely this is an odd case. Moby.


----------



## Bronte (7 Aug 2009)

What damage did the dog do.  What kind of dog is it (size, breed).  2K is a lot of damage.


----------



## Mobydick (7 Aug 2009)

Hi Bronte.  Caused considerable damage to motorcycle and helmet.  Moby.


----------



## SarahMc (8 Aug 2009)

Has he actually stated he is a solicitor, or is he just writing/advocating on her behalf and using legalese.


----------



## MandaC (9 Aug 2009)

I know the OP is annoyed, however when you read one of Bronte's post's you will see how silly the whole situation is and what a costly waste of time it may turn out to be for Moby.  If these people are in their fifties as you say, and have nothing better to do, I reckon you are on a hiding to nothing if you sue.  They sound like complete nutcases.

Rather than waste time engaging Solicitors, etc, could you just not take up the issue of the dog with the landlord first and take it from there.

Could the law society not take up the issue of the bogus solicitor.  They should prosecute him for fraud.


----------



## Mobydick (9 Aug 2009)

Thanks MandaC and SarahMc.  He definitely was acting as her solicitor in his letters, no question about that.  And yes MandaC I am annoyed in fact I am  hopping mad that they think this behaviour is acceptable and think they can get away with.  Tho we do not think we are wasting our time, whatever about the money, this is now about the principle.  If they intend this to go back to court again I will pursue every avenue to expose him and his girlfriend/client.  Cheers Moby


----------



## MandaC (9 Aug 2009)

This may sound weird, but sometimes there is no point in having principles when there are nut cases involved.  The worst thing sometimes can be to give your wit to these people (easier said than done)

They sound as mad as a box of frogs.  

All I am saying is, if the Law Society can come after someone for pretending to be a Solicitor, then let that be your satisfaction.  Did he send a letter on official stationary or anything like that....I would love to know where his office is.......

If there is a case to answer for originally and you are happy to pursue that, well and good........but sometimes legal actions can turn out to be costly....there is more than one way to skin a cat....


----------



## Mobydick (9 Aug 2009)

"They sound as mad as a box of frogs." Love it MandaC.
Ye you are right they are. But surely it doesn't matter how mad they are, a judge will see the facts. Can't go into more details as much as I would like to with you but we have him "hook line and sinker"! Moby.


----------



## MandaC (10 Aug 2009)

Dont forget to update the post with the outcome!


----------



## mathepac (10 Aug 2009)

Case Number 666 on your Civil List is next Judge.

Mr & Mrs Moby Dick, plaintiffs *vs* Mrs & Mr Box of Mad Frogs, defendants.

Cap'n Ahab of Great White Whales & Co is for the plaintiffs and Mr. Kermit of Hoppit  Spawn & Croak is for the defendants. Testimony is expected from Shep, the dog whose ownership is in dispute, and emergency medical cover is being provided by Mr. Siegfried Farnon, Member of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons.

Cap'n Ahab do you have any opening remarks to make?

"Arrrr! Thankee Judge. Speak not to me of blasphemy. I'd strike the sun if it insulted me. Arrrr!"

Mr. Kermit do you have any opening remarks to make?

"Ribbit, ribbit."

The case continues before Judge David Attenborough tomorrow, up in the Zoo-a-logical Gardens.


----------



## Bronte (10 Aug 2009)

MandyC methinks there are full box of mad frogs in this case, and some of them are stone deaf.


----------



## Mobydick (10 Aug 2009)

Bronte, can you explain yourself a little more.  Where is the madness on our part.  Are we not entitled to pursue compensation when someone else is responsible for the damage.  And the stone deaf comment - you think we should just drop case because other side are clearly whacky.  I don't think so but then again it is only my opinion. Moby


----------



## Mobydick (10 Aug 2009)

Mathepac, am lost for words.  Ha ha. Moby.


----------



## MandaC (10 Aug 2009)

I am laughing too....funniest post in ages...the names really match


----------



## Bronte (11 Aug 2009)

Mobydick said:


> Bronte, can you explain yourself a little more. Where is the madness on our part. Are we not entitled to pursue compensation when someone else is responsible for the damage. And the stone deaf comment - you think we should just drop case because other side are clearly whacky. I don't think so but then again it is only my opinion. Moby


 
You have not stated what the damage of 2K is?  Nothing wrong with going to court, but it's best avoided in most cases and sometimes it's just not worth suing some people especially if you are the one who will be left paying the bills.  The lady you mention, is she in employment, you mentioned rented property, does she have any assets?  I never said the couple were whacky but do you not think they are a little bit strange?  They do not appear to be acting normally.  Some people get a kick our of things like this, this couple probably spend their lives waiting for people like you.  You must stand back from it and act cooly and calmly.  There are different ways of skinning a cat.  What has your solicitor said to you on the chances of winning your case.  More imporantly does he think you have a chance of getting paid back the damage.  Do you know his fees? 

Just because you are in the right and have been wronged does not mean one should go to court.


----------



## MandaC (11 Aug 2009)

Bronte said:


> You have not stated what the damage of 2K is?  Nothing wrong with going to court, but it's best avoided in most cases and sometimes it's just not worth suing some people especially if you are the one who will be left paying the bills.  The lady you mention, is she in employment, you mentioned rented property, does she have any assets?  I never said the couple were whacky but do you not think they are a little bit strange?  They do not appear to be acting normally.  Some people get a kick our of things like this, this couple probably spend their lives waiting for people like you.  You must stand back from it and act cooly and calmly.  There are different ways of skinning a cat.  What has your solicitor said to you on the chances of winning your case.  More imporantly does he think you have a chance of getting paid back the damage.  Do you know his fees?
> 
> Just because you are in the right and have been wronged does not mean one should go to court.



Totally agree!


----------



## Sue Ellen (11 Aug 2009)

Mobydick said:


> Hi Bronte.  Caused considerable damage to motorcycle and helmet.  Moby.





Bronte said:


> You have not stated what the damage of 2K is?


----------



## Bronte (11 Aug 2009)

Sue Ellen the OP has not stated what the damage is, they have stated what has been damaged not what the damage is.  2K is a lot of damage.


----------



## Mobydick (11 Aug 2009)

Thanks Bronte, MandaC and Sue Ellen, the reason I have not gone into too many details is because I was advised at the start of the post to edit the details so as not to prejudice the case in any way.  When my husband spoke to the lady in question and asked her what she wanted to do about "damage" she told him to get a solicitor.  We have no doubt they are completely odd considering their actions since this started, they have been very deceitful and underhand about the whole thing which explains why I am so upset about this.   Also, because of advice earlier in the thread with regard to contacting the landlord, I definitely think that is worth pursuing.  This case has been going on for a long time now but I do appreciate the new advice I have been given. Thanks again Moby.


----------



## Mobydick (16 Sep 2009)

Hi all, well court case due for tmrw and they contacted our solrs and settled.  Definitely a moral victory for us.  Thanks for all your help and suggestions throughout the thread.  Moby.


----------



## Bronte (17 Sep 2009)

Well that's great for you Moby, can you give us an idea of the settlement?  Just curious.


----------



## mathepac (17 Sep 2009)

Thanks for the update. Hopefully all matters were settled to your satisfaction.


----------



## MandaC (17 Sep 2009)

That's great.  I hope they leave you alone now.  Those kind of people will probably annoy someone else instead though.


----------



## Mobydick (17 Sep 2009)

Thanks Bronte, Mathepac and MandaC.  Am so relieved it is all over.  They obviously copped on we weren't pushovers and decided the last thing they should do was go up in front of a judge.  Justice at last.  But seriously I still can't get over the nerve of this guy.  He even rang our solr to settle, in the capacity as her solicitor.  Weird or what?  Moby


----------



## Bronte (18 Sep 2009)

Have they paid money to your solicitor or just said they will?


----------



## Mobydick (18 Sep 2009)

Hi Bronte, they paid cash to our solicitor. Moby


----------



## Plek Trum (18 Sep 2009)

Hurrah!! And no more talk about skinning cats... horrendous pastime.  Delighted you saw it through and got a result, well done for perserverence.


----------



## Mobydick (18 Sep 2009)

Thanks Plek Trum.  Definitely had the bit between my teeth on this one alright. Sorry, but I think this cat has been thoroughly skinned! Cheers, Moby.


----------

