# Law Society, consequential losses - the Thomas Byrne affair



## Bronte (3 Dec 2013)

It appears that Byrne defrauded 52 million. Yet the Law Society has paid out about 8 million. Why would they not have to pay out 52 million, less the value/sale price of the 40 or 50 properties he apparently owned. 

Are those properties of his now in the banks hands.

We have a new word, consequential losses, apparently, even though clients have lost much more than they have been paid in compensation, they have a *real* loss, where the value of a property has decreased since the fraud was uncovered, this real loss the law society calls a consequential loss and say on this basis they do not have to pay out. That seems very unjust?

I wonder how the Law Society members feel on hearing of the scale of Byrne's misdeeds. It seems absolutely extraordinary, that he could be originally on the Law Society's radar in 2004, and was found in 2006 to have a deficit of 1.7 million in the client account. And for this, which I consider to be theft, he was merely slapped on the wrist, fined a paltry 15K and continue as you were. For those that don't know, solicitors are obliged to have a bank account into which they deposit clients monies, that would be a separate bank account to that which is for running their business, and also separate from his own personal accounts. That is so it is clear at all times where the clients monies are (proceeds from wills, house sales etc). And it's an absolute no no to touch those monies. 

Is it not exceedingly lax of the law society to have treated a massive deficit of 1.7 million so leniently. If I were a member I would want heads to roll on this. Because it's the members insurance costs that will have to increase to fund this. Surely touching clients monies is stealing. One would be fired for that in any other organisation, yet Byrne had an internal 'procedure', of which we know nothing. I wouldn't go near a solicitor if I knew he had touched clients monies, and no doubt the young solicitor who discovered Byrne faking her signature would never have worked for him if she knew the type of individual he was. Did she know, did the Law Society inform her of the type of man he was. Wouldn't it have been a good idea for them to warn her, and to ask her to keep an eye on him for them. All he had to do since the 2006 fraud was send in financial statements every two months. What was the level of scrutiny of these. Why would you accept any financial statements from someone you know to have defrauded the client account. 

Why are the Law Society saying they acted so swiftly. Byrne has been up to skulduggery since 2004, found out in 2006 and allowed to continue, found out again in 2007, now for 52 million, and it's December 2013 and we only now have a court case and sentencing. What is fast about that. 

And what is fast about a fraud detected in 2007 and a client whose title has been stolen from them not being able to sell that property until 2013. That's a whopping 7 years to be out of pocket, at a loss of monies that one was entitled to during that time, and monies that have lost a massive amount due to the property crash, but also one has the loss of not having the proceeds of the sale in those years.  This slow process of compensation and of rectifying the title theft only adds to the pain those involved have endured.  How can the Law Society think it fair or just to take so long to sort out titles.  Their the experts and should be able to do all this much faster.  

How does the actual compensation work, sounds lovely, compensation. The titles would have to fixed, moved out of Byrne's name back into the proper owners name, so a solicitor has to be paid to do this work, is that the compensation, or is there more than that. Is their interest on the money/value the propety was eventually sold for and backdated to 2007. Does the person who has been defrauded get to pick the solicitor who they want to rectify the transactions. Is the defrauded person given the money directly by the Law Society to pay their new solicitor. We know they don't get compensated for 'consequential' losses. It's not at all clear what the compensation is made up of.


----------



## Gerry Canning (3 Dec 2013)

Bronte; 
Stop it now !
Do you actually think that any of our Regulators eg Central Bank , Ombudsman, and in this case the self-regulatory Law Society actually have any Laymans perception of what Trust and Integrity or even what proper recompense means?

Again this Regulator not only failed but is making a defense of their in-actions.?

I am quite sure if they read this, I will be dismissed as an ill-informed little person.
Still does not make me wrong.
Grrrrrr!!!!


----------



## Bronte (3 Dec 2013)

I know you're right Gerry, but cannot stop, it helps me to understand the way society works, or doesn't work.  And small changes are good, maybe there will even be some changes that will be good for everybody.


----------



## Gerry Canning (3 Dec 2013)

Bronte.

NO , it s you who are right , it is just you still have the energy to believe that those with the levers of power will accept their responsibilities.

Me . I am going for the Revolution ?

That said , maybe I will settle for smaller changes.


----------



## Bronte (3 Dec 2013)

Gerry Canning said:


> it is just you still have the energy to believe that those with the levers of power will accept their responsibilities.
> 
> .


 
I thought about a revolution too, but that doesn't seem to do much good. And going down the route they took in Greece, well Ireland is far preferable. 

It's not so much about those in power accepting their responsibilities. As far as I can see, they contantly manage to get out of it, but pointing out that they do so is helpful, to me. And the poster called Padkiss seems to be getting somewhere with the ombudsman. 

It's amazing how you can hear people on the radio saying what a good job they are doing, when they aren't and nobody to check and nobody to question. Just all accepted as true.

The Byrne case has tumbled on for 7 years now, and nobody things that leaving people in limbo for 7 years is unacceptable, in fact it's the opposite, the Law Society in it's self praise has come out crowing about acting within 2 days on Byrne, yet they knew about him for 3 years before. So a total of 10 years before the man saw jail. Out of the 12 years, he will serve what, 5 or 6. A sibling said to me yesterday, 52 million for 5 years jailtime. Not bad.  If you've salted away a fraction of that, and I'm not saying he has, might be time well served.


----------



## Gerry Canning (3 Dec 2013)

Bronte;

In the old sins there was a beaut {sin of ommission}methinks those in Power are skilled @ ommission ,namely they see and know what is going wrong but do nothing in case it rocks the boat.
We have lovely rules eg on Consumer Codes that say providers MUST do things. Yet Ombudsman etc apply MUST as meaning MAYBE.
I have heard Mr Prozidska Ombudsman getting air-time to spoof about his good work etc .
As a nation we are too accepting of Central Banks word ( a singularly failed entity over the years) Ombudsman as fair ( giggles ) Law Society (a self protective unit) 

The Byrne case ; yup Law Society is not fit for purpose.
Central Remedial Clinic; Stinks on so many levels.

Rant over today.


----------



## Purple (4 Dec 2013)

Self regulation doesn’t work. It is a nonsense and a throwback to bygone days when “Gentlemen” engaged in a spot of Lawyering while the great unwashed doffer their caps and/or tugged their forelocks. It is of a time before democracy.
In a modern republic the notion is grossly offensive. If there was any evidence that it worked in practice then the offensive nature of the concept could be to some degree assuaged but be it the legal industry, the financial industry or the medical industry it has been shown again and again to be utterly deficient and self-serving.

Why are so-called professions deemed suitable for self-regulation and not the rest of us plebs? 
When the taxi industry was deregulated why were taxi drivers not allowed to set up the Taxi Council and set and represent and police their own members? Then they would be the taxi profession. 
If the notion was mooted most of us would have said, “Hang on, you’re having a laugh; they will just run things to suit themselves and screw the customer.” And we’d be right. Why is it different for lawyers and doctors and accountants etc? Is there some sort of a purification ritual that purges them of the same human frailties that the rest of us are prone to? Is it something like Mr. Spock went through in Star Trek?

The vast majority of lawyers and doctors and honourable and decent people but the same can be said for everyone else. 
What then makes them special?
I know that the medical council is made up of a majority of non medical people and I know that they only have a regulatory function, not a representative one. That’s better than the Law Society but even at that the Medical Council is vastly inferior as an institution to an independent body run directly by the state as it is prone to internal politics and who you know is more important than what you’ve done. 
The Law Society is partially made up of people who could find themselves investigated by their peers, or investigating them. It would be like working as a barrister one day and a judge the next. There isn’t even a veneer of impartiality.


----------



## Bronte (5 Dec 2013)

I thought I was cross the other day, but it's actually even worse, Byrne was at it since 2002.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/law-watchdog-probed-activities-of-200-solicitors-29811242.html

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/a...-shouldnt-be-railroaded-through-29807808.html

As far back as 2002 he was so bad that a second signatory had to put on cheques, an accountant it appears was duly appointed. Who hired him? Byrne? And it looks like again in 2005 a bank complained about him and a full year went by until the Law Society now punished him with a miserly fine and said he had to submit bi monthly accounts. Who prepared those accounts, was it the accountant who was co signatory on the cheques. 

And that second article would actually nearly make you feel sorry for the solicitors who now have increased insurance/compensation fund costs. What about the 13 people who were defrauded and have had to wait so many years to get their titles sorted. That can make the difference between being able to send a child to college or not. The article actually states 'to it's credit' the Law Society was fast.  The only person fast was the poor young solicitor who had to gumption to call a halt and go directly to Blackhall Place.  I see nothing at all fast about the the Law Societies actions.  As it's them I've to be very careful, and we do know they are reading this website as they had something pulled in it recently.  But if one were a member, wouldn't one think it was amazing that this all was brought to their attention in 2002.  

What would be different today.  

Irish Times are much better on this story. 

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/the-jailing-of-thomas-byrne-1.1615796

And now as usual we see Minister Shatter, himself a member of the profession, is rowing back on reform.  They've done so well, they are going to continue overseeing themselves.  Surely solicitors themselves, who are paying for this, and who are supposed to know something about morals and ethics and justice and fairness can see that something is rotten.


----------



## Gerry Canning (11 Dec 2013)

BRONTE; 

It is sad that you have {to be very careful} therein lies the hub of the problem.

Since we are dealing with people who are skilled @ self-defending and brilliant @ seeing (non) slights on their supposed professional integrity, it is very difficult for a lay person to properly address the issue without a restraining Writ being slapped on them.

They remind me of all the hubris surrounding all our Big Institutions , Banks, Churches,Hse etc who over time have shrouded themselves in self protecting nonsense. 
I do believe some are learning but Law Society ain,t yet one of them.

If you talk to Solicitrs they ARE getting o the point that they will cry halt!
If Mr Shatter could cut through his Solicitors caution (that he is trained in) and GO FOR IT he would do the profession a favour.


----------



## Bronte (13 Dec 2013)

Gerry Canning said:


> If you talk to Solicitrs they ARE getting o the point that they will cry halt!


 

What are you basing that on?

They've apparently paid out 17 million in the last 5 years and a potential 48 million more 

http://www.independent.ie/irish-new...ms-over-alleged-solicitor-fraud-29834376.html

And their supervision of Byrne in particular still raises serious questions, much like the board of CRC, what were they doing. So the solicitors who will pay for this should have serious questions for those in Blackhall Place. The costs of being a solicitor must be rising massively on the back of all this, this means there will be less start ups, maybe a dwindling market, but less competition, in a very restricted market, and the cost of it will be passed down the line. The troika are leaving today, but they didn't get reduced legal fees. 

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/family-who-lost-250k-call-for-byrne-case-inquiry-29834413.html

and this last paragraph is just amazing:

_In submissions to the Government, the Law Society dismissed what it claims is "the myth of regulatory failure" and said cases such as the Byrne case proved the efficacy of its regulatory system._

So the Byrne case is a fantastic judgment of how wll the Law Society supervises their own.  Really !  Don't know what's worse, they believe it, or they say it, or that they get away with saying it.  Byrne should have been nipped in the bud after 2002.  His case is an example of chronic mismanagement of a rogue solicitor who only learned from getting away with it that he could go on and on.  Which he spectacularly did.


----------



## Gerry Canning (13 Dec 2013)

Bronte; 

I am tired you being correct and twice as tired agreeing with you !
............................................................................
To everyone; Is there a forum anywhere where Regulators are accountable to 3rd party.
eg. Can Law Society be brought to book,for not regulating.
eg. Can Central Bank be challenged on non enforcement.


----------



## Purple (9 Jan 2014)

I just re-read this thread. It put me in bad form (again).


----------



## serotoninsid (18 Jan 2014)

Gerry Canning said:


> Do you actually think that any of our Regulators eg Central Bank , Ombudsman, and in this case the self-regulatory Law Society actually have any Laymans perception of what Trust and Integrity or even what proper recompense means?


You've answered your own question.  Self regulation means NO regulation.



			
				Bronte said:
			
		

> It's amazing how you can hear people on the radio saying what a good job they are doing, when they aren't and nobody to check and nobody to question. Just all accepted as true.


But is it amazing or something more sinister?  I recall the evening following the judgement.  The headline on TodayFM and Newstalk started with "The Law Society is delighted with the outcome of this case...etc.  
How did it come to be spun off that way?
Subsequently, Matt Cooper interviewed Ken Murphy of the Law Society (on TodayFM).  He _did_ ask him about the issue of consequential loss.  However, I was disgusted with the way in which Murphy's scripted response to this wasn't challenged.  How could anyone claim this to be acceptable?  Those poor innocent people have suffered a real tangible loss of thousands.


Is it a case that the Law Society will act ONLY when the actions of one of their errant members is so blatant that they simply can't 'bury' it?  

One of the good things about the Troika being in town was that they had no issue in highlighting some of our ills and bad practices.  They flagged the legal profession as one that needed reform.  That never happened and now the Troika have left town.  Meanwhile, we have a Legal Services Bill that is exactly that -  A Bill - for how long now?  And who is it that is supposed to be driving that?  A minister of justice who is one of their own.




Gerry Canning said:


> Is there a forum anywhere where Regulators are accountable to 3rd party.
> Can Law Society be brought to book,for not regulating.



From the Law Society's website
"The office of the Independent Adjudicator was established to provide an independent forum to which members of the public may apply if they are dissatisfied with the manner in which the Law Society has dealt with any complaint made by or on behalf of any person against their solicitor."

How '_independent_' is this _independent_ adjudicator in reality?

Of course, I'm open to correction but I suppose you could sue them?  Oh wait, you'd need a solicitor, junior and senior counsel to accomplish that, right?  Good luck with that!

In todays world where people are more literate and educated than they ever were, where information generally is only a google search away, shouldn't our legal system be more intuitive and user friendly?  Should it not be the case that commonplace things like probate and conveyancing amongst others should be achievable for the lay person or lay litigant? We have an inherited legal system that is outdated. Court and legal processes are not intuitive.  Even the very language that solicitors use is nonsensical.  I contest that this is purposely so.  Vested interests (and whilst I mean those that work in one way or another in the legal services area, our politicians are mixed up with those very same people) will see to it that this shambolic system is maintained.  

Some citizens have had cause to represent themselves as lay litigants (you can draw your own conclusions as to _why_ they have had no other alternative).  What support is offered to lay litigants in this country? I'm open to correction but nothing via official channels.  Our government were capable of overseeing a scenario whereby €85.97 Million was paid by Irish Water in consultancy fees.  To spend a few percentiles of that on informational support for lay litigants would be the best money ever spent by an Irish Government.  Yet lay litigants are supposed to navigate our deliberately misleading courts/legal system where a clueless participant (be that defendant or plaintiff) may come completely unstuck due to a lack of knowledge of court/legal process.  



			
				Purple said:
			
		

> The vast majority of lawyers and doctors and honourable and decent people but the same can be said for everyone else.


It would be logical to _assume_ that....on the basis that people - by and large -are inherently good - and all of that.  However, in relation to that, I would draw your attention to Bronte's comment;



			
				Bronte said:
			
		

> Surely solicitors themselves, who are paying for this, and who are supposed to know something about morals and ethics and justice and fairness can see that something is rotten.



Surely they would?  Surely there are enough honest decent souls amongst them NOT to stand for deplorable and downright criminal behaviour in their own profession?  Perhaps in doing so, they would themselves have working life made more difficult for them?  One can only speculate - as certainly, enough of them have not nailed their colours to the mast in this respect to date.



Yet another chapter on life in the banana republic that is IRL.


----------



## Purple (24 Jan 2014)

serotoninsid said:


> It would be logical to _assume_ that....on the basis that people - by and large -are inherently good - and all of that.  However, in relation to that, I would draw your attention to Bronte's comment;



I agree. That's why my full comment read;




> The vast majority of lawyers and doctors and honourable and decent people but the same can be said for everyone else.
> What then makes them special?
> I know that the medical council is made up of a majority of non medical people and I know that they only have a regulatory function, not a representative one. That’s better than the Law Society but even at that the Medical Council is vastly inferior as an institution to an independent body run directly by the state as it is prone to internal politics and who you know is more important than what you’ve done.
> The Law Society is partially made up of people who could find themselves investigated by their peers, or investigating them. It would be like working as a barrister one day and a judge the next. There isn’t even a veneer of impartiality.


----------



## serotoninsid (25 Jan 2014)

@Purple: point taken.  I guess I wanted to draw attention to the fact that ALL (including those who purport to be..and probably are in the main - honourable professional people) practicing solicitors have a collective responsibility for the corruption that pervades their profession.  
If any legal professional balks at the above statement, then why are you not actively advocating for INDEPENDENT regulation of your own profession?  If you are, then fair play but I can only imagine you are few in number.


----------



## Bronte (28 Jan 2014)

http://www.independent.ie/irish-new...rmer-solicitor-on-fraud-charges-29953500.html

This lady got 3 years, but at least she has been struck off. No news on what happened to the people in whose names she falsified documents and the ramifications for them. Interesting points put forward as mitigating factors, as in the domestic violence.

I wonder has the Law Society and Banks worked out a system whereby this type of fraud can not occur in the first place.


----------



## RainyDay (28 Jan 2014)

Bronte said:


> Interesting points put forward as mitigating factors, as in the domestic violence.


Does it mention this? I see references to anxiety and depression, but I don't see any mention of domestic violence.


----------



## Bronte (28 Jan 2014)

It might not be in that article but I know I heard or read it last week.


----------

