"A limited company must be represented by a lawyer in a court case"

The Scotchstone case does not serve as an example of a shockingly unjust result that should be the initiator for a change in the law, in order for justice to be served in the future. If anything, it in part serves as an example of why the law should stay as it is. I don't want to sound like I am attacking the MD here, but I can't agree with his choice of action. The fact is an MD appeared in court thinking he was competent enough to represent his company in a tricky High Court case, and yet didn’t seem to realise that the most probable outcome of his representation was that the case would be dismissed instantly.

He thought he was competent at the law. Yet he didn’t seem to know the law that was most immediately relevant to his case (which is directors cannot represent their companies in court), and the case was dismissed straight away. There is a lesson in that. I am not being sarcastic when I say I am sure he probably is a very intelligent man, but at the same time he didn’t manage to represent his company in its case very well did he? I don’t think any solicitor, barrister or judge in Ireland would say he represented the company very well, yet he thinks directors should be allowed to represent their companies. There is a little irony there.
 
Vanilla said:
The only difficulty they might encounter would be not knowing the rules/practices of the particular court so they would need help with that. It would be very unusual for someone who doesn't work in law to know enough to be able to run a case and present it in court- not to say it couldn't be done, but it would be an exceptional person who could be both their own expert witness and litigant.

I had a client call recently who was served with a Circuit Court Civil Bill and had decided to defend the action himself to save on legal costs- a very intelligent man, he came in to me simply to swear an affidavit which he said a 'barrister' friend had helped him to draft. He was due in court later that morning. Problem was that what was on in court was actually a motion for judgement in default of appearance but he didn't understand that. He thought he could turn up with his, no doubt, intelligently drafted, affadavit and present his case. That's just one very simple example.
Click to expand...


I agree. In the vast majority of cases it would be stupid for a non-lawyer to represent their business. The question here though is should the law therefore not allow such representation in any circumstance?
By the way, it was these sort of procedural errors that the judge was steering young lawyers through the day I was in court. I didn’t understand the issues but it was clear that some of the legal professionals didn’t either.
 
I find it impossible to believe that good representation cannot easily be obtained.
Click to expand...

I can speak from my own personal experience - I have been let down by lawyers on many occasions through dishonesty and through inaction. I have got good service on much fewer occasions than I have got bad service.

I have worked with many victims of the Irish Nationwide Buidling Society, and I have seen two solicitor/barrister combinations which have done a decent job. The others were atrocious, mind-bogglingly bad.

It is much harder than you think to find a good solicitor.
 
Indeed Vanilla. Not knowing the procedures would be enough to derail any defence by a lay person.
 
Purple said:
Would not knowing the procedures be enough to derail any defence by a lawyer?
Click to expand...

Let's assume for a minute that it is impossible to find a lawyer who knows the procedures, or difficult.

If you lose your case due to the negligence of your lawyer you can successfully sue them and you WILL be covered by their insurance or their professional compensation fund.


But I don't, for one minute, accept that you or Brendan are correct in your shockingly blatant generalisations in which you are trying to blacken the entire legal profession.
 
I'm not trying to blacken the whole legal profession; my own exposure to the sector has been too limited for that so I only speak from personal experience. I’m sure there's good and bad lawyers just as there are good and bad plumbers, engineers, doctors, plasterers etc. No industry has a monopoly on idiots and chancers or brilliant practitioners of their chosen field.
I’ve spent the last few months trying to find competent companies within my own field to sub-contract work into and they are few and far between so my own sector isn’t flowing over with competence either.
 
Purple said:
I was staggered by the ineptitude of the majority of the lawyers who faced the judge. ... It seems bizarre that someone of such a low calibre could legally represent a company but an experienced director of that company who knows the issues inside out and has previously taken legal advice on the pertinent issues cannot represent the company....

How often does a judge refuse to allow a Lawyer to represent a company because the judge forms the opinion that the lawyer is a mutton-head?
Click to expand...

This is how your post reads.

The contention seems to be that the majority of lawyers are incompetent therefore the director of this company should be allowed to represent it.

I have much more experience of court, barristers and other solicitors than either you or Brendan and I can tell you that your last post is accurate- yes there are good and bad- but natural selection ensures that if you have the right Senior Counsel represent you in the High Court they are superb.
 
Can a Director of a company hold a "Practicing cert"

I have read the posts on this subject and they seem to skirt around the principle involved.

These days the corporate veil is pierced/lifted in more and more situations, with responsibility falling onto the shoulders of the directors for corporate acts. Not to mention personal guarantees, where a small company can well find itself unable to be represented on a matter that will undoubtedly result in the director/owner having to honour a personal guarantee.

If the Company Directors believe that they can make a better attempt at a case then no representation, then that should be their choice. (If the shareholders are happy to give them them this power)

All of the arguments against letting a Director represent a Co are based on situations where a "human person" would equally be at risk of making errors.

Whatever about a rule forbidding the company as plaintiff and being represented by a "Non Lawyer" The rule preventing a Company being represented as a defendant by an officer of the company should be removed.

But what is the situation where the director has a Law degree or even a professional qualification. Is it still correct in principle to say that the company must pay a representative.
 
Vanilla said:
If you lose your case due to the negligence of your lawyer you can successfully sue them and you WILL be covered by their insurance or their professional compensation fund.
Click to expand...

Has there ever been a case of a client suing a barrister for not representing them properly in court? Who would decide this, a judge, who comes from the banks of barristers? How would a client know they had not been correctly represented? Is the work and competence of barristers overseen and monitered by anyone (other than themselves).
 
Bronte said:
Has there ever been a case of a client suing a barrister for not representing them properly in court?
Click to expand...

These happen from time to time. In my experience, a victory by the client (usually having to act as a lay litigant for obvious reasons) is rare - would be interested in seeing the actual stats for win/lose for these.
 
I would think that they would settle out of court rather than risk a trial.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top