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.
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.