Solictior to lose health clients because they act for tobacco industry?

Brendan Burgess

Founder
Messages
54,687
Arthur Cox faces queries from HSE over tobacco role

This seems wrong to me. Most large legal firms will have clients in the health sector. Does it mean that none of them can advise a company in the tobacco industry?

Presumably the large firms have procedures in place to protect against any conflicts of interest. I fully support the move to plain paper packaging, but surely the tobacco firms have a right to get legal advice on the issue and to challenge it if they feel they have a case.
 
Difficult one Brendan. If I was being represented by the same solicitors that were threatening to sue me, I'd be inclined to switch off the tap too. Not sure how this works in the government arena re ethics etc though!

Regarding plain packaging, I wonder will people start buying cases for their cigarettes, like those for cigars?
 
Too much scope for those involved in one side getting access to information from the other.

Certain aspects of what we do in work are audited by one of the big-4. As a result of their role in audit, they always declare themselves conflicted and remove themselves from any potential consulting work that might impinge on the areas audited so as to avoid any prospect of a conflict of interest.
 
Delighted by this, made my day! Sometimes, you can't just run with the fox and hunt with the hound at once!
 
So you are suggesting that one of the top ten legal firms should take themselves out of the market for providing legal advice to clients in the health service so that they can represent the tobacco industry?

The effect of what you are supporting is that a company will be denied access to proper legal representation because you don't like what they do. We live in a democracy and people have a right to use the legal system and get the best legal advice.

Brendan
 
I think Delboy is suggesting as is his way, that the system is a bit of a joke.
............................................................................................
I think Delboy would agree that Arthur Cox be not considered for future HSE contracts.
Given that there are 9 other leading legal companies to pick from, I do not see this impeding Democracy.
Would any of us hire a legal entity for some work knowing that that entity was opposing us on other work.
I think common sense dictates that Government be very slow to hire Arthur Cox on any future work, in particular on health type issues.
.
People most definitely do not have the facility (they may nominally have the right)to access our legal system, because , if you move beyond the lower courts it is dangerously expensive , so those who have money/assets can go higher, those who have no money/assets can go higher , but the normal citizen is forced to stop.

I find it irritating that our Government is prepared to use my money to tackle Big Tobacco.
on this issue.
If Government were so concerned about this weed , just ban it on the proven grounds of health.

I am not convinced that we live in a true democracy, we live in a system that needs a lot of tweeking to get more democratic, the Big Boys have mastered how to tweek things and the little boys are divided and indisciplined but are getting restless.
 
Isn't dual representation frowned upon in the legal world? In the US, it is prohibited where litigation is involved. According to the American Bar, they can't even sue a current client in an unrelated matter

The fact that either the HSE or tobacco may be precluded from using a single company does not deny them proper legal representation unless this one firm are the only competent operators in the market.
 

Everything you say above is correct... However, I see society as being involved in a war against tobacco, especially "big tobacco business" and as such anything goes as far as I am concerned in relation to beating big tobacco...

Remember, tobacco companies knew in the 1950s that cigarette smoking caused cancer and they covered it up. That to my mind is a crime of epic proportions.

(In case it isn't obvious in my post and just to nail my colours to the mast - I have never smoked, I have lost family members to lung cancer, and believe that governments should ban cigarettes outright rather than just tinkering around the edges with laws to make it harder to smoke)
 
The_Banker said:
in a war against tobacco, especially "big tobacco business" and as such anything goes as far as I am concerned in relation to beating big tobacco...
Click to expand...

Hi Banker

We live in a democracy. That means that everyone and every company is entitled to access to the law.

I agree that tobacco should be banned, but I would defend the right of tobacco companies to argue their case in court.

Brendan
 
Brendan Burgess said:
I would defend the right of tobacco companies to argue their case in court.
Click to expand...

Of course- this is a fundamental right and cannot / should not be taken away from any entity or individual.
However, the right to argue their case (or right to access the legal system) is not being taken away from the tobacco company - the company can exercise these rights by choosing an alternative firm to represent them. Alternatively, Arthur Cox & Co could make a choice as to which client they wish to represent so as to ensure that no conflict of interest (whether real or perceived) arises.
 
I qualify what I say by stating first that I am a solicitor working in a small firm.

Yes there will be Chinese walls and all sorts of safeguards in pace to ensue both sides properly represented. I'm not a conspiracy theorist so I would accept that all proper procedures will be applied.

However my view is this. The profits made by the firm when acting for Big Tobacco and the profits made by the firm when acting for various Government agencies go into the same pot and get divvied out to the same people. Large firms, quite properly, are driven by profit. Where is the incentive to settle or expedite when the longer, the more complex and the more acrimonious the higher the profits? This is exacerbated when the same firm acts for both sides.

At the end of the day if I'm in a two man firm I can't act for Mrs Bloggs if she wants to transfer her house to her only son Joe for free. I have to send one or other to an independent firm. I fail to see why that doesn't apply to larger firms when the stakes are so much higher.

As a client I would not be happy to instruct a firm to sue Corporation X if I knew that the same firm brought in Hundreds of thousands in fees from Corporation X even if in my particular case Corporation X was being defended by a different firm.

This is purely my personal opinion, Im well aware that the practice exists worldwide I just don't think, and never have thought, that its a good practice.
 
Why can't Big Tobacco simply employ their own in-house legal eagles? Is it because their managers have been caught lying under oath to various investigations, falsified test results, threatened whistle-blowers and bribed and cajoled people and organisations over decades in order to protect their profits?

Is employing outside legal help part of their smoke and mirrors (sorry Bertie) act to put a respectable spin on their deceitfulness about their death-trade? I think time has long-sice passed since these purveyors of death, lies and misery are entitled to anything approaching a fair crack of the whip or to have anyone adopt moral stances on their behalf. Their products when used as designed and manufactured kill people. Fire-arms manufacturers on the other hand can claim that at least sometimes their products save lives.
 
mathepac said:
Why can't Big Tobacco simply employ their own in-house legal eagles?
Click to expand...
I suspect it's because they're American companies, so their in-house lawyers are not qualified in Irish law.

Personally, I think there's a definite conflict of interest in having both sides in a lawsuit represented by the same company, even if not in the same case.
 

That'd be standard enough. They'll bring in specialist expertise as they need it, at the money those guys command, you don't want them sitting on the books all year round on the off-chance you're end up in litigation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register