• It has come to our attention that some users may have been "banned" when they tried to change their passwords after the site was hacked due to a glitch in the old vBulletin software. This would have occurred around the end of February and does not apply after the site was converted to Xenforo. If you believe you were affected by this, please contact a staff member or use the Contact us link at the bottom of any forum page.

Law society salaries-will the truth out?


B

birthday

http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&sqi=2&ved=0CCsQFjAA&url=http://www.independent.ie/national-news/law-society-head-defends-review-of-his-own-salary-as-routine-exercise-3369068.html&ei=rlEIUer0IdGThgeDyYDQAg&usg=AFQjCNERCQ4rWTrbvlN9JoMZoQcOcrwiHg
Law Society head defends review of his own salary as 'routine' exercise

Could we have another Irish Medical Organisation style Lotto pension?

Perhaps the Mayo Solicitors' Bar Association and Southern Law Association will be forceful enough to insist on finding out where their subscriptions are going.

It seems our friend with the plummy posh accent does not want anyone to find out his salary.
 

storybud1

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 25, 2011
Messages
6,741
More fookin Greed, does it ever end? Radio and TV presenters should ask these guys what they earn before they let them speak, wait a minute! eh, Pat Kenny, Marion Finucane, Joe Duffy ? this place is nuts , people with very average ability on massive wages paid for by people struggling, sounds familiar.
 
B

birthday

More fookin Greed, does it ever end? Radio and TV presenters should ask these guys what they earn before they let them speak, wait a minute! eh, Pat Kenny, Marion Finucane, Joe Duffy ? this place is nuts , people with very average ability on massive wages paid for by people struggling, sounds familiar.
Perhaps the comparison with IMO is unfair without evidence but I think that the salary and pension deals in the Law Society will come under plenty of scrutiny!
 

Davidoff

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 4, 2010
Messages
1,485
And it's not even as if the Law Society has been doing a good job of upholding standards in the profession.

Evey week there's another dodgy solicitor in the dock.
 

NewGoldDream

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 13, 2004
Messages
20,929
Website
-
1. It's fairly scandalous. I think many practitioners would be even more scathing of the Law Society than members of the public, their dual role of representative and regulator. They really should drop one, the latter, and concentrate on their role as representatives, the same way that organisations representing other careers such as Doctors and Nurses actually bat for their members and their interests.

2. The Mayo Bar Association deserve credit for being the most outspoken in their criticisms.
 

livingstone

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 3, 2004
Messages
24,347
Watch as posters flock to bemoan a salary that they do not pay and have no actual interest in beyond the desire to whinge.

Any solicitors on here may well have a legitimate grievance with the pay package, the rest of us really have no standing to decry what a private organisation pays its Director.
 

LamportsEdge

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 10, 2012
Messages
21,894
Watch as posters flock to bemoan a salary that they do not pay and have no actual interest in beyond the desire to whinge.

Any solicitors on here may well have a legitimate grievance with the pay package, the rest of us really have no standing to decry what a private organisation pays its Director.
Firstly, such organisations in Ireland have a funny habit of accessing public funds. Can you assure us that the Law Society does not in any way attract public funds?

Secondly such professional bodies are generally concerned front and centre with the public perception of their profession and you would have to admit that the public perception of the law in Ireland is poor and not without cause.

It doesn't say a lot for an organisation that will quite happily wade into any debate on governance, regulation and the required levels of transparency in society and is otherwise to be found attempting to withhold proper transparency from its membership.
 

livingstone

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 3, 2004
Messages
24,347
Firstly, such organisations in Ireland have a funny habit of accessing public funds. Can you assure us that the Law Society does not in any way attract public funds?
To the best of my knowledge they don't, and you're clearly not aware that they do either. If you're going to wade into a debate on pay levels in a private organisation, the 'Well, I don't know 100% that they don't get public funding' is pretty weak. If you know that they get public funding, fair enough, but otherwise, let's stick with what we do know, which is that it is a private members organisation.


Secondly such professional bodies are generally concerned front and centre with the public perception of their profession and you would have to admit that the public perception of the law in Ireland is poor and not without cause.
Indeed, which might be a very good reason that solicitors are unhappy with it. But this is no different to a poorly performing private company deciding to pay its MD a high salary - i.e. no one's business but the shareholders (or in this case, members).

It doesn't say a lot for an organisation that will quite happily wade into any debate on governance, regulation and the required levels of transparency in society and is otherwise to be found attempting to withhold proper transparency from its membership.
Again, a very good reason why its members may want to change things. But again, hardly of relevance to the general public.
 

Eye of Angkor

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 20, 2009
Messages
338
And it's not even as if the Law Society has been doing a good job of upholding standards in the profession.

Evey week there's another dodgy solicitor in the dock.
Somewhat unfair.

From what I have seen many solicitors (perhaps rightly) live in fear of the Law Society.

Small time dodgy solicitors are being shaken out of the profession in the same way as other small time operators are being shaken out of other areas of Irish life.

It is interesting that no big fish (with the exception of the O'Donnell's) have been fried notwithstanding that many deals would have been done by the larger operators in the sector.
 
B

birthday

Watch as posters flock to bemoan a salary that they do not pay and have no actual interest in beyond the desire to whinge.

Any solicitors on here may well have a legitimate grievance with the pay package, the rest of us really have no standing to decry what a private organisation pays its Director.
A private organisation-well please tell me why a 'private organisation' is in charge of regulating the legal profession?

Why does a 'private body' have the ability to restrict the number of individuals qualified to carry out legal services?

Any body, now or in the future, with such powers of regulation much have complete transparency in order for the public to have confidence.


If on the other hand the Law Society was to restrict itself to representing members interests you might have some argument but probably very little.
Huge sums of money are paid to the legal profession both directly from the state and by members of the public.
Given what went on in the IMO it is entirely reasonable that the public has a right to know what deals are done within such 'private' organisations.

Also, listeners to our national broadcaster regularly have to listen to the spouted nonsense of defending the indefensible from the Law Society. Defending the stealing of money from clients and failing to deal with such crimes is an outrageous slur on what should be a professional body.
 

pinemartin

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 7, 2006
Messages
6,731
Watch as posters flock to bemoan a salary that they do not pay and have no actual interest in beyond the desire to whinge.
You could have said that about the banks a few years ago but look where that got us. If these sort of organisation that are set up to protect the interest of the rich fail, they often look to the taxpayer for help.
 
Last edited:

PeeMac

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 17, 2009
Messages
391
Watch as posters flock to bemoan a salary that they do not pay and have no actual interest in beyond the desire to whinge.

Any solicitors on here may well have a legitimate grievance with the pay package, the rest of us really have no standing to decry what a private organisation pays its Director.
Unless these are the type of private organisations that politicians and senior civil servants benchmark themselves against when deciding their own salaries.
 
Last edited:

NewGoldDream

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 13, 2004
Messages
20,929
Website
-
Somewhat unfair.

From what I have seen many solicitors (perhaps rightly) live in fear of the Law Society.

Small time dodgy solicitors are being shaken out of the profession in the same way as other small time operators are being shaken out of other areas of Irish life.

It is interesting that no big fish (with the exception of the O'Donnell's) have been fried notwithstanding that many deals would have been done by the larger operators in the sector.
Many provincial Bar Associations would tell you the general opinion of the Law Society amongst its members could hardly be lower.

Of course any Solicitor engaging in fraud or similar wrongdoing should be drummed out and before the criminal Courts. However there is a feeling that the Law Society nail rural practitioners for mistakes, haul them over the coals in a way that other organisations do not, one just has to see how the Bar Council treats its members in a far more representative way.

Then to add insult to injury one hears the rumours of horror stories involving larger firms, issues that seem to go way beyond mere mistake and into the field of negligence or downright crime, but are apparently not tackled at all. Perhaps the Law Society are not aware of such matters and could argue that they can only act on complaints. But clearly they have left a few very large fish escape the net and have not spotted issues that have cost all Solicitors collectively a fortune.
 

livingstone

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 3, 2004
Messages
24,347
You could have said that about the banks a few years ago but look where that got us. If these sort of organisation that are set up to protect the interest of the rich fail then they often look to the taxpayer for help.
High pay was not the reason for the banks failure.
 

Eye of Angkor

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 20, 2009
Messages
338
Many provincial Bar Associations would tell you the general opinion of the Law Society amongst its members could hardly be lower.

Of course any Solicitor engaging in fraud or similar wrongdoing should be drummed out and before the criminal Courts. However there is a feeling that the Law Society nail rural practitioners for mistakes, haul them over the coals in a way that other organisations do not, one just has to see how the Bar Council treats its members in a far more representative way.

Then to add insult to injury one hears the rumours of horror stories involving larger firms, issues that seem to go way beyond mere mistake and into the field of negligence or downright crime, but are apparently not tackled at all. Perhaps the Law Society are not aware of such matters and could argue that they can only act on complaints. But clearly they have left a few very large fish escape the net and have not spotted issues that have cost all Solicitors collectively a fortune.
One word explains the different treatment of solicitors and barristers.

Money.

Solicitors handle other people's money. Some were weak/got greedy/made mistakes. Money disappeared. They have to answer for that.

Barristers are (fortunately!) prohibited from handling other people's money. They cannot dip into their client's pockets. If they make mistakes it is more likely to be a matter for legal than disciplinary proceedings.
 

NewGoldDream

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 13, 2004
Messages
20,929
Website
-
One word explains the different treatment of solicitors and barristers.

Money.

Solicitors handle other people's money. Some were weak/got greedy/made mistakes. Money disappeared. They have to answer for that.

Barristers are (fortunately!) prohibited from handling other people's money. They cannot dip into their client's pockets. If they make mistakes it is more likely to be a matter for legal than disciplinary proceedings.
You would not meet a Solicitor who would disagree with that, apart maybe from the crooks. Any Solicitor who uses clients funds in any way other than as authorised (and even at that subject to compliance with accounting regulations, Revenue requirements etc) should be in very serious trouble. Misappropriation of funds should be not just grounds for striking off, but a matter for the Gardai. Again though I have heard of Solicitors who have been allegedly caught offside and have "made good" the deficits and carried on, which is wrong wrong wrong.
 

Paddyc

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 30, 2009
Messages
9,265
Also, listeners to our national broadcaster regularly have to listen to the spouted nonsense of defending the indefensible from the Law Society. Defending the stealing of money from clients and failing to deal with such crimes is an outrageous slur on what should be a professional body.
Can you provide me with a link where any Law Society representative defended "the stealing of money from clients"?

Do you also realise that the DPP prosecutes criminals in this country and not a private organisation?

If we're going to talk about "outrageous slurs" like.....
 
B

birthday

Can you provide me with a link where any Law Society representative defended "the stealing of money from clients"?

Do you also realise that the DPP prosecutes criminals in this country and not a private organisation?

If we're going to talk about "outrageous slurs" like.....
As you will be aware on some occasions even the Law society makes efforts to have solicitors struck off for taking clients money.
This is a separate issue from any DPP action against said solicitors and separate again from whether upon potential conviction whether a solicitor receives a sentence in keeping with the crime

If someone breaks into my house and takes my property it is called stealing. If a solicitor decides to buy appartments with my or my relatives money then somehow the legal profession cannot find it within themselves to call it stealing.
However, everyone else does-because there is no difference.

In no way should a 'private organisation' answerable to nobody but themselves have anything to do with regulation of the legal profession. Hopefully, this will soon end.
 
Top