• Due to a glitch in the old vBulletin software, some users were "banned" when they tried to change their passwords at the end of February. This does not apply after the site was converted to Xenforo. If you were affected by this, please contact us.




The Legal Services Bill was gutted by lawyers afger Shatter's forced exit...why was he forced out?

cyberianpan

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 18, 2006
Messages
16,630
Website
www.google.com
Lots of people wanted the Legal Services Bill to reform the legal system...but the Law Society and Bar Council didn't...so it wasn't

Legal professions reform gave

The last government prioritised the concerns of barristers and solicitors and gave “little or no weight” to consumers when it watered down reform of the legal professions, the head of a State body has said.
...
The Legal Services Regulation Act was signed into law in December after four years of delay, and a long lobbying campaign by the professions. Last-minute changes
Shatter was especially passionate about getting the reform through, and was known to have an abominably poor relationship with the Bar Council

A very well connected member of the Bar Council was assigned by Enda Kenny, to deal with Shatter:

Alan Shatter not proceeding with Guerin report bias claim
Mr Shatter had also alleged Mr Guerin’s membership, while preparing his report, of a Bar Council Committee which criticised aspects of Mr Shatter’s Legal Services Bill was among various factors giving rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias. Mr Shatter stressed he was not alleging actual bias.
Shatter was then forced out ...yet the substantive report found no issue :

RTÉ Mobile - No Govt apology to Shatter after O'Higgins report

Why did Enda appoint Sean Guerin to investigate Shatter?

Cyp
 


Dame_Enda

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2011
Messages
53,168
For historical reasons Leinster House is dominated by persons of property or whose livelihood is wound up in property such as the legal profession. Its a cancer on politics as far as I am concerned. These people may be elected by us, but when their colleagues in the Law Library control candidate selection which also largely runs in families, it constitutes a political cartel - a filter - that constrains who gets on the ballot for political parties in the first place. I would prefer a US style primary system to choose Dail candidates like the US Congress has,
 

Sister Mercedes

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 19, 2011
Messages
20,663
And it gets worse. The Law Society and the Law Library will each have representatives on the new Judicial Appointments Board .

It's like the Tobacco Companies controlling hospital consultant appointments.
 

Lumpy Talbot

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 30, 2015
Messages
26,648
Twitter
No
I think this is one of the areas that the Troika pointed to when they demanded as part of an economic reform package that certain cartel operations in Irish civil life should be tackled.

Along with successive governments scratching certain union backs in return for keeping their membership quiet we also have legacy issues with influence wielded by certain professions in Ireland.

And in some cases their attempts to spike any reform which loosens their cartel grip on certain fee earning processes becomes visible.
 

statsman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 25, 2011
Messages
56,265
P.ie certainly wanted Shatter's head on a platter. Maybe we are all lawyers?
 

Franzoni

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Messages
16,469
P.ie certainly wanted Shatter's head on a platter. Maybe we are all lawyers?

And rightly so...

Political policing has no place in a functioning democracy nor telling the viewers of current affairs programmes about a minor road traffic incident to smear a political opponent on television....

The question is why was Shatter was the only one interested in legal reform out of a government who enjoyed the largest mandate in the history of this state including self labelled 'social democrats'......?
 

eoghanacht

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 18, 2006
Messages
33,366
And rightly so...

Political policing has no place in a functioning democracy nor telling the viewers of current affairs programmes about a minor road traffic incident to smear a political opponent on television....

The question is why was Shatter was the only one interested in legal reform out of a government who enjoyed the largest mandate in the history of this state including self labelled 'social democrats'......?


You're wasting your time there lad.

These lads turn a blind eye to serious corruption drug dealing, abuse of office, breaching of laws to smear politicians highlighting serious corruption.

Unless it's the shinners involved, then they're all shocked and horrified.


I wonder how that poor garda feels now.

We all knew it'd be a white wash.

The rehabilitation of Alan has begun.

If a beast like Noonan can be reelectable after what he done to Bridget McCole.

So after me, government appointed judge finds that no one was to blame, everything is alright, we have the most incorruptible police force the world has ever seen.
 

ger12

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 25, 2011
Messages
48,256
How do you excuse his behaviour on Primetime where he used information to slap down Mick Wallace in a manner unfit of a Minister for Justice?

He used his office, like many of his colleagues, in a manner that was unacceptable. His idea for the legal services would have led to an even greater inequality in the provision of services, with the rich continuing to reap the benefits.

Saying that, the leagal services, like the medical profession, need to be tackled. Ignoring a litigious culture does no one any favours.
 

ger12

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 25, 2011
Messages
48,256
And it gets worse. The Law Society and the Law Library will each have representatives on the new Judicial Appointments Board .

It's like the Tobacco Companies controlling hospital consultant appointments.
No it's not.
 

Man or Mouse

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 17, 2010
Messages
7,110
Lots of people wanted the Legal Services Bill to reform the legal system...but the Law Society and Bar Council didn't...so it wasn't

Legal professions reform gave



Shatter was especially passionate about getting the reform through, and was known to have an abominably poor relationship with the Bar Council

A very well connected member of the Bar Council was assigned by Enda Kenny, to deal with Shatter:

Alan Shatter not proceeding with Guerin report bias claim


Shatter was then forced out ...yet the substantive report found no issue :

RTÉ Mobile - No Govt apology to Shatter after O'Higgins report

Why did Enda appoint Sean Guerin to investigate Shatter?

Cyp
Your posts are much better when you switch away from the sexual deviant mode.
 

artfoley56

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 24, 2011
Messages
9,766
Put simply cyp, events have shown that shatter was unfit for office; misleading the dail about McCabe's cooperation, the primetime incident (I note that no explanation of how that info came to the commish either)

As for the LSRA, it was in quite a number of areas the Alan shatter settling of scores bill. The new one doesn't go far enough in some respect but has taken out most of shatters nonsensical things.

Which sections in particular are you disappointed about?
 
Last edited:

statsman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 25, 2011
Messages
56,265
And rightly so...

Political policing has no place in a functioning democracy nor telling the viewers of current affairs programmes about a minor road traffic incident to smear a political opponent on television....

The question is why was Shatter was the only one interested in legal reform out of a government who enjoyed the largest mandate in the history of this state including self labelled 'social democrats'......?
That's kind of my point. It's a nonsense to claim that Shatter resigned because the legal profession didn't like him.
 

Diawlbach

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 20, 2011
Messages
10,461
Put simply cyp, events have shown that shatter was unfit for office; misleading the dail about McCabe's cooperation, the primetime incident (I note that no explanation of how that info came to the commish either)

As for the LSRA, it was in quite a number of areas the Alan shatter settling of scores bill. The new one doesn't go far enough in some respect but has taken out most of shatters nonsensical things.

Which sections in particular are you disappointed about?
Including his admissions of unfounded pleas of bias - which the OP repeats and the Courts rightly rejected.

Prior to this affidavit being sworn, the applicant’s solicitors wrote to the respondent’s solicitors on the 18th November, 2014 referring to the affidavit of Mr Carroll and stating that in the light of same, the applicant was withdrawing the ground in the statement of grounds that the drawing of the Conclusions by the respondent gave rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias. In an affidavit sworn on the 8th December, 2014, the respondent’s solicitor Ms Alison Fanagan of A & L Goodbody, refers to this letter and states that the allegation of bias having been made on affidavit must be withdrawn on affidavit. She refers to the fact that although the applicant’s second affidavit post dates this letter, he makes no reference to the bias allegation in this affidavit. She avers that the respondent is maintaining the ground of opposition that the applicant is not entitled to discretionary remedies by way of judicial review by reason of his conduct in making this allegation without conducting the minimum enquiries to establish whether it is factually sustainable.

41. Consequent upon Ms Fanagan’s affidavit, the applicant swore a third affidavit on the 15th December, 2014 in which he formally withdrew the allegation of bias and acknowledged that he was mistaken in his belief, held at the time of swearing the grounding affidavit, that the Professional Practices Committee of the Bar Council of which the respondent was a member criticised the Legal Services Bill.

...

his first replying affidavit sworn on the 28th October, 2014, the respondent makes clear that there was never any basis for the allegation of bias which is simply factually wrong and in that respect, he is supported by an affidavit sworn on the same day by the Director of the Bar Council.

145. The first response of the applicant came in a letter of the 18th November, 2014 from his solicitors. This letter was written in response to a letter of the 12th November, 2014 from the respondent’s solicitors which had requested copies of certain correspondence passing between the applicant’s solicitors and the Chief State Solicitor’s office. After that issue is dealt with, and almost as an afterthought, the applicant’s solicitors said:

“We refer to the affidavit of Jerry Carroll sworn the 28th October 2014 herein. In the light of same, the applicant withdraws the ground, in the statement of grounds, that the drawing of the conclusions by the respondent gives rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias.”
146. No apology was offered or even any expression of regret. Indeed, quite to the contrary, in his next affidavit sworn on the 25th November, 2014, despite that correspondence, the applicant does not even refer to the issue of bias so that his sworn position remained as before.
147. Exception was taken to this, rightly in my view, in a subsequent affidavit sworn by the respondent’s solicitor on the 8th December, 2014, in which Ms Fanagan averred that the allegation of bias having been made on affidavit must be withdrawn on affidavit.

148. This finally prompted the applicant to swear a third affidavit on the 15th December, 2014 withdrawing the allegation of bias, four and a half months after it had been publicly made and some six weeks after it had been demonstrated to be entirely without foundation. In this affidavit, the applicant swore:

“4. I acknowledge that the Professional Practices Committee, of which the respondent was a member, did not criticise the Legal Services Bill and I acknowledge that I was mistaken in my belief, held at the time of swearing my grounding affidavit that it had done so. Accordingly, I am no longer pursuing my challenge to the report of the respondent on the ground of bias. I reiterate that, as I believe is clear from para. 39 of my grounding affidavit, the challenge was only ever on the ground of objective bias. I never sought to challenge the report of the respondent on the ground of actual bias, nor was it ever asserted by me that the respondent had personally criticised the Legal Services Bill.”
149. Accordingly, there is again no hint of apology or regret but rather, almost an attempt to excuse the applicant on the basis that it was only ever an allegation of objective bias and thus, presumably, of little significance in any event. Furthermore, there is not the slightest attempt to explain how this very serious error was made by the applicant.
150. The allegation of bias, objective or subjective, made by the applicant against the respondent was of the utmost gravity. If it were true, it meant the respondent had accepted instructions from the Government in relation to a matter in which he knew, or ought to have known, that he could potentially be regarded as objectively biased. If he appreciated this fact, then he would clearly be acting unethically, a serious matter for any barrister but particularly one who was a member of a committee charged with overseeing the ethics of the Bar. On the other hand, if he failed to appreciate the possibility of a perception of bias, then as a minimum this would be a matter going to his professional competence and judgment. Furthermore, it would potentially taint his entire Report and be a matter of enormous embarrassment for the Government who appointed him on the basis of his independence and objectivity. In addition to all that, to have this allegation made very publicly by the former Minister for Justice, himself an eminent lawyer, could hardly be more serious with all the implications it carried for the respondent’s professional reputation and future career.

152. That any applicant, never mind one in the applicant’s position, could make such a serious allegation without even the most basic attempt to verify the facts is a matter of significant concern. When the applicant is taken to task and an explanation called for, there is a somewhat grudging withdrawal of the allegation and no attempt to offer an explanation or apology to the respondent or the court which merely serves to heighten that concern.
153. The situation is compounded by the following statement in the applicant’s written submissions:

“6.40 In relation the allegation of bias, this was an allegation of objective bias based on information available to the applicant at the time the proceedings were issued. Once the applicant was apprised of the full facts, that allegation was immediately withdrawn. In the circumstances, there can be no basis for the suggestion that this disentitles the applicant to relief.”
154. I beg to differ. The applicant had a duty to apprise himself of the full facts before swearing on oath that those facts were true. It is not in dispute that the true position could have been easily established and yet when called upon to explain the basis for his mistaken belief, the applicant chooses to say nothing.
155. In my view, the applicant’s approach to this issue is entirely unacceptable.
And being told his arguments were rubbish.

107. The applicant’s response to the issue of this correspondence is somewhat curious. He says he knew nothing of it. It is curious because in the light of all that had recently transpired, the applicant says on affidavit that there was no need for any such correspondence to be brought to his attention because it only related to the provision of documents. In paras. 25 and 29 of his affidavit, he blames officials in his department for failing to bring correspondence to his attention, including the advice from the Attorney General’s Office of the 18th December, 2013.

108. Accordingly, the applicant as the former Minister for Justice and Equality and an eminent lawyer says he bears no responsibility for correspondence addressed to his Department not specifically brought to his attention. That proposition is as extraordinary as it is unstatable. The Minister as a corporation sole is legally identified with his Department and correspondence with the Department is correspondence with the Minister.
Shatter -v- Guerin [2015] IEHC 301 (20 May 2015)

Not quite Willie O'Dea level dishonesty, but more than enough to show why someone who could abuse the Courts like that was utterly unfit to be Minister for Justice.
 

PBP voter

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 18, 2015
Messages
9,305

Jim Car

Well-known member
Joined
May 19, 2014
Messages
2,723
And it gets worse. The Law Society and the Law Library will each have representatives on the new Judicial Appointments Board .

It's like the Tobacco Companies controlling hospital consultant appointments.
I don't think that unreasonable. And the tobacco comparison is complete over reaction. What your saying is like saying you should not have doctors sitting on boards that are designed to select doctors/surgeons for certain roles. You need the expertise of those in the said areas to make such a decision. By all means balance it out with others but to get rid of them entirely form election is utterly ridiculous.
 

cyberianpan

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 18, 2006
Messages
16,630
Website
www.google.com
As such Shatter had problems of temperament

Kenny was not able to adequately supervise him

Choosing appoint Guerin, who could reliably be described as an arch nemesis of Shatter is something that Kenny needs to explain. As such the Legal Services Bill fell with Shatter

Cyp
 

New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top