Affect of Nama on legal profession

daviddob

Does anyone have any thoughts on how nama will affect the legal profession?

nuac

Have you a spedific query?

NAMA will create some problems for various people and institutions. Their lawyers will try to solve the legal aspects of such problems as we do with whatever lands on our desks each day.

Perhaps you are a journalist looking for some leads?

daviddob

no i'm not a journalist! just curious

johnfás

It'll be great if you work for Arthur Cox!

Mrs.QC

johnfás wrote: »

It'll be great if you work for Arthur Cox!

I think I may have read somewhere that that contract lasts only up until the end of this month.
Good question OP

johnfás

Really? I thought they had the contract for the legal advice aspect going forward, along with HSBC getting the banking end of it. I know that the valuation tender should be wrapped up by the end of the month.

partyguinness

Fantastic for Arthur Cox...;)

According to reports, they received €30m odd for advising re bank bailiouts last year.

Tom Young

I think that NAMA will have a rather interesting effect on the legal profession, though it might be a little premature to discuss this.

There are various aspects of the draft bill which will create work, mostly civil law but some might also be criminal in the sense of compliance. This all will turn on how the process works. It is hard to see it not creating work.

While Cox might be the successful tenderer to NAMA themselves, but remember there are always two sides to a dispute. That is of course if the developer, person, creditor has cash to pay the lawyers to defend them or litigate disputes!

I expect opinion work and litigation will be up as a result.

Tom

impr0v

partyguinness wrote: »

Fantastic for Arthur Cox...;)

According to reports, they received €30m odd for advising re bank bailiouts last year.

3m odd, not 30m odd.

DublinWriter

At the most fundamental level there will be a shed-load of conveyancing going on.

browne111

I am quite confused on this. I understand that it will benefit those solicitors who are working for NAMA namely Arthur Cox, but what about other commercial firms, i cant comprehend how they will be effected? please explain if anyone gets it............, im sure it makes perefect sense i just cant put my finger on it, perhaps bcoz i have been away for the year. No excuse, I know!!;)

Tom Young

browne111 wrote: »

I am quite confused on this. I understand that it will benefit those solicitors who are working for NAMA namely Arthur Cox, but what about other commercial firms, i cant comprehend how they will be effected? please explain if anyone gets it............, im sure it makes perefect sense i just cant put my finger on it, perhaps bcoz i have been away for the year. No excuse, I know!!;)

In case you're wondering, I've merged your thread with another which has an almost identical theme. I commented above. Things have moved on a bit and I have read the NAMA legislation now at this stage, and slept quite a bit as a result.

In effect, there will be litigation as a result of NAMA, whether it be good loans not picked for admission to NAMA or savers in the legislation in relation to the cut off periods etc.

Litigation is a doubled edged sword. So, effectively all parties before the courts come with legal representation and legal counsel in most instances. Thus if litigation or opinion work is to follow then it is logical to think that the legal profession will benefit.

NAMA has put a tender out for a law firm to advise it, banks are re-hiring conveyancing solicitors (good for unemployed and incorrectly shed land practitioners) and clients are asking for opinions on the legislation.

So, summary, probably yes. If NAMA makes jobs for inequitably and summarily disposed of trainees, and well experienced practitioners, then I welcome it.

If you really are asking if it will be a cash cow, answer is no.

If you are a journalist, get lost.

Tom

maidhc

Tom Young wrote: »

If you are a journalist, get lost.

browne111

No no not a jpurnalist, just a solicitor wondering if i should cut my losses and change profession!!:(

Tom Young

Yeah sorry, I don't have time for journalists who come here to get material which frankly they could get by reading or calling someone who knows!

I can't offer you advice, but if you are in the conveyancing side, the banks are beginning to buffer up these areas.

Tom

Crania

browne111 wrote: »

No no not a jpurnalist, just a solicitor wondering if i should cut my losses and change profession!!:(

browne111 wrote: »

I am quite confused on this. I understand that it will benefit those solicitors who are working for NAMA namely Arthur Cox, but what about other commercial firms, i cant comprehend how they will be effected? please explain if anyone gets it............, im sure it makes perefect sense i just cant put my finger on it, perhaps bcoz i have been away for the year. No excuse, I know!!;)

Sorry to be harsh mate, but based on the level of grammar, punctuation and spelling in those posts I think you should be reconsidering your profession regardless of the recession, if you are a solicitor as you say you are. It's affected, not effected. Also, the OP got it wrong, but the other way round(!), in the title of this thread. Sorry for singling that out but it really is a pet hate of mine, there's a very simple distinction between the two words. I don't understand how people always get it wrong.

Also, any half-decent member of the legal profession should be able to recognise the effect of any piece of legislation, especially one as important and groundbreaking as the NAMA legislation.

browne111

Thanks Tom

Sangre

johnfás wrote: »

It'll be great if you work for Arthur Cox!

I think the firms representing the various banks are probably the biggest winners.

maidhc

Crania wrote: »

Also, any half-decent member of the legal profession should be able to recognise the effect of any piece of legislation, especially one as important and groundbreaking as the NAMA legislation.

I don't think anyone is sure of the effect of the nama legislation in fairness.

enry

Crania wrote: »

Sorry to be harsh mate, but based on the level of grammar, punctuation and spelling in those posts I think you should be reconsidering your profession regardless of the recession, if you are a solicitor as you say you are. It's affected, not effected. Also, the OP got it wrong, but the other way round(!), in the title of this thread. Sorry for singling that out but it really is a pet hate of mine, there's a very simple distinction between the two words. I don't understand how people always get it wrong.

Also, any half-decent member of the legal profession should be able to recognise the effect of any piece of legislation, especially one as important and groundbreaking as the NAMA legislation.

Maybe crania this persons problem is that he or she is a beneficiary of one of the many meretricious law degrees they are throwing out in TCD these days.

Sorry to be harsh mate but you attitude was just annoying me. I’m sorry for singling you out but condescending students are one of my pet hates.

I’m neither a barrister nor a solicitor, but I’m thinking of two words for you and I'm wondering if I told you them would you be able to distinguish between them.

Tom Young

Thanks guys, play nicely please.

Crania - While I am loathed to single you out, your post is a little bit pointed and somewhat prickly.

Enry - Ok, that's fine too.

I don't want anyone here, particularly our resident topic thieves, to go off on a meandering rant about attitudes, men on land or whatever.

Be nice.

Tom

Maximilian

Nama is a boon for solicitors, no question.

One bank for example has hired in the region of 30 solicitors/legal execs. etc. to deal with with Nama handovers. It also means work for various firms as well, not just Cox's.

There is a mountain of legal due diligence generated here. The legal man-hours required is astronomical and Nama will be around for quite a while.

It's not going to make a huge dent in the number of lawyers who have lost their jobs however.

Player_86

Does anyone know which firms are representing the various banks and financial institutions e.g. BoI, AIB, EBS, Anglo, Irish Nationwide etc? I know that Arthur Cox is advising the government.

And is any firm representing more than one?

Arsenal1986

Arthur Cox are advising Anglo anyway

Maximilian

Player_86 wrote: »

Does anyone know which firms are representing the various banks and financial institutions e.g. BoI, AIB, EBS, Anglo, Irish Nationwide etc? I know that Arthur Cox is advising the government.

And is any firm representing more than one?

Pretty much all the banks had their own panels of solicitors anyway. I imagine work will be dished out as it always was.

Nama have a panel as well. I believe a load of firms that do banking work got on it. Whether that will translate into work for them remains to be seen.

Tester46

Maximilian wrote: »

Pretty much all the banks had their own panels of solicitors anyway. I imagine work will be dished out as it always was.

Nama have a panel as well. I believe a load of firms that do banking work got on it. Whether that will translate into work for them remains to be seen.

There was a lot of talk at the time of the NAMA tenders that the tender was phrased in such a way that it was almost impossible for anyone other than a large commercial firm to get onto the panel (due to requirements for security, technology, Chinese walls, etc.).

The question is, will NAMA generate work for solicitors' firms around the country in general or will the vast majority of the work be retained in the same few large law firms with specialised banking departments (with additional work for their litigation and conveyancing colleagues)? At this stage it seems likely that the average solicitor in a small firm outside Dublin will not be seeing much in the way of NAMA-related work, unless they are lucky enough to already be on a bank's panel.

petrocelli

Arsenal1986 wrote: »

Arthur Cox are advising Anglo anyway

This isn't true.

Arsenal1986

Sorry, you are right about that, McCanns advised them last year about their nationisation didnt they?