Arthur Cox go about their business and get threatened by the State?

TOMs WIFE

So from what I've read in the papers today, the Irish Cancer society have made a decision to refuse corporate donations from Arthur Cox because said firm are representing a tobacco company in relation to the plain packaging proposals.

As I see it:

1. It's the charity's prerogative to refuse donations on principle if they wish, but naïve. They are seemingly foregoing about €20k by this decision, have to say it would make me think twice about supporting with my hard earned cash if they can refuse donations because a company takes a client on that they don't like. Still, their decision.

2. Children's Minister James Reilly has come out and said it is not appropriate for legal firm Arthur Cox to represent tobacco firms and State agencies under the aegis of his department. "I fail to see how we send the right message by employing legal firms that are prepared to represent the tobacco industry." Now, this makes me wonder if it is appropriate for a Minister to effectively threaten a law abiding legal firm with loss of business if they choose to pursue their normal business in taking on legal work for a company that produces (at the moment) a perfectly legal product.

What next? Does the State refuse to hire legitimate firms that engage with any aspect of the tobacco sector? Are the paper providers for cigarettes now debarred from producing stationary products for the State because of their dastardly connections to tobacco?

Would love thoughts from people on here - acceptable statements from a Minister? Is it legal to suggest that the State could refuse to hire Arthur Cox on this basis?

Please, no moral arguments about dangers of smoking. That's for another forum :P

hullaballoo

I watch suits and I know who's going to lose this.

Someone's going to get lit up.

TOMs WIFE

hullaballoo wrote: »

I watch suits and I know who's going to lose this.

Someone's going to get lit up.

I don't watch suits. Pray tell

michael999999

You can't run with the fox, and chase with the hounds!

Paz-CCFC

michael999999 wrote: »

You can't run with the fox, and chase with the hounds!

You can't roost with the Cox and lay with the hens.

johnnyskeleton

Acting for the state in state v A in 2014, then against the state in state v B in 2015 is fine as regards conflict of interest.

Acting for A v state in 2015 is a bit dodgy.

Acting for both the state and A at the same time in the same piece of litigation, when the state has paid a retainer to you, is a whole other ball game.

But to be honest, this shouldnt be a scandal. The state shouls shop around for lawyers in the first place and then this wouldnt happen.

Whosthis

TOMs WIFE wrote: »

So from what I've read in the papers today, the Irish Cancer society have made a decision to refuse corporate donations from Arthur Cox because said firm are representing a tobacco company in relation to the plain packaging proposals.

As I see it:

1. It's the charity's prerogative to refuse donations on principle if they wish, but naïve. They are seemingly foregoing about €20k by this decision, have to say it would make me think twice about supporting with my hard earned cash if they can refuse donations because a company takes a client on that they don't like. Still, their decision.

2. Children's Minister James Reilly has come out and said it is not appropriate for legal firm Arthur Cox to represent tobacco firms and State agencies under the aegis of his department. "I fail to see how we send the right message by employing legal firms that are prepared to represent the tobacco industry." Now, this makes me wonder if it is appropriate for a Minister to effectively threaten a law abiding legal firm with loss of business if they choose to pursue their normal business in taking on legal work for a company that produces (at the moment) a perfectly legal product.

What next? Does the State refuse to hire legitimate firms that engage with any aspect of the tobacco sector? Are the paper providers for cigarettes now debarred from producing stationary products for the State because of their dastardly connections to tobacco?

Would love thoughts from people on here - acceptable statements from a Minister? Is it legal to suggest that the State could refuse to hire Arthur Cox on this basis?

Please, no moral arguments about dangers of smoking. That's for another forum :P

Do you currently support the Irish Cancer Society financially?

maccydoodies

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Acting for the state in state v A in 2014, then against the state in state v B in 2015 is fine as regards conflict of interest.

Acting for A v state in 2015 is a bit dodgy.

Acting for both the state and A at the same time in the same piece of legislation, when the state has paid a retainer to you, is a whole other ball game.

But to be honest, this shouldnt be a scandal. The state shouls shop around for lawyers in the first place and then this wouldnt happen.

Or at least they should subbie the job out like they do with some of their other work that the state hire them to do.

conorh91

With an increasing concentration of big legal firms, it's easy enough to see how these things arise. Dublin is a shrinking village in legal terms.

However as Johnnyskeleton said, it's less forgivable when both sides are simultaneously represented by the one firm.

I don't see how any liability could lie against the State in circumstances where it aims to avoid conflicts of interest.

However, it's slightly dodgier to 'punish' a firm for accepting work from a tobacco firm (whose activities the State upholds in its laws and in whose profits the State taxes a hefty share). There's a strong argument to be made against that.

Victor

Just because tobacco is legal, doesn't mean it is ethical or should be endorsed or that the state should engage with those that endorse it.

godtabh

Victor wrote: »

Just because tobacco is legal, doesn't mean it is ethical or should be endorsed or that the state should engage with those that endorse it.

So by Arthur Cox representing a tobacco firm they are endorsing tobacco? Are they not ethically bound to represent their client to their best of their ability?

hullaballoo

I don't think legal representatives should ever be said to endorse their client's activities.

It's a fairly commonplace problem as it is for lawyers who defend people accused of serious crimes or unethical behaviour that for some reason, certain subsets of the population conflate the lawyer's work with the criminal or unethical behaviour.

How can you defend that monster?!

AndonHandon

It's a media witch hunt, plain and simple. No real substance to the outcry.

That being said, if there was deeper digging to be done then the media would have a field day over the political connections Cox have and have had over the years which arguably lead to them getting so much government work. Former MP Eugene McCague on the board of the HSE being one.

P. Breathnach

hullaballoo wrote: »

I don't think legal representatives should ever be said to endorse their client's activities.

It's a fairly commonplace problem as it is for lawyers who defend people accused of serious crimes or unethical behaviour that for some reason, certain subsets of the population conflate the lawyer's work with the criminal or unethical behaviour.

How can you defend that monster?!

And the extreme case is the murder of Pat Finucane.

In my book (a non-lawyer's book at that) everybody, good or bad, has a right to representation. If an effort is made by the state to discourage legal firms from representing people that they don't like, that amounts to abrogation of that right.

What next? Should solicitors or barristers who represent AAA protestors be refused all free legal aid work?

Victor

godtabh wrote: »

So by Arthur Cox representing a tobacco firm they are endorsing tobacco? Are they not ethically bound to represent their client to their best of their ability?

And in civil cases, aren't lawyers perfectly capable of saying "I'm sorry, I don't want your business"

But even in a criminal case, surely many lawyers would excuse themselves from cases where the accused intends to go on killing.

http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/fast_facts/

Worldwide, tobacco use causes more than 5 million deaths per year, and current trends show that tobacco use will cause more than 8 million deaths annually by 2030.

Losty Dublin

As a taxpayer, I'd be concerned if the State is forgoing competent professional services from a firm on the basis that they supply professional services on the basis referred to by Minister Reilly, especially if it is costing us taxpayers money.

On the conflict of interests, is it too much that you'd expect both parties to address this before retaining legal representation? Or am I, as a layman, showing my ignorance?

Oafley Jones

"Biting the hand that feeds you" comes to mind. If AC did a lot of work for the likes of say Apple Inc. and did the equivalent thing there; there would be consequences, which would be relayed to them in no uncertain terms.

P. Breathnach

Oafley Jones wrote: »

"Biting the hand that feeds you" comes to mind. If AC did a lot of work for the likes of say Apple Inc. and did the equivalent thing there; there would be consequences, which would be relayed to them in no uncertain terms.

There is a special responsibility incumbent on the state, not least because of its size as a consumer of legal services.

godtabh

Victor wrote: »

And in civil cases, aren't lawyers perfectly capable of saying "I'm sorry, I don't want your business"

But even in a criminal case, surely many lawyers would excuse themselves from cases where the accused intends to go on killing.

http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/fast_facts/

Don't get me wrong I am 100% against smoking but every one has the right to representation.

I do work that many people who find objectionable. I once acted for a client building a CHP plant that used animal carcasses for fuel. Lots of environmental objections.

I did the work I was engaged to do that supported the application. Morally and ethically I can stand over my findings but asked if I would live there the answer would be no.

There is a big difference between professional opinion and personal opinion.

Victor

P. Breathnach wrote: »

And the extreme case is the murder of Pat Finucane.

In my book (a non-lawyer's book at that) everybody, good or bad, has a right to representation. If an effort is made by the state to discourage legal firms from representing people that they don't like, that amounts to abrogation of that right.

What next? Should solicitors or barristers who represent AAA protestors be refused all free legal aid work?

Unless the Legal Aid Board is accused of a crime, they aren't a client, the accused is.

I am happy that accused parties have representation, it enables society to properly punish them if they are found guilty.

nuac

Solicitors' firms of all sizes have to deal frequently with conflict of interest issues.

If Big Tobacco want to sue the state over anti-smoking legislation solicitors who are earning huge amounts from the state's health budget should not act for them.

AC are not the only solicitors about

Manach

Leaving aside the supposed morality of this, the key issue is that firms can represent the best of their ability anyone (who can pay) without fear of retaliation by the state( from OP's 2nd point ). Long term that would have a chilling effect as business dictates one does not annoy the 800lb gorilla which the modern state is in terms of resources.

johnnyskeleton

Manach wrote: »

Leaving aside the supposed morality of this, the key issue is that firms can represent the best of their ability anyone (who can pay) without fear of retaliation by the state( from OP's 2nd point ). Long term that would have a chilling effect as business dictates one does not annoy the 800lb gorilla which the modern state is in terms of resources.

Bad for the State as well. I mean, if they only employ lawyers who dont challenge them, they will exclude the lawyers best equipped to deal with such challenges from representing them. But again, not in the same piece of litigation at the same time.

Another factor to think about, why are there complaints about this but never a peep about AC representing both NAMA and certain banks?

conorh91

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Another factor to think about, why are there complaints about this but never a peep about AC representing both NAMA and certain banks?

In the same litigation?

Non-inquisitive, Irish journalistic lethargy would be my cynical suggestion, but it's a valid question.

Victor

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Another factor to think about, why are there complaints about this but never a peep about AC representing both NAMA and certain banks?

You mean they're doing it again? :pac:

Question: how many people knew this?

Were these contentious matters?

gctest50

TOMs WIFE wrote: »

..........
2. Children's Minister James Reilly has come out and said it is not appropriate for legal firm Arthur Cox to represent tobacco firms and State agencies under the aegis of his department. "I fail to see how we send the right message by employing legal firms that are prepared to represent the tobacco industry."
..................

maybe stop taking the dirty money from excise on tobacco while they're at it ....... but a billion is hard to find elsewhere

www.revenue.ie/en/about/publications/tobacco-market.pdf

.

AndonHandon

gctest50 wrote: »

maybe stop taking the dirty money from excise on tobacco while they're at it ....... but a billion is hard to find elsewhere


.

The reduction in costs associated with the smokers burdening the health system should offset the lost excise.

Little CuChulainn

godtabh wrote: »

Don't get me wrong I am 100% against smoking but every one has the right to representation.

I do work that many people who find objectionable. I once acted for a client building a CHP plant that used animal carcasses for fuel. Lots of environmental objections.

I did the work I was engaged to do that supported the application. Morally and ethically I can stand over my findings but asked if I would live there the answer would be no.

There is a big difference between professional opinion and personal opinion.

I don't think many people outside the legal profession recognise that distinction. And outside the courtroom, people and organisation have to be cogniscant of that. If you successfully defended a rapist based on a technicality, would you be surprised if a group like the rape crisis center refused to take on your services in the future?

Little CuChulainn

AndonHandon wrote: »

The reduction in costs associated with the smokers burdening the health system should offset the lost excise.

Wasn't there a Dutch study which showed that the reduced lifespan of smokers meant they were the least costly to the health services? I think the morbidly obese came in second on that list.

Found it: http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0050029

mrs vimes

Victor wrote: »

Unless the Legal Aid Board is accused of a crime, they aren't a client, the accused is.

I am happy that accused parties have representation, it enables society to properly punish them if they are found guilty.

FYP

johnnyskeleton

Victor wrote: »

You mean they're doing it again? :pac:

Question: how many people knew this?

Were these contentious matters?

Article from 2012:

http://www.villagemagazine.ie/index.php/2012/04/1630/

I'm not making the point that Journalists didn't find out about it, but rather that a government body and the banks it is buying loans from were represented by the same firm and the government didn't seem to care at the time, but when the tobacco industry engages the same solicitors that act for a government body, then the government kicks up a fuss.