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.

Hippo

AC's representation of a tobacco firm (or any other firm) is entirely unrelated to their involvement in child protection issues. Reilly's comments are ridiculous.

Victor

Hippo wrote: »

AC's representation of a tobacco firm (or any other firm) is entirely unrelated to their involvement in child protection issues. Reilly's comments are ridiculous.

Tobacco is a child protection issue. Most new smokers are children.

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

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

That looks at only one side of the equation - it fails to accounts for the socio-economic gains that people will generate from their longer lives.

Hippo

Victor wrote: »

Tobacco is a child protection issue. Most new smokers are children.

That's a political rather than a legal opinion. Child protection in this context has nothing to do with tobacco.

nuac

AC get a lot of health related legal work from the state. I doubt if any other solicitors' firm get as much.

Tobacco is a health hazard. Big Tobacco are lobbying and threatening legal action against the state to rein in efforts to reduce smoking.

James Reilly is correct and consistent in diverting state business from firms who act for Big Tobacco.

Clear conflict of interest here.

Hearing of those chinese walls for years. They do not extend into the partners' dining rooms, especially when the bottom line haul is being divided.

Grolschevik

Victor wrote: »

Most new smokers are children.

100% of smokers are people!

100% of people die!

You do the math!

FACT!!!!!

Hippo

nuac wrote: »

AC get a lot of health related legal work from the state. I doubt if any other solicitors' firm get as much.


James Reilly is correct and consistent in diverting state business from firms who act for Big Tobacco.

Clear conflict of interest here.

Hearing of those chinese walls for years. They do not extend into the partners' dining rooms, especially when the bottom line haul is being divided.

There are many sensitive areas of law in which, for instance, barristers appear both for and against the state - extradition proceedings, and most obviously, criminal matters spring to mind; the only exception I can think of requiring an undertaking not to is do so is, bizarrely, the State asylum practitioners' panel.

I'm personally very anti-smoker and have no connection with or interest in AC whatsoever, but Reilly is inventing a conflict of interest here. If his intervention is accepted, where is the line to be drawn in future? What clearly represents a 'conflict of interest'?

hullaballoo

I think we've managed to unwittingly unveil the real and very serious issue here. Reilly had no business airing this problem in the public arena and that's the main point.

All right, there might be a conflict of interests internal to AC but that's for them to manage. If it comes to it, the Government can withdraw their business for political reasons.

Don't under any circumstance politicise legal representation. As above, lawyers don't endorse their clients' activities, they defend or prosecute on their clients' behalves.

No TD has the right to come out in public and castrate any lawyer purely on the basis of who they happen to represent. We're specifically required to act without fear or favour - that's the conscientiousness of a lawyer. We couldn't do our jobs if we aligned our work with our personal, political or other motivations.

nuac

I see from today's Irish Times ( Business this Week, p 1 ) that AC have €800,000 p.a. corporate work from Tusla and manage a further €12 million p.a. thru some 30 local solicitors. I understand a chunk of that €12 mln p.a. goes to AC.

They have taken the shilling, they must follow the drum.

Big Tobacco is putting the goverment under legal and lobbying pressure to allow them promote smoking, especially amongst the young.

imho clear conflict of interest. I believe James Reilly is right on this.

Barristers can be somewhat independent of clients. Solicitors have a closer, continuous relationship with their clients, especially major commercial clients.

The AC partners could end up entertaining Big Tobacco heads and senior health personnel in the one place on same night. You don't find those famous chinese walls in the plusher restaurants.

Victor

maccydoodies wrote: »

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.

Are you confusing this with the Tusla contract where they seem to have a contract to manage other firms.

Victor

hullaballoo wrote: »

No TD has the right to come out in public and castrate any lawyer

All he has done is castigate them and threatened the withdrawal of tendering opportunities, not bodily harm.

Pat Mustard

nuac wrote: »

imho clear conflict of interest. I believe James Reilly is right on this.

I don't understand the reasoning here.

If there was a true conflict of interest, Arthur Cox could not act against its own client. If they did, they could be censured by the Law Society, etc. I doubt that Arthur Cox would make such a schoolboy error.

The tobacco companies can have their day in court. To attempt to target the firm of solicitors who act for a tobacco company just seems ridiculous to me. It makes just as much sense to target the lawyers for people accused of criminal offences. And it will achieve nothing except to give additional publicity to Arthur Cox, in my view.

Doesn't Reilly get that people are entitled to bring actions in relation to perceived injustices? Why target the lawyers? This isn't moral outrage on my part in relation to a perceived attack on lawyers. I just think that it makes no sense. It will not affect the outcome of litigation if some politician is showboating on the newspapers.

If the government wanted to influence clients taken on by law firms, I would have thought that a phone call to the relevant managing partner would be by far the most effective way of achieving that.

I really don't care one way or the other but if Reilly wanted to make a point about Arthur Cox representing tobacco companies, why doesn't he attempt to reach arrangements for refusal of renewal of contracts between Arthur Cox and government bodies?

That doesn't seem to be what happened here, so it appears to me that something else is going on.

Victor

The Mustard wrote: »

Doesn't Reilly get that people are entitled to bring actions in relation to perceived injustices? Why target the lawyers?

Presumably the threat of litigation came on a Arthur Cox letterhead.

nuac

The Mustard wrote: »

I don't understand the reasoning here.

If there was a true conflict of interest, Arthur Cox could not act against its own client. If they did, they could be censured by the Law Society, etc. I doubt that Arthur Cox would make such a schoolboy error.

The tobacco companies can have their day in court. To attempt to target the firm of solicitors who act for a tobacco company just seems ridiculous to me. It makes just as much sense to target the lawyers for people accused of criminal offences. And it will achieve nothing except to give additional publicity to Arthur Cox, in my view.

Doesn't Reilly get that people are entitled to bring actions in relation to perceived injustices? Why target the lawyers? This isn't moral outrage on my part in relation to a perceived attack on lawyers. I just think that it makes no sense. It will not affect the outcome of litigation if some politician is showboating on the newspapers.

If the government wanted to influence clients taken on by law firms, I would have thought that a phone call to the relevant managing partner would be by far the most effective way of achieving that.

I really don't care one way or the other but if Reilly wanted to make a point about Arthur Cox representing tobacco companies, why doesn't he attempt to reach arrangements for refusal of renewal of contracts between Arthur Cox and government bodies?

That doesn't seem to be what happened here, so it appears to me that something else is going on.

If, as seems to be the case, AC have a huge share of the state's and hospitals' legal business, they should not act for an organisation promoting smoking.

Transcends the chinese wall.

Clear conflict of interest imho. There are 2000+ other legal firms,

Pat Mustard

nuac wrote: »

If, as seems to be the case, AC have a huge share of the state's and hospitals' legal business, they should not act for an organisation promoting smoking.

Transcends the chinese wall.

Clear conflict of interest imho. There are 2000+ other legal firms,

So... If the government has that kind of leverage with Arthur Cox, why is it not being used? Call me cynical but I'm beginning to think that the government doesn't really care and is creating a bit of a sideshow to distract the electorate.

234

nuac wrote: »

If, as seems to be the case, AC have a huge share of the state's and hospitals' legal business, they should not act for an organisation promoting smoking.

Transcends the chinese wall.

Clear conflict of interest imho. There are 2000+ other legal firms,

But what exactly is the conflict of interest itself? Almost any kind of business might at some point have interests that run contrary to those of the government, and there is no issue with a conflict of interest. Yes, the government has an interest in seeing lower health service costs due to smoking, however, nobody is suggesting that AC couldn't act for McDonalds, CocaCola etc based on the fact that obesity is a drag on the health system.

While there may be PR conflicts, there is nothing that amounts to a professional conflict of interest. And frankly, you can't expect solicitors to avoid taking on clients based on any possible media storm that somebody decides to whip up.

If AC was instructed on both sides of hypothetical IP litigation in a plain packaging scenario then there would be an interest.

nuac

234 wrote: »

But what exactly is the conflict of interest itself? Almost any kind of business might at some point have interests that run contrary to those of the government, and there is no issue with a conflict of interest. Yes, the government has an interest in seeing lower health service costs due to smoking, however, nobody is suggesting that AC couldn't act for McDonalds, CocaCola etc based on the fact that obesity is a drag on the health system.

While there may be PR conflicts, there is nothing that amounts to a professional conflict of interest. And frankly, you can't expect solicitors to avoid taking on clients based on any possible media storm that somebody decides to whip up.

If AC was instructed on both sides of hypothetical IP litigation in a plain packaging scenario then there would be an interest.

Every solicitors' firm likes to retain it's present clients and attract new business.

Conflicts of interest arise all the time, and not in the rather narrow sense of what actions are being run for whom.

E.g if a firm just did all the housing work for a local authority they normally would not act against the authority in e,g, an environmental matter,

A firm acting for any large client gets to know that client's executives, culture, policies and working methods. Should clients would not be amused to see a solicitor with which they have such a relationships tog out for a company with opposing interests.

And imho and experience when push comes to shove those chinese walls do not work

conorh91

The Mustard wrote: »

If there was a true conflict of interest, Arthur Cox could not act against its own client. If they did, they could be censured by the Law Society, etc. I doubt that Arthur Cox would make such a schoolboy error.

The Minister for Health has already said there is no conflict of interest in respect of the Department of Health, because the Department is not a client of Arthur Cox (unlike the HSE, the Irish Heart Foundation, St Luke's Cancer Research and various hospitals) and it is the Department of Health which is being sued, not the HSE or any of the above agencies. James Reilly has also acknowledged this technical distinction.

In any event, censure would be a matter for the Solcitors' Disciplinary and not the Law Society. Just as well, because the Society has made its support for Big Tobacco perfectly clear, and I don't see how anyone could have confidence in the Society as an impartial observer.

I really don't care one way or the other but if Reilly wanted to make a point about Arthur Cox representing tobacco companies, why doesn't he attempt to reach arrangements for refusal of renewal of contracts between Arthur Cox and government bodies?

That doesn't seem to be what happened here, so it appears to me that something else is going on.

That is exactly what James Reilly has been calling for. Media reports may have implied that Reilly was putting contracts in the shredder, but all his comments have related to future contracts and future procurement legislation.

Javan

Hippo wrote: »

That's a political rather than a legal opinion. Child protection in this context has nothing to do with tobacco.

I think the problem here is that what JP (and by extension, AC) have done is a political action, not a legal action.

It would be one thing for AC to represent a firm that is litigating against the state. I'm sure that has happened and will happen again.
It is something else entirely to threaten action based on continuing the normal legislative process. That makes this a political action, and once they got involved in a political action they should expect a political response.

Little CuChulainn

Seems the Journal have gone with a slightly sensationalist angle

http://www.thejournal.ie/big-tobacco-law-firms-ireland-plain-packaging-1957952-Mar2015/

Hippo

Javan wrote: »

I think the problem here is that what JP (and by extension, AC) have done is a political action, not a legal action.

It would be one thing for AC to represent a firm that is litigating against the state. I'm sure that has happened and will happen again.
It is something else entirely to threaten action based on continuing the normal legislative process. That makes this a political action, and once they got involved in a political action they should expect a political response.

And where are AC involved in this political action? Reilly can respond in that fashion to tobacco companies of course, but it's a very different thing to threaten a legal firm's state contract on the basis of whom they represent. By doing that he's using state patronage as a weapon. Perhaps in that case the government should consider outlawing tobacco altogether and forgoing the rather useful revenue stream it provides.