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

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.

zl1whqvjs75cdy

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Seems the Journal have gone with a slightly sensationalist angle

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

There's a surprise.

Paz-CCFC

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.

Arthur Cox would be representing a legal challenge, which includes arguments that it would contravene rights and freedoms under the Bunreacht (eg, property, freedom of expression), EU Treaties and International law. How is that appreciably different to the challenges in Ryan, McGee, Norris, X etc.? Or a party representing the President in an Article 26 reference?

Javan

Paz-CCFC wrote: »

Arthur Cox would be representing a legal challenge, which includes arguments that it would contravene rights and freedoms under the Bunreacht (eg, property, freedom of expression), EU Treaties and International law. How is that appreciably different to the challenges in Ryan, McGee, Norris, X etc.? Or a party representing the President in an Article 26 reference?

There is no problem with that at all. Taking a challenge at that stage is business as usual. What makes it political is threatening to take action before the law is passed and thereby attempting to interfere in the legislative process. That is not a legal action , it is a political one.

SpaceTime

I don't think this is "threatening" anyone. The Government, just like anyone else, can shop around for any services it wants to.

Victor

Hippo wrote: »

forgoing the rather useful revenue stream it provides.

But it's a negative income stream.

Paz-CCFC

Javan wrote: »

There is no problem with that at all. Taking a challenge at that stage is business as usual. What makes it political is threatening to take action before the law is passed and thereby attempting to interfere in the legislative process. That is not a legal action , it is a political one.

I don't believe that they would have locus standi to take any challenge before the law is passed, as it would be moot. It would have to directly affect them, which it won't until passed. All the tobacco company are doing at the moment is essentially lobbying the government and Oireachtas. That's a common part of the legislative process. They're just doing so via their legal representatives, whom have the expertise in this area.

To be honest, I'm not too sure that lobbying via a legal firm instead of a PR group is really such a bad thing. At least it would be based more on legal issues than a populist campaign by the latter.

Javan

Paz-CCFC wrote: »

To be honest, I'm not too sure that lobbying via a legal firm instead of a PR group is really such a bad thing. At least it would be based more on legal issues than a populist campaign by the latter.

Fair point.

Counterpoint: the legislature should not (and mostly does not) interfere with the operation of the court. Officers of the court seeking to interfere with the legislative process feels wrong, even when only under instruction from their client.

234

Javan wrote: »

Fair point.

Counterpoint: the legislature should not (and mostly does not) interfere with the operation of the court. Officers of the court seeking to interfere with the legislative process feels wrong, even when only under instruction from their client.

Being an officer of the court means that you owe certain obligations to the court; not that you are in any sense a representative of the court. So there is no question of one branch of the government seeking to interfere with the other.

hullaballoo

Interesting that people are concerned about the separation of powers doctrine in this particular situation.

You don't mind the legislature interfering with the justice system but you do mind a firm of solicitors suggesting something to the legislature?

conorh91

Javan wrote: »

the legislature should not (and mostly does not) interfere with the operation of the court. Officers of the court seeking to interfere with the legislative process feels wrong, even when only under instruction from their client.

Just over a month ago, Alan Shatter wrote to the Ceann Comhairle of Dail Eireann and the Taoiseach, asking to be excluded from the terms of reference into the Commission of Investigation into allegations of malpractice in the Cavan-Monaghan region.

Alan Shatter was criticised for this communication, albeit with much faux-outrage and hyperbole.

But it would have been absolutely daft for anyone to have criticized the firm, as opposed to Alan Shatter personally, for taking this approach.

Solicitors have a duty of care to their clients and futher duties to the courts, and as a matter of necessity, the futy to the Client will often clash with the best interests of society. To claim that a solicitor or his firm must defer to the Oireachtas against the wishes of his client is fundamentally wrongheaded and if true, would allow the Oireachtas to ride roughshod over the rights and freedoms of individuals.