solicitors knowingly misrepresenting the law

Carawaystick

I presume solicitors/barristers are not supposed to misrepresent the law?

Like writing to a person A saying "this thing X you're doing is not allowed as there's an high court injunction preventing it"
yet a few days later the same solicitors state in court there was no problem with the person doing X

Pat Mustard

Solicitors and barristers are not supposed to misrepresent the law. (I have quoted from the Law Society Guide to Professional Conduct but barristers' rules are similar, with regard to their duties to the court).
https://www.lawsociety.ie/Documents/committees/conduct-guide.pdf

A solicitor should present his client’s case to his client’s best advantage. It is not the task of an advocate to win a case at all costs. In addition, the advocate has a duty to assist the court in reaching a just decision and in furtherance of that aim he must advise the court of all relevant cases and statutory provisions.

With regard to evidence, while the advocate should not deceive the court in relation to any facts placed before it, he is not obliged to make available to the court any evidence harmful to his case of which the court or the opposing party is otherwise unaware. Except where appearing as a prosecution advocate, a solicitor is not under any duty to inform the court of the existence of witnesses who would assist the other side. However, iif a solicitor knows that an affidavit has been made and filed in the case which he is conducting and which is therefore within the knowledge of the court, and the affidavit is such that if it were before the court it might affect the mind of the judge, then the advocate’s duty is to disclose the affidavit to the judge.

It is the duty of the advocate to uphold fearlessly the proper interests of his client and protect his client’s liberty. He is entitled to state every fact freely and to use every argument, whether technical or otherwise, that may be used in accordance with the law and within the rules of professional conduct. He should resist any attempt to restrict him or his client in the performance of this task.

There isn't enough detail in the example that you have given to say whether it would amount to misrepresentation of the law or not.

drkpower

Carawaystick wrote: »

I presume solicitors/barristers are not supposed to misrepresent the law?

Like writing to a person A saying "this thing X you're doing is not allowed as there's an high court injunction preventing it"
yet a few days later the same solicitors state in court there was no problem with the person doing X

Any chance this might query might have a passing reference to a current high profile matter.....?!

If so, bear in mind that there is nothing prohibiting a solicitor from taking a certain position with counterparties, and later withdrawing a certain a certain aspect of your client's case.

Carawaystick

Ok, So this is about [redacted]

broadsheet.ie published a letter from a solicitors firm representing [redacted]

Whereas a barrister acting on behalf of [redacted] stated something else in the HC.

The solicitors stated "you have published an article <name> which refers to our client and which breaches the terms of a high court injunction dated 21st May2015..."

rte report the barrister stated in court

rte wrote:

"<the Barrister> told the court that <TD>'s statement to the Dáil was inaccurate and was made with "conscious disregard" for the injunction and in breach of standing orders.

However, he said this was "legally irrelevant" to today's application to vary the order.

He said it was no part of [redacted] intention or the courts to seek to restrain deputies.

"The court could not do it. We knew that and we didn't ask for it," he said.

Now maybe there's some other firm of solicitors instructing the barrister, or there seems to be a contradiction.

Section 6.1 of the law society conduct guide states

law society conduct guide wrote:

A solicitor must be honest and courteous in all his dealings with third parties

A solicitor, whether in his professional capacity or otherwise, must not engage in any
conduct which is fraudulent, deceitful or in any way contrary to his position as a solicitor
and an officer of the court.

not links - remove the space
http: //www.rte.ie/news/2015/0602/705346-denis-obrien-media/
http: //www.broadsheet.ie/2015/06/01/completely-incompatible-with-a-functioning-democracy/?utm_source=internal&utm_medium=web&utm_content=most_commented

drkpower

The barrister said that the court could not restrain deputies. That is different to the subject of the threat in the solicitors letter (which relates to the reporting by the press).

Literally nothing there is contradictory or misleading.

The issue was whether the Court could restrain the reporting of matters in the Dail where the effect of that reporting would be to circumvent an order of the Court. It was never about restraining Catherine Murphy

Mr. Incognito

In the absence of the full facts its hard to criticise but it was certainly very embarassing for whoever wrote it.

Tom Young

The lesson from recent events, and in line with the OP query is - you pay for what you get.