Fine Gael TD sues Dublin Hotel after falling off swing

VinLieger

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I have a lot of time for Shatter, I like that he's enormously bright, that he is his own man, that he is unafraid to speak his mind; and that he usually advocates in the public interest,above party loyalty.

But lets leave aside whether or not we like the man.

Is he a lawyer? Yes
Did he make sincere and important efforts to drag the legal professions into the 21st century, despite huge opposition from vested interests? Undoubtedly, yes.

Therefore, this idea that lawyers qua policymakers will always protect one another, and drive-on that gravy train, is patently false.

If he had been allowed take on the title of senior counsel and therefore benefit from the self regulation barristers have there is no way the Legal Services bill would ever have existed

ToBeFrank123

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Lets take this list of complaints one-by-one

A business is entitled to know who is suing it. What do you mean by 'verifying the identity of the Claimant'? There may be isolated cases where a claimant is not who they claim to be, but that is a really marginal problem. Most people are who they say they are.

Re checking the veracity of a claim: It isn't a solicitor's job to do this in and of itself, but the veracity will become apparent as evidence is gathered. Remember, it's not in any lawyer's interest to bring a claim, especially where a litigant has no resources. The lawyer (whether a solicitor or a barrister acting under instructions) will not be paid for a claim that is doomed to fail.

Finally, there are of course penalties for people who bring unmerited claims in which the plaintiff has lied. The problem is that you cannot simply assume that every failed case means that a litigant has lied. Civil cases are tried on the balance of probabilities, but lying under oath (for example) must typically meet the criminal standard -- a finding beyond any reasonable doubt.

Anyway, this is getting way beyond the initial claim that lawyers themselves are only driven by self-interest. Our recent history (Alan Shatter and Mary Robinson are cases in point) suggests otherwise.

This is behind a paywall so you may or may not be able to read it.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/solicitors-offices-searched-by-gardaí-in-bogus-claims-crackdown-1.3871865?mode=sample&auth-failed=1&pw-origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fnews%2Fcrime-and-law%2Fsolicitors-offices-searched-by-garda%25C3%25AD-in-bogus-claims-crackdown-1.3871865

Gardaí carried out an operation against a solicitors firm who represented clients in PI cases with false identities. Multiple claims using multiple identities.
And there is no law against solicitors doing it!

Instead of a 5 minute check of the claimant's social media as could have happened in the Bailey case, the solicitors firm engaged in a 3 year long process of wasting courts time and money. You think that's responsible or acceptable? And don't give us the "its not the solicitors responsibility" line in response.

Also, any chance you'd declare your interest in all this? Legal background?

Underground

Throughout all of this the most surprising thing I have learnt is that the people of Dun Laoghaire are some shower, sorry if that offends anyone but seriously, look at the election choices that they make.

I always held some contempt towards the constituency because Rich Boy Barrett is somehow voted into the Dail. But this whole affair shone a light on John Bailey, a lad who I hadn't heard of before all this. He was voted in again last weekend (on count 3 instead of the first count this time, so maybe they're learning) which just defies belief.

She will be fine come next General Election, the people of DL will vote for her again just as they continue to vote for John Bailey.

VinLieger

rusty cole wrote: »

Did you read him in the indo today?? he said that he was called greedy by many, not because he was greedy but because "as everyone knows" the greedy jew is a well know negative slur, so it was anti-Semitism.
Also he received white powder in to his office which was first thought to be anthrax or some such substance, when it turned out to be finely ground ashes..it was representative of the burned bodies of the holocaust!!

WT actual FOOK!

Ill say it again, Bailey and Shatter are cut from exactly the same cloth, they are always the victim.

ToBeFrank123

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Gardaí carried out an operation against a solicitors firm who represented clients in PI cases with false identities. Multiple claims using multiple identities.
And there is no law against solicitors doing it!

I think this is a very minor problem, to be fair. It could just as easily be resolved by a crossed cheque, in the event of a finding for damages, in the name of the claimant. I don't see why this should be beyond the capacity of an insurance company or defendant, so I see no reason to blame the solicitors' profession generally.

And no, I'm not a solicitor. This just seems like common sense.

VinLieger

VinLieger wrote: »

If he had been allowed take on the title of senior counsel and therefore benefit from the self regulation barristers have there is no way the Legal Services bill would ever have existed

Dear Mystic Meg,

Please forward the Lottery numbers for this weekends' draw, and I promise to repay you for same in the amount of half of my winnings.

BattleCorp

facehugger99 wrote: »

This whole issue would be sorted out in a jiffy if the awards were treatment-based.

This bolloxology of awarding huge sums of money to people for injuries, encourages any crookster to chance their arm on receiving a large payout.

I'm absolutely against the current system but can I make this one point.

Supposing you are seriously injured in work due to a breach of health and safety regulations by your employer. Most people agree that you should be entitled to some compensation for your injuries.

Now, lets pretend that the injury is so serious that you can never again can lift a 10kg box and your job involves lifting 20kg boxes. You can get all the treatment in the world but you'll never be able to safely do that job again.

So how can payment for treatment alone compensate you for the loss of your job, and the loss of your ability to live life to the extent you were able to live it before the accident? You may have to take a lesser paying job so how does payment for treatment compensate you for the loss of earnings that you would suffer from the time of the injury to the time of your retirement?

But yeah, people get far too much money for trivial injuries.

BattleCorp

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Instead of a 5 minute check of the claimant's social media as could have happened in the Bailey case, the solicitors firm engaged in a 3 year long process of wasting courts time and money. You think that's responsible or acceptable? And don't give us the "its not the solicitors responsibility" line in response.

Also, any chance you'd declare your interest in all this? Legal background?

If Bailey went to the solicitors one week or two weeks after her injury, how would the race show up in her social media feed seeing as she hadn't even ran it at that stage.

ToBeFrank123

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I think this is a very minor problem, to be fair. It could just as easily be resolved by a crossed cheque, in the event of a finding for damages, in the name of the claimant. I don't see why this should be beyond the capacity of an insurance company or defendant, so I see no reason to blame the solicitors' profession generally.

And no, I'm not a solicitor. This just seems like common sense.

But you agree it should be a legal requirement for solicitors to fully verify their client before agreeing to represent them?
Its a basic check that can easily be done. Just a couple of proofs required, phone call to garda station, utility bill, passport or drivers licence or pps number. These should be enough. I think you need some of these to get a new drivers licence. When submitting the case, copies of these proofs should be included.

At most a half hour to check these. Rather than engaging in a courts process that can take years and holds up genuine PI cases where victims have genuine cases.

If someone comes into a solicitors office and cannot prove they are who they say they are, you know they are not up to any good. And why a solicitor would continue to deal with them reflects badly on that solicitor and the entire profession.

The Bailey case has undermined confidence in the entire solicitor profession, I don't think the profession get that.

expectationlost

expectationlost wrote: »

who called him greedy?

I dunno, apparently it was said a lot from various people and so he interpreted this as mass anti-Semitism, as you do!! grab a copy of the indo on your way home and have a gander, I wager the actual names are in his book.


Wanna know the explosive details? find out in my tell all best seller out Friday!!:D

sure the book is called frenzy and betrayal FFS.. sounds like a episode of the blue planet on sharks. provocative is an understatement. Jackie Collins wouldn't have called her books that

VinLieger

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Dear Mystic Meg,

Please forward the Lottery numbers for this weekends' draw, and I promise to repay you for same in the amount of half of my winnings.

Im not a lawyer or barrister but have several family members and close friends who are, yes this is hearsay but the 2 words i have most commonly and independently heard used to describe Shatter by those who interacted with him in the legal profession are arrogant and selfish. And lets be honest for anyone else in the legal professions to refer to one of their own as arrogant means that person must be on a special level.


I agree the legal profession needs serious overhaul and regulation but if you honestly believe Shatter was doing this primarily in the public interest and not first and foremost because he suddenly had the power to hurt and affect financially the many people who he feels have personally hurt, embarrassed and wronged him then you do not know much about the man at all.


How you can look at Baileys interview transcript and Shatters recent comments about his time in government side by side and not see how they both have the same arrogant victim complex i simply can not understand.

ToBeFrank123

BattleCorp wrote: »

If Bailey went to the solicitors one week or two weeks after her injury, how would the race show up in her social media feed seeing as she hadn't even ran it at that stage.

This is ridiculous. The lengths you are going to to defend the profession and more to the point dodgy claims is laughable and makes me believe you may be a solicitor.

On going monitoring of their social media. Happy?

Bailey was foolish and most people who make false claims are foolish. They are always caught out in the end, often by social media photos! Everyone has a camera these days.

VinLieger

VinLieger wrote: »

Im not a lawyer or barrister but have several family members and close friends who are, yes this is hearsay but the 2 words i have most commonly and independently heard used to describe Shatter by those who interacted with him in the legal profession are arrogant and selfish. And lets be honest for anyone else in the legal professions to refer to one of their own as arrogant means that person must be on a special level.


I agree the legal profession needs serious overhaul and regulation but if you honestly believe Shatter was doing this primarily in the public interest and not first and foremost because he suddenly had the power to hurt and affect financially the many people who he feels have personally hurt, embarrassed and wronged him then you do not know much about the man at all.


How you can look at Baileys interview transcript and Shatters recent comments about his time in government side by side and not see how they both have the same arrogant victim complex i simply can not understand.

:eek::eek::eek: shatter and arrogant in the same sentence = Anti-semite!!

OISH!!! what next!

I agree with your post I have to say.

BattleCorp

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

This is ridiculous. The lengths you are going to to defend the profession and more to the point dodgy claims is laughable and makes me believe you may be a solicitor.

On going monitoring of their social media. Happy?

Bailey was foolish and most people who make false claims are foolish. They are always caught out in the end, often by social media photos! Everyone has a camera these days.

I'm not a solicitor or any sort of legal professional. But unfortunately I am often involved in the process of trying to defend personal injury claims. My job would be so much easier if it was much more difficult to win personal injury claims.

I'm not trying to defend the legal profession, I'm just stating things as I see them.

It's an impossible ask to expect a solicitors to continually monitor their client to see if they are lying or exaggerating. Solicitors can't act like a judge and jury and decide where liability lies in a case. A solicitor can suspect that their client is acting the b0llix but only a judge can say for sure if someone is lying.

Many personal injury cases are very complex. And you expect a solicitor to know instantly if a person is lying to them? And as has been explained earlier, not every inaccuracy is a lie. It might just be a mistake.

Yes, you can monitor a person's social media account. And if something shows up a month after the case has begun, what then? Are they just supposed to abandon their client?

It's not in a solicitor's interests to take on a case that they know they will lose because there is a big chance that they will never get paid for the work that they do on that case.

ToBeFrank123

Rather than a solicitor doing:
1. A 30 minute check as to the identity of a client to make sure they aren’t claiming under a false identity.
2. A quick 5 minute check of the internet or social media to see they aren’t pictured running 10kms when they claim to be badly hurt and check weekly thereafter.
3. A quick google check to make sure the claimant doesn't have a history in the courts of making false claims

They’d rather engage in a 2 or 3 year long courts process wasting everyone’s time, taxpayers money and clogging up the courts with bogus cases.

And you wonder why people’s faith in solicitors, much like their faith in FG, is at an all time low?

Varadkar also needs to deal with solicitors putting forward bogus claims if he wants to regain any credibility.

ToBeFrank123

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

But you agree it should be a legal requirement for solicitors to fully verify their client before agreeing to represent them?
Its a basic check that can easily be done. Just a couple of proofs required, phone call to garda station, utility bill, passport or drivers licence or pps number. These should be enough. I think you need some of these to get a new drivers licence. When submitting the case, copies of these proofs should be included.

I have no objection to it. Nor do I think it whil make a whit of difference, on aggregate. A person will simply be asked to prove their identity, and they will either be able to prove it, or to say "Actually, my maiden name is X".

Doesn't solve anything.

VinLieger wrote: »

Im not a lawyer or barrister but have several family members and close friends who are, yes this is hearsay but the 2 words i have most commonly and independently heard used to describe Shatter by those who interacted with him in the legal profession are arrogant and selfish.

In my own line of work (which is not Law), I meet plenty of talented people who can be described as arrogant and/or selfish. Here, I shrug. What matter? You don't have to like them personally to believe they have valid, logical points to make. Shatter's Legal Services Bill was a case in point.

ToBeFrank123

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I have no objection to it. Nor do I think it whil make a whit of difference, on aggregate. A person will simply be asked to prove their identity, and they will either be able to prove it, or to say "Actually, my maiden name is X".

Of course it will make a difference. It will eliminate a fair number of bogus cases that clog up the courts. It will keep away the shysters.

Solicitors need to embrace reform and regulations, not fight it tooth and nail. Otherwise they end up looking like unregulated fools, which is exactly what recent publicity has shown them to be.

As it stands, anyone with a half cooked dodgy claim can clog up the courts for years. The Bailey case has underlined this.

ToBeFrank123

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Of course it will make a difference. It will eliminate a fair number of bogus cases that clog up the courts. It will keep away the shysters.

Give us a number?

How many claimants do you believe are pursuing claims under false identities, and on what basis do you believe that?

If it's such a problem, why are defendants or their insurance companies not simply paying sucessful claimants in crossed cheques, anyway?

blanch152

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Rather than a solicitor doing:
1. A 30 minute check as to the identity of a client to make sure they aren’t claiming under a false identity.
2. A quick 5 minute check of the internet or social media to see they aren’t pictured running 10kms when they claim to be badly hurt and check weekly thereafter.
3. A quick google check to make sure the claimant doesn't have a history in the courts of making false claims

They’d rather engage in a 2 or 3 year long courts process wasting everyone’s time, taxpayers money and clogging up the courts with bogus cases.

And you wonder why people’s faith in solicitors, much like their faith in FG, is at an all time low?

Varadkar also needs to deal with solicitors putting forward bogus claims if he wants to regain any credibility.

The solicitor is only interested in whether they will get paid. The honesty of the client, the identity of the client, the genuineness of the claim, these things only matter if they will affect whether they get paid.

SnazzyPig

Shefwedfan wrote: »

All said and done this is the Irish voters:

Carolann Clarke, a 10-year resident of Dun Laoghaire, had always supported Fine Gael although she never voted for Ms Bailey.

“You have to give her the benefit of the doubt, but if you are a TD you have to lead by example,” she said. Ms Clarke added that Ms Bailey had made a “poor error” and should expect repercussions. “I don’t think she should resign. But I do think she should be a bit more appreciative of her position.”

This is the clowns that are voting these people in!!!!!

I read that as a'a ten year old resident of Dun Laoghaire.

blanch152

VinLieger wrote: »

Im not a lawyer or barrister but have several family members and close friends who are, yes this is hearsay but the 2 words i have most commonly and independently heard used to describe Shatter by those who interacted with him in the legal profession are arrogant and selfish. And lets be honest for anyone else in the legal professions to refer to one of their own as arrogant means that person must be on a special level.

Shatter was the last Justice Minister who attempted to take on the legal profession.

Look what happened him, and look how he is described. He got screwed by Guerin, a barrister, and you accurately report how he is perceived.

Since then, no Justice Minister has taken on the legal profession. Wonder why?

ToBeFrank123

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Give us a number?

How many claimants do you believe are pursuing claims under false identities, and on what basis do you believe that?

If it's such a problem, why are defendants or their insurance companies not simply paying sucessful claimants in crossed cheques, anyway?

Its a serious enough issue for the gardai to get involved.

Do you have the figures? Does anyone have the figures?

No because no-one knows. Its not transparent and the Law Society certainly aren't going to publish them. If they don't publish them, now are Joe Soaps like you and I supposed to know?

VinLieger

blanch152 wrote: »

Since then, no Justice Minister has taken on the legal profession. Wonder why?

Because shatter screwed it up and got stuck on his own petty bull****, he went about it in the worst way possible and due to his bad blood was probably even the worst choice for the person to be in charge of it.

Hes now poisoned the well for the forseeable future in this regard and barring any major scandal, baileys shenanigans might be enough though , no justice minister will have the political capital to try something like this again for a while.

ToBeFrank123

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Rather than a solicitor doing:
1. A 30 minute check as to the identity of a client to make sure they aren’t claiming under a false identity.
2. A quick 5 minute check of the internet or social media to see they aren’t pictured running 10kms when they claim to be badly hurt and check weekly thereafter.
3. A quick google check to make sure the claimant doesn't have a history in the courts of making false claims

They’d rather engage in a 2 or 3 year long courts process wasting everyone’s time, taxpayers money and clogging up the courts with bogus cases.

And you wonder why people’s faith in solicitors, much like their faith in FG, is at an all time low?

Varadkar also needs to deal with solicitors putting forward bogus claims if he wants to regain any credibility.

I am currently taking a bona fide case for medical negligence following an Orthopaedic procedure that has left me lame and in recurrent pain, with injured nerves going to foot etc. It appears theatre time slots afforded to some procedures may be too short in some hospitals, and I am hoping my case shine a light on this. I approached a specialist solicitor, who made me bring proofs of identity, proof of address etc, and they called to my place as I can only do steps with difficulty. The first thing they did, after getting my medical records, and asking me in detail as to what I can and can’t do now, months after surgery, versus before surgery etc, was send all this information and files to another independent consultant to see if there is or isn’t a case to be answered. They determined there is a genuine case, so files have gone to yet another consultant, one in London who will testify in court against a consultant in Ireland. None in Ireland will actually do this as they know each other too well. I have to travel to London to see this man and will separately have to sometime undergo further surgery to try to rectify my situation.

This is different to a Personal Injury case, but a good solicitor will jump through the hoops and make you do too to ensure there is a valid case as they do not want to waste their own precious time and office costs in pursuing a hiding to nothing, and don’t want to risk a counterclaim by the other party etc.

Bailey’s solicitor has some answering to do.

seligehgit

VinLieger wrote: »

The reason his name is mud with pretty much every barrister is when he was an opposition TD and still practicing Law he pretty much demanded the title of senior counsel barrister despite never having trained as a barrister. The only reason for this was so he could charge senior counsel rates which far outstrip those of a solicitor fees.

This is also a big part of why his legal services bill faced so much opposition because he had absolutely nobody willing to get on his side because of all the bad blood he had created. Granted it would have likely faced opposition anyway but he effectively made it impossible due to his arrogance.

Of course he still paints himself as the victim in all of this though.

Mainly down to the likely removal of the restrictive practices and other anti competitive practices with the likely cost implications for the legal profession IMO.

dublin99

Timeline of events:

Fall off swing July 2015
Dail election February 2016
Madigan appointed Minister November 2017
The time limit for PI claim is 2 years from incident ie July 2017.

It would have gone through PIAB first before plaintiff can take a claim to Court instead. Say that may have taken 4-6 months after MB recovered from injury 3 months after the fall.
Solicitors would start preparing the case after the PIAB process, probably sometime in 2016.
Given the preliminary issues re discovery were only in front of the Circuit Court County Registrar last week (May 2019), it looks likely that proceedings were issued quite close to the deadline in July 2017.
Given 1) Madigan's response when asked about the matter and the referral to client confidentiality and
2) she ceased to practice as a lawyer in 2017 (but probably only when appointed Minister at the end of the year)
and 3) MB's refusal to clarify her role,

It was more than likely that Madigan was involved in the preparation, the issuance of the proceedings and the earlier part of the litigation until she officially ceased to practise as a Solicitor of the firm.
Let's see what Kennedy SC finds out!

Shefwedfan

dublin99 wrote: »

Let's see what Kennedy SC finds out!

Anything he does find out will not be released to the public!!

Stop moaning ffs

Shefwedfan wrote: »

Anything he does find out will not be released to the public!!

I hate being cynical but I have to agree.
This is a two week training session getting them to memorise a version of events where they are neither of them anything but innocent and create a narrative that looks like nothing happened and let’s move on.

padd b1975

dublin99 wrote: »

Timeline of events:

Fall off swing July 2015
Dail election February 2016
Madigan appointed Minister November 2017
The time limit for PI claim is 2 years from incident ie July 2017.

It would have gone through PIAB first before plaintiff can take a claim to Court instead. Say that may have taken 4-6 months after MB recovered from injury 3 months after the fall.
Solicitors would start preparing the case after the PIAB process, probably sometime in 2016.
Given the preliminary issues re discovery were only in front of the Circuit Court County Registrar last week (May 2019), it looks likely that proceedings were issued quite close to the deadline in July 2017.
Given 1) Madigan's response when asked about the matter and the referral to client confidentiality and
2) she ceased to practice as a lawyer in 2017 (but probably only when appointed Minister at the end of the year)
and 3) MB's refusal to clarify her role,

It was more than likely that Madigan was involved in the preparation, the issuance of the proceedings and the earlier part of the litigation until she officially ceased to practise as a Solicitor of the firm.
Let's see what Kennedy SC finds out!

Josepha Madigan is a former pupil of Mount Anvil, and if the Ross O'Carroll Kelly books have thought us anything, it's that she'll have no qualms whatsoever about fighting dirty to save her arse.


Still would though.

In a heartbeat.

Edgware

Bailey is being abandoned by the FG sisterhood fairly quickly. They have eyes on her handy chairperson job with an extra 9000 a year job.