Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Solicitors contributing to Ireland's Insurance Fraud Culture

Options
135678

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    Kivaro
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,105 ✭✭✭Kivaro


    mike_ie wrote: »
    I'm aware of the etymology of the name, however there's nothing in the article to say he's Nigerian by birth. Maybe stick to the facts and stop blurring the lines with the old Nigerian = scammer chestnut.
    Stick to the facts? He is Nigerian, unless you are disputing that he is. Very odd.

    Let's replace Nigerian with Traveller.
    Why is it that with the numerous other compensation fraud attempts that are discussed on these threads and when the name McDonagh appears, there is no problem associating that person with being a Traveller ......... even though it was never mentioned in the corresponding report/article?
    Not a word ever said about it.

    Are we now to apply a different standard just because the fraudster in this case in Nigerian? If the fraudster is from Cork, can we not say that a Corkman committed the fraud?


  • Options
    #63
    Boggles
    Registered Users Posts: 39,570 ✭✭✭✭Boggles


    He was from Dublin according to the article.


  • Options
    #64
    Jurgen The German
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,220 ✭✭✭Jurgen The German


    Boggles wrote: »
    Am? The insurance company settled? :confused:



    Bit of a hint from the Judge there.

    What's your point?

    "May" is far from an absolute.

    "May" also means they could go further and "may" be awarded more.

    One judge had already ruled in favour of the claimant so there is a good chance another judge "may" also agree with them and award more.

    Not settling mean the case "may" have dragged it on for another couple of years, ramping up the solicitors fees.

    It's at the stage that you are clutching more straws than a scarecrow having a **** in an effort to lay the blame at insurers doors despite multiple examples directly contradicting your stance.

    You "may" want to rethink things and try to look past the trees at the big ass forest you are ignoring.


  • Options
    #65
    Atoms for Peace
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,888 ✭✭✭Atoms for Peace


    There's still a persistent tendency in this country of obsequiousness towards the professional class.

    Thankfully the hold that those in the black and blue uniforms once held is now broken. Next the lawyers, teachers, medics etc. should be shown up for the petty hypocrites that they are.


  • Options
    #66
    Boggles
    Registered Users Posts: 39,570 ✭✭✭✭Boggles


    Jurgen The German wrote: »
    One judge had already ruled in favour of the claimant so there is a good chance another judge "may" also agree with them and award more.

    What Judge ruled in favor of the claimant?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    Jurgen The German
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,220 ✭✭✭Jurgen The German


    Boggles wrote: »
    What Judge ruled in favor of the claimant?

    Mr Justice Kevin Cross.

    He approved the award.

    Do you think that a judge approving an award is different from them ruling in someone's favour?


  • Options
    #68
    Boggles
    Registered Users Posts: 39,570 ✭✭✭✭Boggles


    Jurgen The German wrote: »
    Mr Justice Kevin Cross.

    He approved the award.

    Do you think that a judge approving an award is different from them ruling in someone's favour?

    Yeah, it's completely different.

    The Judge does not get a say, approving the award is a legal box ticking exercise because they engaged with the court.


  • Options
    #69
    Boggles
    Registered Users Posts: 39,570 ✭✭✭✭Boggles


    The number of personal injury cases taken in the State was down slightly last year while the average award made at High Court level dropped by 29 per cent, according to figures in the latest annual report from the Courts Service

    Something doesn't quite add up here.


  • Options
    #70
    Kivaro
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,105 ✭✭✭Kivaro


    I see the Sunday Independent is running with the thread topic this morning. The link is behind a login, but it's here.
    According to their poll, the legal profession in Ireland is encouraging claims, which is feeding the runaway compensation culture in this country.

    And of course, we know why solicitors are driving the compensation culture. Again looking at the Independent this morning, you can see the ludicrous money that solicitors can make with these claims e.g. Fine Gael Minister Josepha Madigan's family's law firm was in line for €11,500 if Fine Gael TD Maria Bailey case was won for €60,000.
    Solicitors don't care if their fees are essentially paid by the rest of us with increased insurance premiums.


  • Options
    #71
    Henry Ford III
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators Posts: 17,620 Mod ✭✭✭✭Henry Ford III


    Solicitors will always argue that everyone deserves legal representation.

    It's like donning a teflon jacket.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    is_that_so
    Registered Users Posts: 32,136 ✭✭✭✭is_that_so


    Kivaro wrote: »

    And of course, we know why solicitors are driving the compensation culture. Again looking at the Independent this morning, you can see the ludicrous money that solicitors can make with these claims e.g. Fine Gael Minister Josepha Madigan's family's law firm was in line for €11,500 if Fine Gael TD Maria Bailey case was won for €60,000.
    Solicitors don't care if their fees are essentially paid by the rest of us with increased insurance premiums.
    Just for a bit of comparison, they can make that and a whole lot more from simple probate or for some conveyance transactions. In legal fee terms it's really not a huge sum.


  • Options
    #73
    Kivaro
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,105 ✭✭✭Kivaro


    is_that_so wrote: »
    Just for a bit of comparison, they can make that and a whole lot more from simple probate or for some conveyance transactions. In legal fee terms it's really not a huge sum.


    20% is a nice and handy return.
    We are so often told that solicitors do not get percentages, but it's funny how their fees work out to be a sizeable percentage that varies according to the award size.


  • Options
    #74
    is_that_so
    Registered Users Posts: 32,136 ✭✭✭✭is_that_so


    Kivaro wrote: »
    20% is a nice and handy return.
    We are so often told that solicitors do not get percentages, but it's funny how their fees work out to be a sizeable percentage that varies according to the award size.
    Their fees tend to be a sizable percentage of anything they do!


  • Options
    #75
    hullaballoo
    Administrators, Entertainment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 18,710 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭hullaballoo


    Kivaro wrote: »
    20% is a nice and handy return.
    We are so often told that solicitors do not get percentages, but it's funny how their fees work out to be a sizeable percentage that varies according to the award size.

    :confused:

    Anything can "work out" as a percentage of anything else.

    Fees aren't calculated as a percentage of the value of any case. But if you divide the fee by the value, yeah, you'll get a percentage. Doesn't tell you anything.

    A bit like the way these polls don't tell you anything. I didn't need a poll to tell me the majority of people believe there's compo culture and lawyers are bad; I have empirical data showing that's what people believe. What neither polls nor the empirical data show is whether or not that belief is well founded.

    FWIW, I believe there is a large cohort of people who are waiting for the day they have an accident so that they can get a pay day. That's what I believe. At the same time, I know that almost all people who get injured would give every penny they might get from a PI claim back if it meant they were never injured.

    I don't know what the intersection is between solicitors encouraging people who have injuries to sue and conspiring to commit fraud but I would doubt there's much of a correlation because there are plenty of legitimate cases to be getting on with that do not carry a risk of serious criminal and professional sanction.

    Ime, those who bring fraudulent claims do not tend to tell their solicitors what they are at.


  • Options
    #76
    mikemac2
    Registered Users Posts: 2,926 ✭✭✭mikemac2


    is_that_so wrote: »
    DB and CIE are one of the few entities who contest every suit.

    I believe but could be wrong the CIE group self insure so every claim comes directly from their reserves

    Makes sense to fight everything then


  • Options
    #77
    Kivaro
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,105 ✭✭✭Kivaro


    hullaballoo wrote: »
    :confused:

    ......
    I don't know what the intersection is between solicitors encouraging people who have injuries to sue and conspiring to commit fraud but I would doubt there's much of a correlation because there are plenty of legitimate cases to be getting on with that do not carry a risk of serious criminal and professional sanction.

    Ime, those who bring fraudulent claims do not tend to tell their solicitors what they are at.
    But that is why the thread was created in the first place.
    Not sure if you read the first page but here you go:
    The judge in the case being discussed in the OP said "none of these cases would proceed to court unless solicitors agreed to act in them and she felt some committee within the Law Society might be concerned about it."

    But more importantly, the judge said:
    "perhaps some solicitors should be a bit more selective about who they take on, because maybe they were contributing to this sort of fraud."

    Also, where is the due diligence by these solicitors?
    The fraud is evident very early in the court proceedings in many of these cases, which is why the vast majority of us believe that solicitors are knowingly involved in fraudulent cases hoping that the insurance company will settle before the fraud is uncovered on the day of trial.

    I do admit though your bit about "a risk of serious criminal and professional sanction" was funny. We are talking about the Irish Law Society here i.e. the foxes looking after the chicken coop.


  • Options
    #78
    hullaballoo
    Administrators, Entertainment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 18,710 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭hullaballoo


    mikemac2 wrote: »
    I believe but could be wrong the CIE group self insure so every claim comes directly from their reserves

    Makes sense to fight everything then
    You are correct, CIÉ entities have a species of self insurance in the form of an indemnity from the Minister. They fight tooth and claw over every case and probably correctly so considering the potential for the floodgates to open if they were to become liable for every mishap on a train or bus.

    Establishing liability against a public transport operator is very difficult and rarely successful. They are also very safety focused and put a lot of work into minimising potential injuries.

    Dunnes Stores also self insure FWIW and they too fight everything, even the most straightforward case where liability is not up for debate in any real sense.

    Not sure why they do but that is their prerogative and more power to them.


  • Options
    #79
    irishgeo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,369 ✭✭✭irishgeo


    There is a few things here
    The insurance companies settling claims rather than go through court. The insured should have say in what happens.
    We also seemed to have gone from welfare tourism to claim tourism.
    People who blatantly lie in court aren't faced with any sanctions.
    Insurance companies dont follow any of the claimants who lose for their costs, yet make huge profits.

    The insurance companies have a lot to answer for.

    Pearce Doherty had them all on the run a few weeks back. sadly we voted against giving out dail committees a bit more teeth and maybe we would have got a bit more out of it.


  • Options
    #80
    hullaballoo
    Administrators, Entertainment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 18,710 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭hullaballoo


    Kivaro wrote: »
    But that is why the thread was created in the first place.
    Not sure if you read the first page but here you go:
    The judge in the case being discussed in the OP said "none of these cases would proceed to court unless solicitors agreed to act in them and she felt some committee within the Law Society might be concerned about it."

    But more importantly, the judge said:
    "perhaps some solicitors should be a bit more selective about who they take on, because maybe they were contributing to this sort of fraud."

    Not sure what your point is here. A judge gave some soundbites for the eager media personages present looking for something to write about in what is in the ordinary course a stiflingly mundane list of cases. She did so under the protection of immunity from suit. The media duly made hay.

    What the judge did not say is that the specific solicitor in this case was aware of his or her client's alleged fraud.

    If that was to be the case though, there would have to be something done about that solicitor.
    Also, where is the due diligence by these solicitors?
    The fraud is evident very early in the court proceedings in many of these cases, which is why the vast majority of us believe that solicitors are knowingly involved in fraudulent cases hoping that the insurance company will settle before the fraud is uncovered on the day of trial.
    On what basis are you saying the fraud is evident early on? And do you mean early on in the trial? Because these frauds tend ime to come to light at trial in the face of evidence put forward or elicited by defendants. Trials of course take place at the very end of proceedings.

    In terms of due diligence, solicitors get instructions and act on them. Barristers the same. In some cases there might be an obvious problem where there is a fraud being attempted. The solicitor and barrister abandon the claim at that stage. Never gets to court. Never gets reported.

    Are you suggesting that lawyers start investigating their own clients in every case on the off chance they are concealing a fraud? Would be interesting to see what would happen to legal fees if that was the level of obligation.
    I do admit though your bit about "a risk of serious criminal and professional sanction" was funny. We are talking about the Irish Law Society here i.e. the foxes looking after the chicken coop.

    For one so vociferous in your criticisms, your understanding is very threadbare (and your analogies misconceived).

    The Law Society has no role in imposing criminal sanctions. That's for the Gardaí to investigate and the DPP to prosecute.

    The Law Society does however actively pursue solicitors for professional conduct issues and Carrie's out audits of solicitors regularly. Even if it is easy to make disparaging comments and form half baked analogies about their role, they are quite an effective regulator now.


  • Options
    #81
    Nermal
    Registered Users Posts: 2,614 ✭✭✭Nermal


    hullaballoo wrote: »
    Establishing liability against a public transport operator is very difficult and rarely successful.

    Someone's forgotten the case of the Luas surfer...

    This could be solved in legislation.

    Reset the threshold for negligence so that tripping over a kerb, banging your knee of a chair or spilling coffee on yourself is redefined as being your own stupid fault. If you could reasonably have forseen the accident, it's your responsibility to avoid it. If you were engaged in illegal activity in the course of injuring yourself, all the consequences are your fault.

    Make clear that compensation is only to be due for injuries that can be verified by medical evidence that's not dependent on the testimony of the patient, i.e. tell people with whiplash, mysteriously sore backs and PTSD to HTFU.

    You'll have the cheapest insurance in Europe, and as a bonus half of the parasites in the Four Courts will be out of work.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    hullaballoo
    Administrators, Entertainment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 18,710 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭hullaballoo


    Nermal wrote: »
    Someone's forgotten the case of the Luas surfer...

    .

    Liability wasn't determined in that case, it was settled by Transdev. For about 5% of the full value of the case.

    Again, liability against public transport operators is very difficult to establish.


  • Options
    #83
    Kivaro
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,105 ✭✭✭Kivaro


    hullaballoo wrote: »
    For one so vociferous in your criticisms, your understanding is very threadbare (and your analogies misconceived).

    The Law Society has no role in imposing criminal sanctions. That's for the Gardaí to investigate and the DPP to prosecute.

    The Law Society does however actively pursue solicitors for professional conduct issues and Carrie's out audits of solicitors regularly. Even if it is easy to make disparaging comments and form half baked analogies about their role, they are quite an effective regulator now.
    This is not the first time in your posts, but are you not aware of how condescending you can be. (Rhetorical).

    We are quite aware that the Law Society does not pursue criminal investigations into rogue/corrupt solicitors. I wish that the DPP would investigate solicitor collaboration in fraudulent claims; even if it is only to quieten the "soundbites" of a presiding judge.

    While I may be vociferous in my criticisms of a very apparent flawed legal system when it comes to compensation claims; likewise you are vociferous in any criticism of the legal profession engaging in nefarious activity.


  • Options
    #84
    Kivaro
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,105 ✭✭✭Kivaro


    Regarding today's installment of fraudsters, does anyone know who was the solicitor that represented the serial fraudsters in the link below?
    https://waterford-news.ie/2019/07/31/no-reward-for-car-smash-family/

    Even the judge said that the woman was a successful personal injuries litigant over the past 20 years. Previous claims by the Traveller included crashes, car fires, bar falls and other calamities. Mrs. Ward had made six previous claims, which had not been disclosed to the court. She received €50k from a previous claim and €12k for slipping in a pub, and she and her family received €59k as a result of a stray dog. She was out shopping for a new council house when the most recent accident happened.

    Shouldn't a database of previous claims be made available to cut down on fraudsters?
    Did Mrs. Ward solicitor represent her knowing about these previous claims?
    Where is the integrity of solicitors who represent serial fraudsters?
    Maybe it is time for punitive measures against the legal entities involved in these obviously fraudulent cases?


  • Options
    #85
    CrankyHaus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,281 ✭✭✭CrankyHaus


    hullaballoo wrote: »

    In terms of due diligence, solicitors get instructions and act on them. Barristers the same. In some cases there might be an obvious problem where there is a fraud being attempted. The solicitor and barrister abandon the claim at that stage. Never gets to court. Never gets reported.

    Are you suggesting that lawyers start investigating their own clients in every case on the off chance they are concealing a fraud? Would be interesting to see what would happen to legal fees if that was the level of obligation.


    A solicitor has a duty to not recklessly mislead the court. Nobody is saying they have to investigate their own clients however a cursory examination of many cases would show that they are not genuine. Clearly such examinations are rarely (or for some solicitors never) carried out and the duty to not recklessly mislead the court is breached.



    Plenty of lawyers are perfectly happy to represent plaintiffs they know are fraudulent. In fact, as I'm sure you know well, some keep "stables" or "farms" of prolific personal injury plaintiffs.



    Of course they can, and do, say that they have no clear knowledge of fraud. But when they represent the same people, or extended family, again and again in multiple low or no impact car crashes with severe physical and pyschiatric injuries alleged they have to know what any reasonable person would, that the cases are not genuine.



    They are under no obligation to take such cases, and instead choose to do so, and aggressively pursue them, for personal profit.



    The profession's attitude towards fraud, as articulated here by you, seems to be "see no evil, hear no evil". However this is neither honest, nor in line with the Law Society's own Code of Conduct, which states:


    1.1 Their duties do not begin and end with the faithful performance of what they are instructed to do so far as the law permits. Solicitors must serve the interests of justice as well as the rights and liberties of their clients. It is their duty not only to plead their clients’ cause but also to be their adviser.


    2.1 The decision to accept instructions in any particular case is a matter for the discretion of the individual solicitor.


    5.1 A solicitor not only acts for his client and owes a duty to do his best for that client but he also owes a duty to the court

    (C) [A Solicitor]has an overriding duty to the court to ensure, in the public interest, that the proper and efficient administration of justice is achieved and should assist the court in the administration of justice, and should not deceive, or knowingly or recklessly, mislead the court.


  • Options
    #86
    Kivaro
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,105 ✭✭✭Kivaro


    I, in particular, reference this section:
    (C) [A Solicitor]has an overriding duty to the court to ensure, in the public interest, that the proper and efficient administration of justice is achieved and should assist the court in the administration of justice, and should not deceive, or knowingly or recklessly, mislead the court.

    The mother of 12 in the case I linked today is illiterate, so her solicitor had to fill out her personal injury assessment form. Was there any time when filling out this form did the solicitor ponder the fantastical story that he was putting to pen? Did the solicitor have editorial privilege on the form's content or use terminology that might not originate from the defendant's general discourse?
    I wonder was the solicitor thinking about the "proper and efficient administration of justice", as he pursued this case through the courts?


  • Options
    #87
    Harry Palmr
    Closed Accounts Posts: 40,061 ✭✭✭✭Harry Palmr


    https://www.thejournal.ie/operatin-coatee-arrests-insurance-claims-4851842-Oct2019/
    FIVE PEOPLE HAVE been arrested in an operation involving suspected bogus insurance claims.
    Three men aged in their 40s, 20s and teens, and two females, aged in their 40s and 60s, were arrested today following searches carried out at a number of premises back in April/

    /The operation involved a number of garda units, including members of the Criminal Assets Bureau and the Armed Support Units, carrying out searches in the West Dublin area.

    Search warrants were executed at a number of solicitor’s offices, and following the searches, six high value cars and jewellery with a value in excess of €300,000 were seized. Documentation and financial records were also seized.

    Looks like a criminal family with a solicitor doing his lawful duty. Ahem.


  • Options
    #88
    Kivaro
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,105 ✭✭✭Kivaro


    No great surprise to read on the Irish Independent report today on how solicitors are asking doctors to change their medical reports in compensation claims. We now also have proof on how some doctors are being complicit in the pervasive fraud culture that we have in Ireland.

    I have no faith in the Irish Law Society or the Irish Medical Council investigating these rogue solicitors, doctors, and orthopedic surgeons.
    The Irish government will similarly be reticent ...... for obvious reasons.


  • Options
    #89
    irishgeo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,369 ✭✭✭irishgeo


    Kivaro wrote: »
    No great surprise to read on the Irish Independent report today on how solicitors are asking doctors to change their medical reports in compensation claims. We now also have proof on how some doctors are being complicit in the pervasive fraud culture that we have in Ireland.

    I have no faith in the Irish Law Society or the Irish Medical Council investigating these rogue solicitors, doctors, and orthopedic surgeons.
    The Irish government will similarly be reticent ...... for obvious reasons.

    this quote says it all. Heads in the sand.
    The Law Society of Ireland says it has no policy in place regarding the relationship between solicitors and GPs, as "issues surrounding the referral of clients to GPs simply haven't arisen".

    Well the issue has arisen now so what you going to do about it?


  • Options
    #90
    Varik
    Registered Users Posts: 12,484 ✭✭✭✭Varik


    And the Irish times jumping in to counter that it's all a scam.

    The Big Bad Insurance companies making so much money they're shutting up shop in Ireland.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    Patrick2010
    Registered Users Posts: 2,992 ✭✭✭Patrick2010


    https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/couple-loses-defamation-claim-against-dublin-restaurant-whose-staff-asked-them-to-pay-dinner-bill-969365.html

    "Judge O’Connor said the couple had taken umbrage in relation to their having been asked to pay the bill and had claimed that this had been defamatory. Mr Brennan had sat down with them and had tried to explain matters.

    “Quite frankly, asking someone to pay for a meal isn’t defamatory and by no stretch of the imagination is there any evidence that they were defamed,” the judge said.

    He felt Mr McCarthy’s argumentative attitude, as displayed in his evidence, may have had more to do with what had happened in the restaurant.

    Judge O’Connor said costs followed the event and he did not have the jurisdiction not to make an order for costs on the basis there would be no appeal of the court’s decision. When told by counsel for the couple they would not be appealing his decision the judge made no order for costs against them."

    Their solicitor presumably took the case on a no foal no fee basis so nothing to lose for this couple.


Advertisement