Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Brian Cowen – Drunken Turniphead
Incompetent and all as he is, it is even harder to run a country when you have taken to the drink. Turnipman is now nearly permanently pissed as well. The only part of the useless, inept, bungling, hopeless tosspot pisshead fuckwit that is not paralysed is his drinking arm. Surrounded by a miasma of drink breath, both his gait and ineptitude are staggering.
Sean Quinn is a Cunt
His treatment of Anglo Irish Bank as a private source of funds is reminiscent of the behaviour of Michael Corleone in Godfather III in the take over of Immobiliare. Quinn has suborned a publically limited company for his own illegal purposes. His dealings are simply those of an organised criminal conspiracy. Like a feudal prince he treated the Bank’s assets as his own and not subject to all rule of law. He brazenly lobbied for less regulation in order to allow his plundering to continue without scrutiny.
Anglo Irish Bank should be let fail, without any Government subsidy, funding or support. They should call in their loans, especially to the Quinn Group. When the Quinn Group fails to repay those loans, the Government should then take over the group, worth considerably more than the now pathetic valuation of Anglo Irish Bank.
The assets of the Fianna Fail hack developers should be acquired when they too cannot repay their loans. At least in time, stupid ideas such as the Chicago Spire and the land the site occupies, just might acquire a value that can be realised.
Anglo Irish Bank should be let fail, without any Government subsidy, funding or support. They should call in their loans, especially to the Quinn Group. When the Quinn Group fails to repay those loans, the Government should then take over the group, worth considerably more than the now pathetic valuation of Anglo Irish Bank.
The assets of the Fianna Fail hack developers should be acquired when they too cannot repay their loans. At least in time, stupid ideas such as the Chicago Spire and the land the site occupies, just might acquire a value that can be realised.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Public Service - Power and Authority Without Accountability and Responsibility
I see that the last person to be identified with the BTSB’s scandalous behaviour on Hepatitis C is now not to be prosecuted. This is the end of this particular era and illustrative of how public servants can never be held accountable for their actions. Everybody is responsible so nobody is responsible.
This is the essential characteristic of the Irish public service and of public services in general. They have the power and authority to take and enforce decisions that have consequences that cost billions and not be held accountable or responsible thereafter.
A brief negative mention in a report from the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General is the worst sanction they will face.
Just look at some of the major decisions that come to mind:
Who has been held responsible? Who has resigned or being sacked?
Taxpayer’s money squandered. And what is worse, people died. The behaviour of the BTSB over contaminated blood and Hepatitis C, Haemophiliacs and AIDS resulted in the deaths of several hundred people. Murdered by meetings, minutes and memoranda.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0113/1231738220359.html
Charges against ex-biochemist in hepatitis C case dropped
THE CHARGES against the former principal biochemist in the Blood Transfusion Service Board relating to the infection of women with hepatitis C have been dropped by the State at Dublin Circuit Criminal Court.Cecily Cunningham (66), Hollybrook Road, Clontarf, Dublin, had previously lost a High Court attempt to stop her trial going ahead on the charges which had arisen from alleged contaminated blood products affecting seven women.
She appealed to the Supreme Court which put a stay on her trial pending the outcome of a judicial review.
Shane Murphy SC, for the Director of Public Prosecutions, told Judge Katherine Delahunt that the State was withdrawing all charges against Ms Cunningham.
Judge Delahunt discharged Ms Cunningham from the court and set a date next month for a hearing on the issue of costs.
Judge Delahunt had been told previously that the trial could have continued for four weeks. “Witnesses are ill and we are anxious to avoid delays,” Mr Murphy said then.
The only other person charged in connection with the hepatitis C saga was Dr Terry Walsh, formerly assistant national director with the BTSB, but these proceedings collapsed on his death.
Mr Justice Liam McKechnie in his High Court decision published on July 7th, 2007, found that while what he called an “inordinate and inexcusable” delay on the DPP’s part in processing the case breached Ms Cunningham’s constitutional right to a speedy trial, there was “a far superior” and “paramount” right of the public to have the charges prosecuted.
Mr Justice McKechnie described the Garda investigation into the hepatitis C saga as “exemplary” and stressed that there was no fault on the part of the Garda for the delay.
Paul Anthony McDermott, for the DPP, applied in the High Court for the costs of the case but this was resisted by counsel for Ms Cunningham on the basis that the judge had found there was blameworthy prosecutorial delay.
Mr Justice McKechnie made no order for costs at that hearing.
Ms Cunningham was in court for the High Court decision as were several members of the campaign group Positive Action. One woman was in tears after judgment was delivered.
Ms Cunningham claimed in her failed High Court application that the information on which the charges were brought against her was known to the DPP from the publication in March 1997 of the Finlay report into the hepatitis C saga.
The Garda report arising out of the following investigation was sent to the DPP in October 1999 and Ms Cunningham was charged in 2003.
This is the essential characteristic of the Irish public service and of public services in general. They have the power and authority to take and enforce decisions that have consequences that cost billions and not be held accountable or responsible thereafter.
A brief negative mention in a report from the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General is the worst sanction they will face.
Just look at some of the major decisions that come to mind:
- Emerald Meats – civil servants in the Department of Agriculture collude with Larry Goodman to force his competitor out of business – legal fees and compensation of €40 million
- Child Abuse - civil servants in the Department of Education ignore warnings about the treatment of residents of residential institutions for decades leading to the establishment of the RIRB and CICA – up to €1.5 billion - €1 billion in compensation and the remainder in legal and administrative fees
- Hepatitis C, Haemophiliacs and AIDS – civil servants in the Department of Health fail to regulate the operation of the Blood Transfusion Service Board and fail to take action against the authoritarian behaviour of its senior staff – €400 million - direct compensation, cost of tribunal and legal appeals, insurance scheme - €200 million
- Army Deafness – civil servants in the Department of Defence fail to take action against army behaviour in not allowing use of hearing protectors to be used on firing ranges despite multiple warnings - €300 million in compensation and legal and administrative fees
- Nursing Home Fees – civil servants in the Department of Health illegally overcharge and continue to do so despite multiple warnings to this effect - €500 million in repayments after illegal overcharging
- Lourdes Hospital Redress Scheme – civil servants in the Department of Health fail to regulate the actions of doctors or implement reporting and management information systems that would readily identify discrepancies
- PPARS – public servants in the HSE fail to take action on an out of control payroll project despite being warned repeatedly by internal personal and external consultants – €300 million
Who has been held responsible? Who has resigned or being sacked?
Taxpayer’s money squandered. And what is worse, people died. The behaviour of the BTSB over contaminated blood and Hepatitis C, Haemophiliacs and AIDS resulted in the deaths of several hundred people. Murdered by meetings, minutes and memoranda.
Monday, January 12, 2009
Israel, Gaza and ...
So much has been written about Israel’s actions in Gaza that it is difficult to see what can be added.
Israel does not listen to the opinions of others because it can afford it. It does not have to. It can get away with ignoring the views other than its own.
Neither side – Israel, Arabs/Palastinians/Hamas/Hezbollah – really wants to reach a solution. Each side has reached an accommodation with the current status and is not willing to and does not see a need to move from its current position. There is no right on either side.
One of the great lies of this (and other conflicts) is the statement about the equality of wrong of both sides. This statement was made about the Yugoslavian conflicts of the early 1990s when it was frequently stated that each side was as bad as the other; Bosnian, Croatian, Slovenian and Serbian. It was an excuse not to intervene because there was no right side. The equality was not correct. There was a larger and more wrong and smaller and less wrong belligerents.
In this case, the actions of Israel are disproportionate. The actions have everything to do with the upcoming general election in Feb 2009. Kadima and Labour want to be in a position of strength and want Likud and Binyamin Netanyhuto be reduced to an irrelevance.
Having said this, the actions of Israel have to be considered truly despicable.
Israel says that it generously gave Gaza to the Palestinians. In August, 2005, they left and removed their 8,00 settlers. Yet Gaza was an occupied territory and the settlers were illegally planted there. They seek to make a virtue of their final compliance with law. Their removal does not represent a concession, just the normal administration of law.
They drop leaflets advising Gazans that they will be bombing. Yet these civilians have nowhere to go. The civilians are trapped and are not being given a chance to flee and are therefore implicitly being subject to collective justice.
Israel has been attacking on peace activists - Rachel Corrie, Thomas Hurndall, Brian Avery - and the UN - including Irish troops seconded to UNIFIL - for decades and using the excuses that these were accidents. The excuses have been worn to nothing through overuse. They are the actions of an arrogant invading and occupying power that feels and knows it can get away with anything because it can and it has done so consistently for decades.
Article 50 of the Hague Regulations states:
Under the terms of the Hague Regulations, Israel is the effective occupying power of Gaza. Despite its withdrawal three years ago, Israel continues to exercise control of Gaza: borders and access into and out of Gaza, including sea and air. Israel has always reserved and exercised its self allocated right to intervene militarily in Gaza. Israel control Gaza’s infrastructure such as water, electricity, fuel, imports/exports, radio, TV and so on.
The actions of Israel against the Palestinians in Gaza are reminiscent of the partisan orders issued by the Germans in the second world war and the reprisal massacres committed under these orders in countries such as Czechoslovakia (Lidice), Yugoslavia (Kragujevac, Topola), Italy (Ardeatine) massacre.
For example, on September 16 1941 General Keitel, issued the so-called Partisan Order:
What really is the difference between:
and
Israel does not listen to the opinions of others because it can afford it. It does not have to. It can get away with ignoring the views other than its own.
Neither side – Israel, Arabs/Palastinians/Hamas/Hezbollah – really wants to reach a solution. Each side has reached an accommodation with the current status and is not willing to and does not see a need to move from its current position. There is no right on either side.
One of the great lies of this (and other conflicts) is the statement about the equality of wrong of both sides. This statement was made about the Yugoslavian conflicts of the early 1990s when it was frequently stated that each side was as bad as the other; Bosnian, Croatian, Slovenian and Serbian. It was an excuse not to intervene because there was no right side. The equality was not correct. There was a larger and more wrong and smaller and less wrong belligerents.
In this case, the actions of Israel are disproportionate. The actions have everything to do with the upcoming general election in Feb 2009. Kadima and Labour want to be in a position of strength and want Likud and Binyamin Netanyhuto be reduced to an irrelevance.
Having said this, the actions of Israel have to be considered truly despicable.
Israel says that it generously gave Gaza to the Palestinians. In August, 2005, they left and removed their 8,00 settlers. Yet Gaza was an occupied territory and the settlers were illegally planted there. They seek to make a virtue of their final compliance with law. Their removal does not represent a concession, just the normal administration of law.
They drop leaflets advising Gazans that they will be bombing. Yet these civilians have nowhere to go. The civilians are trapped and are not being given a chance to flee and are therefore implicitly being subject to collective justice.
Israel has been attacking on peace activists - Rachel Corrie, Thomas Hurndall, Brian Avery - and the UN - including Irish troops seconded to UNIFIL - for decades and using the excuses that these were accidents. The excuses have been worn to nothing through overuse. They are the actions of an arrogant invading and occupying power that feels and knows it can get away with anything because it can and it has done so consistently for decades.
Article 50 of the Hague Regulations states:
No general penalty, pecuniary or otherwise, shall be inflicted upon the population on account of the acts of individuals for which they cannot be regarded as jointly and severally responsible.This is exactly the action Israel is taking Gaza and has taken elsewhere previously.
Under the terms of the Hague Regulations, Israel is the effective occupying power of Gaza. Despite its withdrawal three years ago, Israel continues to exercise control of Gaza: borders and access into and out of Gaza, including sea and air. Israel has always reserved and exercised its self allocated right to intervene militarily in Gaza. Israel control Gaza’s infrastructure such as water, electricity, fuel, imports/exports, radio, TV and so on.
The actions of Israel against the Palestinians in Gaza are reminiscent of the partisan orders issued by the Germans in the second world war and the reprisal massacres committed under these orders in countries such as Czechoslovakia (Lidice), Yugoslavia (Kragujevac, Topola), Italy (Ardeatine) massacre.
For example, on September 16 1941 General Keitel, issued the so-called Partisan Order:
Since the beginning of the campaign against Russia Communist insurrections have broken out in all the areas occupied by Germany. It can be seen that this is a mass movement centrally directed by Moscow. In view of the considerable political and economic tensions in the occupied areas, it must moreover be anticipated that nationalists and other circles will take full opportunity to cause difficulties for the German occupation forces by joining the Communist uprising. In this way, an increasing danger to the German conduct of the war is developing.
The measures taken so far to meet the general Communist insurrection movement have proved inadequate. The Fuhrer has now given orders that we must take action everywhere with the most drastic means in order to crush the movement.
Every case of rebellion against the German occupation forces,
regardless of circumstances, must be concluded to be of Communistic origin. In order to suppress these machinations from the beginning, the strongest means have to be employed. As atonement for the life of one German soldier, the death penalty for fifty to one hundred Communists is generally considered as proper. (NCA, 389 PS, Directive on Communist Insurgents in the Occupied Areas.)
This, and similar orders, were repeated in territories occupied by the Germans and acted upon thereafter as a justification for civilian massacres which were judged to be war crimes.
So when you strip away the proper nouns and the unnecessary adjectives, what is the really difference between this and the disparity between 13 Israel deaths and 900 Gazan deaths caused by Israel?What really is the difference between:
and
Sunday, January 11, 2009
Paul Anthony McDermott
Paul Anthony McDermott is a stupid fucking cunt.
Or Panthwoney as I believe his is known among is colleagues.
Panthwoney's recent outburst on legal firms not retaining the services of apprentice solicitors because of reduction in company fee income (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/ireland/article5438687.ece) is as pointless as it is hypocritical, inconsistent and just an example of him building his brand rather than making any real sense. He says that legal firms have made enough money from these apprentices in the good times. So they should retain these apprentices in bad times. Legal firms are apparently to be prevented from taking action to ensure their survival in difficult times. Apparently he wants to impose an obligation on these firms to provide employment to apprentices even if they do not have work for them.
Panthwoney is a barrister. The pupils of barristers in Ireland (devils) do not get paid. There was an attempt sponsored by a legal chambers in the UK (Rebecca Edmonds and Essex Street and Michael Lawson QC) in 1999 to have pupil barristers be entitled to receive the minimum wage but this was overturned by the Court of Appeal in 2000. Panthwoney has not spoken out against devils not getting paid. He has not spoken out against practices of his own Bar Council that affect the ability of newly qualified barristers to earn a living such as restrictions against the type of part time job a barrister can get to subsidise his or her (they cannot work in bars or restaurants as this would bring the Bar into disrepute) or unable to form groups (such as Chambers as in the UK).
Barristers generally get work from solicitors. Perhaps solicitors should take action against Panthwoney's hypocrisy in criticising their profession while not advocating changes in his own profession.
Or Panthwoney as I believe his is known among is colleagues.
Panthwoney's recent outburst on legal firms not retaining the services of apprentice solicitors because of reduction in company fee income (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/ireland/article5438687.ece) is as pointless as it is hypocritical, inconsistent and just an example of him building his brand rather than making any real sense. He says that legal firms have made enough money from these apprentices in the good times. So they should retain these apprentices in bad times. Legal firms are apparently to be prevented from taking action to ensure their survival in difficult times. Apparently he wants to impose an obligation on these firms to provide employment to apprentices even if they do not have work for them.
Panthwoney is a barrister. The pupils of barristers in Ireland (devils) do not get paid. There was an attempt sponsored by a legal chambers in the UK (Rebecca Edmonds and Essex Street and Michael Lawson QC) in 1999 to have pupil barristers be entitled to receive the minimum wage but this was overturned by the Court of Appeal in 2000. Panthwoney has not spoken out against devils not getting paid. He has not spoken out against practices of his own Bar Council that affect the ability of newly qualified barristers to earn a living such as restrictions against the type of part time job a barrister can get to subsidise his or her (they cannot work in bars or restaurants as this would bring the Bar into disrepute) or unable to form groups (such as Chambers as in the UK).
Barristers generally get work from solicitors. Perhaps solicitors should take action against Panthwoney's hypocrisy in criticising their profession while not advocating changes in his own profession.
Ding Dong the Financial Regulator's Gone
Given that the Financial Regulator lacked the competence to regulate a small soft bowel movement much less the banking industry of a small country, it is about time he resigned. It is a pity it took so long and that he was allowed do such a piss poor job of financial regulation for such a long time.
Sunday, January 4, 2009
Child Abuse Legal Fee Industry
The recent decision by the UK Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (http://www.sra.org.uk/sra/news/press/1665.article) to strike off James Rhodes Beresford and Douglas Harold Smith of Beresfords Solicitors, of Doncaster arising from the gross abuse contained in the firm’s handling of compensation claims by sick miners under the Coal Health Compensation exercise is reminiscent of the same double-charging that some Irish solicitor firms made form work done on behalf of claimants for redress under the Residential Institutions Redress Board.
One of the many charges proven against Beresfords was:
However the treatment meted out to Beresfords contrasts with the double-charging practiced by Irish solicitors when handling claims for compensation by former residents of residential institutions. Some of these solicitors have received fours sets of fees for effectively the same work:
The cost of these legal fees alone will easily top €300 million and may be much higher, dwarfing the legal costs of all other tribunals put together as well as being over twice the amount of money paid by the religious orders to cover their costs.
RIRB Solicitor Fees
The top earning solicitors for the years 2003 to 2007 (the last year for which the RIRB has published an annual report) were:
The fees they earned were:
The average cost per case per solicitor was:
The solicitors that have processed the largest number of cases also generally charge the largest average cost. You would imagine that these solicitors would have achieved the economies of loading and scale to drive the average cost per case down. Apparently this is not the case. Does this mean that solicitors are being allowed to charge a percentage of awards achieved rather than payment for work done?
If those solicitors charging greater than the average fee had their fees reduced to the average, the saving would be €10 million.
Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse Legal Fees
This consists of two committees: an Investigation and a Confidential.
The Investigation Committee which operates on an adversarial basis, received about 2,200 complaints of which about 1,700 are live. Because of the gross incompetence of Justice Laffoy in her establishment, organisation and ongoing operation of the Commission, each complaint was effectively organised like a separate High Court case: separate complainant, separate plaintiffs (Regulatory – Department of Education, Regulatory – the Order that ran the institution, and individual – the members of the orders against whom complaints were made). Given that many complainants attended multiple institutions, the average number of plaintiffs per complaint is about 9.
Remember that each complainant and plaintiff is entitled to legal representation and that their costs will be covered by the Commission, i.e. the Government, i.e. the tax payer. The length of time the operation of the commission has dragged on has just increased legal costs.
Internal estimates made by Department of Education civil servants estimate the external legal costs (that is excluding the cost of the barristers working for the Commission) at anywhere between €300 million and €1 billion.
Bear in mind that the average legal bill for Hepatitis C cases was of the order of £30,000 (€38,000). These were much simpler cases with smaller numbers of participants.
Of course Laffoy performed the dual act of escaping from the cock-up she created and being beatified in the process, leaving others to pick up the pieces.
Other Legal Fees
Another point that is being ignored by all parties is the dual billing of legal fees and the failure of all parties to attempt to address it.
And now for some legal background to explain this:
Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse
The relevant section of the COMMISSION TO INQUIRE INTO CHILD ABUSE ACT, 2000 as amended by the RESIDENTIAL INSTITUTIONS REDRESS ACT, 2002 is:
20.—(1) The Minister may, with the consent of the Minister for Finance and after consultation with the Commission, make a scheme providing for the payment by the Commission to a person who, pursuant to a request of a Committee or a direction attends before a Committee, of a reasonable amount in respect of the expenses incurred by the person in relation to such attendance.
(2) The Minister may, with the consent and after consultation aforesaid, make a scheme amending or revoking a scheme under this section.
(3) The Commission shall carry out a scheme under this section in accordance with its terms.
20A.—(1) The Investigation Committee may representation and allow a person appearing before it to be represented by counsel or solicitor or otherwise.
(2) Subject to subsection (3), the Commission may pay such reasonable costs arising out of the representation referred to in subsection (1) to the person so represented as are agreed between the Commission and that person or, in default of agreement, such costs as may be taxed by a Taxing Master of the High Court.
(3) Where the Chairperson is of the opinion that a person has failed to co-operate with or provide assistance, or has knowingly given false or misleading information, to the Investigation Committee and there are sufficient reasons rendering it equitable to do so, the Chairperson may, on his or her own motion or pursuant to an application by a person appearing before the Investigation Committee, refuse to allow the whole or part of the costs of appearance to such person, and may make an order directing that the whole or part of such costs—
(a) of any person appearing before the Investigation Committee by counsel or solicitor, as may be taxed by a Taxing Master of the High Court in default of agreement, shall be paid to the person by the first-mentioned person, or
(b) incurred by the Investigation Committee, as may be taxed by a Taxing Master of the High Court in default of agreement, shall be paid to the Minister for Finance by the first-mentioned person.
(4) The Commission may pay to a person (other than a person referred to in subsection (2)) who makes discovery of documents pursuant to a direction under section 14(1)(d) appearing before the Investigation Committee by counsel or solicitor such reasonable costs of appearing as may be agreed between the Commission and that person or, in default of agreement, as may be taxed by a Taxing Master of the High Court.
(5) Where, in accordance with this section, expenses or costs are agreed or taxed, the Commission, or, as the case may be, the Taxing Master shall have regard to—
(a) any expenses and costs paid to the person by the Residential Institutions Redress Board, and
(b) any expenses and costs paid to the person by the State in respect of any litigation concerning the same, or substantially the same, acts complained of to the Investigation Committee, for the purpose of ensuring that payment is not made more than once for any matter arising out of such expenses or costs.
The Commission will incur two sets of legal fees:
1. Those by Complainants who are represented by solicitors
2. Those by Respondents who have been named in complaints. There are two types of Respondent: Manager (i.e. the Religious Order that managed the Institution in which the Complainant was resident) and Individual (the person named as the abuser – this can be a member of the Order or a lay person)
Residential Institutions Redress Board
The relevant section of the RESIDENTIAL INSTITUTIONS REDRESS ACT, 2002 is:
27.—(1) The Board shall pay to an applicant to whom it has made an award (including an award that has been reviewed under section 15) a reasonable amount for expenses incurred by him or her relating to the preparation and presentation of the application as shall be agreed between the Board and the applicant and in default of such agreement such expenses shall be determined by a Taxing Master of the High Court.
(2) The Board shall pay to an applicant who accepts an award (including an award that has been reviewed under section 15) the costs of any proceedings instituted by that applicant and to which the waiver under section 13(6) applies as shall be agreed between the Board and the applicant and in default of such agreement such expenses shall be determined by a Taxing Master of the High Court.
(3) Where expenses or costs are agreed or taxed regard shall be had to any expenses and costs concerning—
(a) the proceedings referred to in subsection (2),or
(b) a submission to the Investigation Committee, for the purpose of ensuring that a payment for an item of such expenses or costs is not made more than once.
(4) In subsection (3) ‘‘Investigation Committee’’ has the meaning assigned to it by the Act of 2000.
The Board will incur legal costs of Applicants who have made an application to the Board and who are represented by a solicitor.
Other Litigation and Other Awards
Section 9/10 of the application form to the RIRB asks the applications if damages by way of a settlement or a court award have been received in respect of the application. However there is no obligation on the part of the applicant to complete this section and there is no checking by the RIRB if the section has not been completed (or even if the section has been completed).
Section 24 of the RESIDENTIAL INSTITUTIONS REDRESS ACT, 2002 states:
24.—Where an applicant has accepted an award made under section 13 or section 15 and has complied with section 13(6), no cause of action or claim for indemnity and contribution or either of them, whether by third party procedure pursuant to section 27 of the Civil Liability Act, 1961 or otherwise, in any civil proceedings or otherwise, shall lie against the State or a public body if such proceedings arise out of the same, or substantially the same, acts complained of in an application made under this Act and in respect of which the applicant is a party.
However, there is no restriction based past awards or settlements.
If any such award or settlement was made, there will probably have been legal work done by a solicitor that will be reused during the application process.
Joint Handling of Fees
A facility to handle bills submitted to both the Commission and the Board is required to to allow tracking liability and reducing payments for work being charged for twice or three times.
The workload of the Commission and the Board will is being shared. Many of the Complainants to the Commission will also be applicants to the Board. The RESIDENTIAL INSTITUTIONS REDRESS ACT, 2002 states the Board will make “a submission to the Investigation Committee, for the purpose of ensuring that a payment for an item of such expenses or costs is not made more than once.”
Conclusion
For the 7,876 cases processed so far by the RIRB, the total legal costs have amounted to €95,915,989.57 at an average cost of €12,178.26 per case.
Assume that the 1,700 live cases before CICA have all come before the RIRB. Assume that the average set of legal fees that will be charged for each of complainant will be €40,000. (This does not include the legal fees of all the other parties involved in a complaint.)
So by rights the legal fees charged for RIRB work on these 1,700 should be reduced because the work has already been done for the CICA. If the RIRB fees were reduced by 50%, this would result in a saving of €10 million.
One of the many charges proven against Beresfords was:
That they failed to give sufficient information to clients about costsand/or the funding of claims generally, contrary to Rule 1 (a), (c), (d) and (e) and/or Rule 15 of the SPR and the Solicitor’s Cost Information and Client Care Code ("the Client Care Code").
However the treatment meted out to Beresfords contrasts with the double-charging practiced by Irish solicitors when handling claims for compensation by former residents of residential institutions. Some of these solicitors have received fours sets of fees for effectively the same work:
- Work done before Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse (CICA)
- Work done before Residential Institutions Redress Board
- Illegeally double-charging of work done before Residential Institutions Redress Board (RIRB)
- Work done when taking case for compensation
The cost of these legal fees alone will easily top €300 million and may be much higher, dwarfing the legal costs of all other tribunals put together as well as being over twice the amount of money paid by the religious orders to cover their costs.
RIRB Solicitor Fees
The top earning solicitors for the years 2003 to 2007 (the last year for which the RIRB has published an annual report) were:
Michael E Hanahoe
Lavelle Coleman
Peter McDonnell & Associates
Murphy English & Co
Hodge Jones & Allen
Margaret Campbell
Madden & Associates
Paul W Tracey
The fees they earned were:
€12,686,356.56
€10,805,131.04
€6,271,877.66
€5,673,409.57
€4,503,085.76
€3,844,980.84
€3,531,004.36
€3,106,815.50
The average cost per case per solicitor was:
€16,825.41
€13,557.25
€8,638.95
€14,183.52
€10,375.77
€11,758.35
€11,849.01
€7,966.19
The solicitors that have processed the largest number of cases also generally charge the largest average cost. You would imagine that these solicitors would have achieved the economies of loading and scale to drive the average cost per case down. Apparently this is not the case. Does this mean that solicitors are being allowed to charge a percentage of awards achieved rather than payment for work done?
If those solicitors charging greater than the average fee had their fees reduced to the average, the saving would be €10 million.
A more detailed analysis can be found here.
Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse Legal Fees
This consists of two committees: an Investigation and a Confidential.
The Investigation Committee which operates on an adversarial basis, received about 2,200 complaints of which about 1,700 are live. Because of the gross incompetence of Justice Laffoy in her establishment, organisation and ongoing operation of the Commission, each complaint was effectively organised like a separate High Court case: separate complainant, separate plaintiffs (Regulatory – Department of Education, Regulatory – the Order that ran the institution, and individual – the members of the orders against whom complaints were made). Given that many complainants attended multiple institutions, the average number of plaintiffs per complaint is about 9.
Remember that each complainant and plaintiff is entitled to legal representation and that their costs will be covered by the Commission, i.e. the Government, i.e. the tax payer. The length of time the operation of the commission has dragged on has just increased legal costs.
Internal estimates made by Department of Education civil servants estimate the external legal costs (that is excluding the cost of the barristers working for the Commission) at anywhere between €300 million and €1 billion.
Bear in mind that the average legal bill for Hepatitis C cases was of the order of £30,000 (€38,000). These were much simpler cases with smaller numbers of participants.
Of course Laffoy performed the dual act of escaping from the cock-up she created and being beatified in the process, leaving others to pick up the pieces.
Other Legal Fees
Another point that is being ignored by all parties is the dual billing of legal fees and the failure of all parties to attempt to address it.
And now for some legal background to explain this:
Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse
The relevant section of the COMMISSION TO INQUIRE INTO CHILD ABUSE ACT, 2000 as amended by the RESIDENTIAL INSTITUTIONS REDRESS ACT, 2002 is:
20.—(1) The Minister may, with the consent of the Minister for Finance and after consultation with the Commission, make a scheme providing for the payment by the Commission to a person who, pursuant to a request of a Committee or a direction attends before a Committee, of a reasonable amount in respect of the expenses incurred by the person in relation to such attendance.
(2) The Minister may, with the consent and after consultation aforesaid, make a scheme amending or revoking a scheme under this section.
(3) The Commission shall carry out a scheme under this section in accordance with its terms.
20A.—(1) The Investigation Committee may representation and allow a person appearing before it to be represented by counsel or solicitor or otherwise.
(2) Subject to subsection (3), the Commission may pay such reasonable costs arising out of the representation referred to in subsection (1) to the person so represented as are agreed between the Commission and that person or, in default of agreement, such costs as may be taxed by a Taxing Master of the High Court.
(3) Where the Chairperson is of the opinion that a person has failed to co-operate with or provide assistance, or has knowingly given false or misleading information, to the Investigation Committee and there are sufficient reasons rendering it equitable to do so, the Chairperson may, on his or her own motion or pursuant to an application by a person appearing before the Investigation Committee, refuse to allow the whole or part of the costs of appearance to such person, and may make an order directing that the whole or part of such costs—
(a) of any person appearing before the Investigation Committee by counsel or solicitor, as may be taxed by a Taxing Master of the High Court in default of agreement, shall be paid to the person by the first-mentioned person, or
(b) incurred by the Investigation Committee, as may be taxed by a Taxing Master of the High Court in default of agreement, shall be paid to the Minister for Finance by the first-mentioned person.
(4) The Commission may pay to a person (other than a person referred to in subsection (2)) who makes discovery of documents pursuant to a direction under section 14(1)(d) appearing before the Investigation Committee by counsel or solicitor such reasonable costs of appearing as may be agreed between the Commission and that person or, in default of agreement, as may be taxed by a Taxing Master of the High Court.
(5) Where, in accordance with this section, expenses or costs are agreed or taxed, the Commission, or, as the case may be, the Taxing Master shall have regard to—
(a) any expenses and costs paid to the person by the Residential Institutions Redress Board, and
(b) any expenses and costs paid to the person by the State in respect of any litigation concerning the same, or substantially the same, acts complained of to the Investigation Committee, for the purpose of ensuring that payment is not made more than once for any matter arising out of such expenses or costs.
The Commission will incur two sets of legal fees:
1. Those by Complainants who are represented by solicitors
2. Those by Respondents who have been named in complaints. There are two types of Respondent: Manager (i.e. the Religious Order that managed the Institution in which the Complainant was resident) and Individual (the person named as the abuser – this can be a member of the Order or a lay person)
Residential Institutions Redress Board
The relevant section of the RESIDENTIAL INSTITUTIONS REDRESS ACT, 2002 is:
27.—(1) The Board shall pay to an applicant to whom it has made an award (including an award that has been reviewed under section 15) a reasonable amount for expenses incurred by him or her relating to the preparation and presentation of the application as shall be agreed between the Board and the applicant and in default of such agreement such expenses shall be determined by a Taxing Master of the High Court.
(2) The Board shall pay to an applicant who accepts an award (including an award that has been reviewed under section 15) the costs of any proceedings instituted by that applicant and to which the waiver under section 13(6) applies as shall be agreed between the Board and the applicant and in default of such agreement such expenses shall be determined by a Taxing Master of the High Court.
(3) Where expenses or costs are agreed or taxed regard shall be had to any expenses and costs concerning—
(a) the proceedings referred to in subsection (2),or
(b) a submission to the Investigation Committee, for the purpose of ensuring that a payment for an item of such expenses or costs is not made more than once.
(4) In subsection (3) ‘‘Investigation Committee’’ has the meaning assigned to it by the Act of 2000.
The Board will incur legal costs of Applicants who have made an application to the Board and who are represented by a solicitor.
Other Litigation and Other Awards
Section 9/10 of the application form to the RIRB asks the applications if damages by way of a settlement or a court award have been received in respect of the application. However there is no obligation on the part of the applicant to complete this section and there is no checking by the RIRB if the section has not been completed (or even if the section has been completed).
Section 24 of the RESIDENTIAL INSTITUTIONS REDRESS ACT, 2002 states:
24.—Where an applicant has accepted an award made under section 13 or section 15 and has complied with section 13(6), no cause of action or claim for indemnity and contribution or either of them, whether by third party procedure pursuant to section 27 of the Civil Liability Act, 1961 or otherwise, in any civil proceedings or otherwise, shall lie against the State or a public body if such proceedings arise out of the same, or substantially the same, acts complained of in an application made under this Act and in respect of which the applicant is a party.
However, there is no restriction based past awards or settlements.
If any such award or settlement was made, there will probably have been legal work done by a solicitor that will be reused during the application process.
Joint Handling of Fees
A facility to handle bills submitted to both the Commission and the Board is required to to allow tracking liability and reducing payments for work being charged for twice or three times.
The workload of the Commission and the Board will is being shared. Many of the Complainants to the Commission will also be applicants to the Board. The RESIDENTIAL INSTITUTIONS REDRESS ACT, 2002 states the Board will make “a submission to the Investigation Committee, for the purpose of ensuring that a payment for an item of such expenses or costs is not made more than once.”
Conclusion
For the 7,876 cases processed so far by the RIRB, the total legal costs have amounted to €95,915,989.57 at an average cost of €12,178.26 per case.
Assume that the 1,700 live cases before CICA have all come before the RIRB. Assume that the average set of legal fees that will be charged for each of complainant will be €40,000. (This does not include the legal fees of all the other parties involved in a complaint.)
So by rights the legal fees charged for RIRB work on these 1,700 should be reduced because the work has already been done for the CICA. If the RIRB fees were reduced by 50%, this would result in a saving of €10 million.
This is on top of the other €10 million that could be saved by more rigorously questioning legal fees charged by solicitors.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)