News

However, while this last innovation is a clear own goal, there is an even bigger calamity looming on the hori on if the noises from the Department of Justice are what they appear to be.

Last year, the Civil Justice Review, led by former President of the High Court Peter Kelly, studied a number of options for the future adjudication of litigation costs. While the sensible option would have been to await the effects of the newly effective Legal Services Regulation Act reforms and the recently formed Legal Costs Adjudication Office, it was felt that a more radical suggestion was required. Two such proposals were made, one of which was effectively binding scales and the other was non-binding guidelines. While both would achieve transparency for the consumer, one would benefit the State and the other the consumer.

The Committee making the recommendations divided along predictable lines. The majority, comprising the professions and all of the judges of each court, favoured the guidelines. The State representatives, not surprisingly, all voted for the scales in the minority.

That, you would think, would be that. The majority makes a recommendation and government follows it. Not so fast. The Department of Justice has commissioned independent consultants to do a cost/ benefit analysis of which proposal is most cost effective for the State.

This column can save them the cost of the report. It’s binding scales, in a shock development. The State is a paying party in a large proportion of litigation in this country. If party and party costs are limited, then they will pay less. The inevitable corollary is that the consumer will either pay the balance or not get legal representation at all.

We already know what the effect of scales on access to justice looks like. The District Court is a living, breathing example of what not to do. Many solicitors simply refuse to take on District Court litigation as it is uneconomic. Scales in the other courts will lead to the same inevitable result.

The purpose of the Civil Justice review was to make the courts more accessible for the average citi en. The scales option will undoubtedly do the opposite.

Access to justice is not a woolly concept that government can pay lip service to. It is the cornerstone of any democracy. Investment and simple common sense would make a world of difference. What are the chances? P

Hippocratic Oath

Pablo Escobar was killed by police in 1993. All of his property was sei ed. e had collected animals in a huge open oo on his estate. The police sent Escobar’s animals off to various oos but decided to let his hippos stay on the property since authorities believed they wouldn’t be an issue and transport of the animals would prove difficult.

Then the hippos did what any hippo does: they reproduced. Up to 120 hippos freely roamed some 100 miles from the region’s capital city. The hippos, dubbed the cocaine hippos, became a major concern for residents’ safety as well as the environmental impact they could have on the area. Hippos for those in the know are perhaps the animal which can create the most danger for humans. The Colombian authorities decided to cull the hippos.

On the 21st of October 2021 a US federal court made legal history by recognising the animals as humans, allowing an application to be made on their behalf to seek an alternative solution.

In pursuit of deposing two wildlife experts with expertise in nonsurgical sterilisation who reside in Ohio, the Animal Legal Defence und filed an application on behalf of the plaintiffs in a Colombian lawsuit against the country’s government regarding a plan to kill roughly 100 hippos who are descendants of animals imported by Escobar.

The plaintiffs are the “community of hippopotamuses living in the Magdalena River.” In Colombia, animals have standing to bring lawsuits to protect their interests. In granting the application pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782 to conduct discovery for use in foreign proceedings, the court recognised the hippos as legal persons with respect to that statute.

This U.S. statute allows anyone who is an “interested person” in a foreign litigation to request permission from a federal court to take depositions in the U.S. in support of their foreign case. The U.S. Supreme Court has said that someone who is a party to the foreign case “no doubt” qualifies as an “interested person” under this statute. The Animal Legal Defence Fund reasoned that since the hippos are plaintiffs in the Colombian litigation, they qualify as “interested persons” under this statute.

“Animals have the right to be free from cruelty and exploitation, and the failure of U.S. courts to recognise their rights impedes the ability to enforce existing legislative protections,” says Animal Legal Defence Fund Executive Director Stephen Wells. “The court’s order authorising the hippos to exercise their legal right to obtain information in the United States is a critical milestone in the broader animal status fight to recognise that animals have enforceable rights.”

In a world where humans are destroying the planet this is ground-breaking. A legacy Escobar could scarcely have imagined.

DSBA Presents Charity Cheque to Dublin Lord Mayor

DSBA Vice President Susan Martin recently met with the Lord Mayor of Dublin Alison Gilliland at the Mansion House and presented her with a cheque for the Mansion House Fuel Fund.

The Mansion House Fuel Fund was established by Sir John Arnott in 1891. It was originally set up to assist the needy during the cold winter. The Fund distributes cash grants through a number of Charitable Societies, without any distinction of creed. t was one of the first truly Ecumenical Charities in Dublin. Some of the Charities whom the Mansion House Fuel Fund assists during the winter months include the Dublin Simon Community, St. Vincent De Paul, Abbey Presbyterian Church Hamper Fund and St. Thomas the Apostle Parish, Jobstown, Tallaght.

Photo: DSBA Vice President Susan Martin presents a cheque from the DSBA to the Lord Mayor of Dublin, Alison Gilliland

Current DSBA President Diego Gallagher with his father and former DSBA President Brian Gallagher

Parent and Son DSBA Presidents

With Diego Gallagher’s recent election as President of the DSBA, he joins a unique club – namely a President who is the son of a former President. The Parchment stands to be corrected but by our count, there were only four Presidents in such category. These are David R Pigot (1975), Tony Sheil (1992), Michael uinlan (2007) and now Diego Gallagher. Our thanks to John ‘Spanner’ O’Malley for highlighting this interesting fact.