It is an occasional complaint in England and Wales that judges are too accommodating to unqualified advisers offering, ahem, ‘services’ to the court.

No such standing on ceremony in Ireland, where Mr Justice Twomey delivered both barrels to a party being assisted by an unqualified litigation adviser. The judge used his introduction to Barrington v Attorney General to ask why ‘quack lawyers’ were being allowed to abuse the court service on a daily basis with their ‘pseudo legal advice’. 

The plaintiffs in a property dispute were advised to bring another High Court application to reverse the decision of the first High Court judge, rather than make a challenge in the Court of Appeal.

Duck suit

The judge asked why ‘quack lawyers’ were being allowed to abuse the court

‘Even to people with no legal expertise, this would be a nonsensical application to make,’ noted Twomey. ‘This case starkly highlights, not just the harm to lay litigants, but also the systemic harm which is being caused to the administration of justice by the significant number of unqualified litigation advisers who are “practising” in our courts.’

The application was, as might be expected, unsuccessful, with the judge saying the plaintiffs made fundamental errors on the back of the advice they relied upon.

And given there was no guarantee of costs being recovered, the judge pointed out that the only party who would appear not to be out of pocket was the unqualified litigation adviser. A cautionary tale for litigants, and probably a familiar one for the qualified lawyers out there trying to deal with the quacks.

Topics