On Wednesday David Byrne became the second Attorney General to be nominated as Ireland's European Commissioner. The first was, of course, Peter Sutherland SC, appointed by Dr Garret FitzGerald's Fine Gael/Labour coalition in December 1984. Mr Sutherland was a conspicuous success as Commissioner with responsibility for competition policy and in more recent times has further enhanced his reputation, as well as his bank balance, with Goldman Sachs.

Mr Byrne's appointment has been generally welcomed, but certain doubts have been expressed as to whether his legal background and record as Attorney General have endowed him with sufficient political standing and experience to make a success of his new role.

In the view of the writer, such doubts are groundless and reflect a lack of knowledge of Mr Byrne's achievements, and of the complex and increasingly political nature of his role as Attorney General.

For too many people, the dominant image of a barrister is that of someone prosecuting or defending in criminal cases or orating flamboyantly at tribunals. These are important but relatively small areas of legal activity. David Byrne's career has been predominantly spent in other areas, but it has been one of conspicuous and constructive innovation.

As a law student and fledgling barrister, Mr Byrne was the founding chairman of the Free Legal Advice Centres (FLAC). This was a striking initiative by law students, whereby they responded to the near total lack of legal services for the disadvantaged which prevailed at the time by establishing free clinics in the Dublin area. Apart from the individual clients served, the existence of the centres did much to bring about statutory provision for law centres staffed by professional lawyers.

Many years later, as an established senior counsel, Mr Byrne was instrumental in the development of international commercial arbitration procedures and, hopefully, for the increased use of Ireland as a venue for such arbitrations. He began this work as a private practitioner, rather than a Government nominee and it led to his service as a member of the International Chamber of Commerce's Court of Arbitration in Paris for seven years up to his appointment as Attorney General.

This 70-year-old body is the oldest and largest of the institutions under whose aegis international commercial arbitrations are conducted. At its request, Mr Byrne drafted the Bill which has since become the Arbitration (International Commercial) Act 1998, providing for the adoption in Ireland of the "UNCITRAL" model law on arbitration, and submitted it to the then minister, Mervyn Taylor. Subsequently, a change of government in 1997 meant that Mr Byrne had the unique experience of overseeing as Attorney General the passage of the 1998 Act which he had himself drafted as a private citizen.

As these highlights might suggest, Mr Byrne had a distinguished career as a practising barrister, very much at the "heavy" end of the law. Amongst the cases he was engaged in as counsel were several which were pivotal in the application in Ireland of European Community Law.

In the 1980s, the Campus Oil case related to the compatibility with the Treaty of Rome of Irish measures requiring importers of oil products to purchase a quota of their requirements from State sources.

THE CASE Doyle v An Taoiseach related to the disputed power of the State to impose an excise duty or levy on slaughtered or exported cattle: the measure was found to be invalid. In the 1990s the new Commissioner was involved in the series of cases relating to discrimination against women in terms of social welfare entitlements and the adjustments in retrospect of payments which later became necessary.

Like every Attorney General in the history of the State, David Byrne was a publicly identified supporter of the Government which appointed him. His political interests were less pronounced than those of many of his predecessors. He had been active in the campaign to join the EEC in the early 1970s and in the 1990 presidential election campaign he seems to have formed a close alliance with Mr Ahern, with whom he subsequently worked in opposition.

Since becoming Attorney General in 1997, he has discharged the functions of an increasingly complex and increasingly political office. His "low profile" in the public eye is a necessary and desirable aspect of his primary role as legal adviser to the Government. His better-known predecessors owe their notoriety in the main to unfortunate episodes with which, fairly or otherwise, they are associated in the public mind.

Mr Byrne was a busy and innovative Attorney General. He and his immediate predecessor, Dermot Gleeson SC, seemed to have carried infinitely more political responsibility than had been usual for previous holders of the office. In terms of high politics, Mr Byrne was one of the four Irish representatives at the direct negotiations with Tony Blair in the run-up to the Belfast Agreement - and he dealt directly with Sinn Fein and unionist politicians as well as the British attorney and solicitor general.

On the European side, he was a member of the Cabinet sub-committee on European affairs and is believed to have been instrumental in the procedures leading to Irish adherence to the Amsterdam Treaty. He was likewise a prominent member of the sub-committees on social inclusion and on child abuse and was deeply involved in the establishment of the Murphy inquiry into abuse in swimming.

Over and above these specific and demanding roles, Mr Byrne as Attorney General was involved with virtually every department of the State and won high regard from line ministers both for the steady continuous legal advice they need and for the occasional "fire brigade" activities increasingly required of the Attorney General. By reason of the nature of his role, the Attorney General arguably sees more of the work of other departments than any officer of the State other than the Taoiseach and the Tanaiste.

No practising lawyer can avoid the informed and often acerbic judgment of his colleagues. In the heat of day-to-day legal controversy, any evidence of vacillation or poor preparation is very obvious and fully exploited. Both as practitioner and Attorney, Mr Byrne was highly regarded by this informed and sometimes hostile body of opinion. As a member of the last government's Constitutional Review Group, he was described by a colleague of quite different political opinions as having played a key role and made a profound impression in that sensitive and complex work.

Mr Byrne as AG thought it proper to "keep his head down" and did so throughout his term. His new role will require him to adopt a much more public profile and to take direct responsibility for policies where before he was an adviser. Once he has formally moved to an openly political agenda, he will not be deficient in new skills required.

The traditional lawyer's skills of analysis, presentation and persuasion will assist him. But over and above these, he has a significant record in the technical aspects of international commerce and in political negotiations at the highest level, to equal or exceed that of many of his colleagues in the new Commission.

Not a man to underestimate.