The barrister and the doctor in the Baby A case are expected to face disciplinary action from their professional bodies over their role in the case.
The case was heard in the High Court by Ms Justice Mary Laffoy last month when a couple were ordered to hand back a baby who had been placed with them prior to adoption. Private adoptions were made illegal in the 1998 Adoption Act.
Ms Justice Laffoy's judgment also referred in detail to the attempted adoption by the couple of another baby, described as Baby B. This baby was handed back without the case coming to court. The judgment detailed the roles played by a doctor and a barrister, both female, who at various stages acted on behalf of the couple in relation to both babies and their mothers. They were not named because of fears this could lead to the identification of the babies.
The first steps towards an investigation into the role of the doctor were taken last week when the Medical Council voted to ask Ms Justice Laffoy to name the doctor. It is understood that five members of the Medical Council opposed this course of action.
Once the doctor has been named, it is open to the Medical Council's fitness to practise committee to hear a complaint against her. Following publication of the judgment last month, Dr Mary Henry, who is also a senator, told The Irish Times she intended making a complaint against the doctor.
Complaints are heard in private and the outcome is not made public unless a sanction is imposed which requires ratification by the High Court. Sanctions range from being struck off the Medical Register to having conditions attached to practising.
The decision of the Medical Council intensifies pressure on the Bar Council to act in relation to the barrister, according to senior figures in the Law Library.
However, it is understood that action is already being taken and the matter is being pursued by the professional practices committee. As with the Medical Council fitness to practise committee, its proceedings are confidential.
The professional practices committee of the Bar Council does not necessarily have to receive a formal complaint to proceed with an investigation.
If, for example, a judge makes critical comments about a barrister, this would be likely to spark an investigation by the professional practices committee. Ms Justice Laffoy did not explicitly criticise the barrister, but included in her judgment large sections of affidavits describing the barrister's behaviour in relation to Baby B and her mother. This included her stating to the mother that the father of the child could be charged with statutory rape.
One senior barrister who is familiar with the disciplinary procedures of the Bar Council and who has read this judgment said: "I always felt this case was very serious."
The Bar Council is aware of the contents of the Laffoy judgment and the identity of the barrister.