Madam, - It is with regret that we must write to you in connection with the report (under the heading "Firm of solicitors to sever link with client") in your edition of Saturday, March 5th concerning a hearing which took place in the Supreme Court on the previous day.
Your report is inaccurate in a number of respects, to such an extent that it reflects adversely on the reputation and good name of this firm.
The application which came before the Supreme Court was made by this firm. Your report does not make this clear.
The application by this firm was for an order pursuant to the rules of the superior courts declaring, in the words of the rules, that this firm "had ceased to be the solicitors acting for the plaintiff". These are the precise words used in our application. However, you report that the Supreme Court decided that this firm "should no longer represent" the plaintiff. This is quite inaccurate and misleading. What the court ordered was that this firm "had ceased to be the solicitors acting for the plaintiff". By the same token, your headline is incorrect.
You also quote Mr Horan SC in a garbled way when you report him as saying that "it was wholly inappropriate solicitors should be advised consider a document such as this". Mr Horan, of course, did not utter such a garbled phrase. Instead, what he actually said was that "it was wholly inappropriate that the solicitors should be asked to consider a document such as this", referring to a document of our former client. - Yours etc.,
BRIAN GALLAGHER,
Gallagher Shatter Solicitors,
Ely Place,
Dublin 2.