So you're now saying it was reported but not in a fashion to your liking? As usual your earlier statement was false. Surprise, surpriseNope. That article was light touch and tried to make out that it wsas Burke's legal practice and another made the discovery that the FFG governments carry on over decades had been illegal. There were various statements in the Oireachtas stating it. This wasn't some great investigative work by Burke.
And Burke's case where he intentionally delayed a client's claim had an even bigger smell about it after Leo Varadkar rewarded Burke with an appointment to Health in 2020 where Burke claimed "This is an area in which I have had a particular interest for a long number of years.”
That article you link would have one believe that it was just a clerical error where Burke claimed he'd verbally advised (rather than in writing) his client that he wouldn't act for them and the client being under the impression that he would.
It was known even back then that there were a number of serious misgivings about the way FFG ministers were overseeing a regime where people were being kept from money to which they were entitled. And this was a case where an elected FFG public representative, pretended to be doing the right thing and getting someone's owed money back for them. Even though he was deliberately running down the clock to ensure that they didn't get the due money.
And then in 2020 he got appointed to a position in Health by Leo the Liar. Looks very much like a payoff for a job not so well done on behalf of a client but well done on behalf of a regime who were trying to ensure that members of the public weren't getting the recompense they were due.
The article you link
"Mr Burke, a former Lord mayor of cork, was found guilty by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal of misleading an applicant client. He was ordered to pay €3,000 to the society’s compensation fund as well as €500 towards the expenses of the applicant.
In a statement, Mr Burke told how, in 2004, his legal practice and another found that the deduction of 80% of the pensions of public nursing home patients was illegal. He said as a result, emergency legislation was passed a short time later by the Government of the day, “to protect the procedure that was in place and also legalised the previous deductions”.
After the firms threatened a constitutional challenge, the legislation was referred to the Supreme Court, which found in 2005 that it was unconstitutional, and the Government was later forced to bring in new legislation to provide for the refund of nursing home charges illegally deducted from pensions. He said the legislation provided for a refund where a person lived on or after December 9, 1998 in a public nursing home or contracted bed in a private home.
Mr Burke said in the case at the heart of the tribunal, the complainant sought advice on the possibility of issuing proceedings in respect of the estate of one of her late parents who had died in 1995. He said given the year, it did not fall under the new legislation. “I am satisfied I verbally communicated the correct legal advice... at all times. I acknowledge the verbal advice was not followed with a written communication. “The Tribunal has found there was a failure of formal written communication in the case but was satisfied and held that I did not give any undertaking to issue proceedings on behalf of the complainant.”