Donal O'Donnell SC and David Barniville BL: In our edition of June 26th 2003 we published, on our front page, an article under the heading 'Lowry pays legal fees of €1.5 million to Moriarty Tribunal'.
The implication of this article was that Mr Michael Lowry had paid a very substantial amount of money in legal fees, particularly by way of Counsel's fees, and was no longer receiving adequate legal representation.
The article further suggested that Mr Lowry's Counsel had demanded significant monies to be paid upfront and on a monthly basis as a condition of representing him in this module of the Tribunal. It is the case, and this fact had been widely known and reported upon, that Donal O'Donnell SC and David Barniville BL have represented Mr Lowry in the Moriarty Tribunal since commencement in 1997 until the start of the present module. The article clearly referred to them. The article, in its thrust and its detail, is untrue.
We unreservedly accept that the truth could not be further from the position set out in the article. We now accept that Mr O'Donnell and Mr Barniville each have been paid a total sum of £10,000 inclusive of VAT in respect of representation over a five-year period.
In effect, they have represented Mr Lowry and continue to represent him without payment during the entire duration of the Tribunal on the basis of what they consider to be a professional obligation. Moreover, we accept that when, after more than four years during which Mr O'Donnell and Mr Barniville acted for Mr Lowry in the Tribunal, it emerged that the Tribunal proposed enquiring into the grant of the second mobile telephone licence, it became clear to them that they had a potential conflict of interest in acting for Mr Lowry in that module having regard to their prior professional retainer for another client.
In those circumstances, we accept that Mr O'Donnell and Mr Barniville felt professionally obliged not to act for Mr Lowry during that module and so informed Mr Lowry and his instructing solicitors, both of whom accepted the position. They also informed the Tribunal's legal team. Mr Lowry then retained separate senior and junior counsel for that module. We fully accept that Mr O'Donnell and Mr Barniville acted in an entirely proper professional manner in this regard. Furthermore, Mr Lowry has confirmed that he is extremely happy with the legal representation he received from Mr O'Donnell and Mr Barniville in the Tribunal and with the representation from his current legal team.
We accept that this article was damaging to the professional reputations of both Mr O'Donnell and Mr Barniville. We deeply regret the fact that the true position was not ascertained by us.
We accept that no adequate attempt was made to check any of the facts. If the facts had been checked, the article would never have been published. We accept that at all times Mr O'Donnell and Mr Barniville acted in accordance with the highest professional standards in their representation of Mr Lowry and the conduct of their professional relationship with him.
We unreservedly apologise to Mr O'Donnell and Mr Barniville.