Background
The LSRA’s application was brought under section 35 of the 2015 Act and, in summary terms, this provides that the High Court can make an order prohibiting a legal practitioner from contravening a provision of the 2015 Act, where it is shown that a legal practitioner or any other person has contravened, is contravening or is likely to contravene any provision of the 2015 Act or the rules and regulations made under it.
The LSRA made the application under section 35 of the 2015 Act on the grounds that the barrister, in its view, had contravened the 2015 Act and the 2024 Regulations, which oblige a barrister to have a policy of professional indemnity insurance that complies with certain specified requirements.
In summary, the barrister had a qualifying policy of insurance in place up to May 2025 but then indicated to the LSRA that he had established himself in Brussels, registered with the Brussels Bar and was covered by the Brussels Bar insurance policy, which he claimed covered work across all EU member states, including Ireland. The barrister further claimed that the Brussels Bar policy complied with the 2024 Regulations, a position not accepted by the LSRA. The barrister also argued that to require him to take out a qualifying policy in Ireland in addition to the Brussels Bar policy would amount to a breach of EU law, in particular, his right to move freely between member states and provide legal services.
Judgment
The President rejected the arguments put forward by the barrister and granted the orders sought by the LSRA.
The President concluded that the barrister was practising in Ireland under his Irish title and was not exercising any EU right of establishment, whether under the EU Lawyers Establishment Directive (Directive 98/5) or right to provide services in Ireland on a temporary and occasional basis, per EU Directive 77/249). The President noted that the barrister was awarded his qualification in Ireland, that the barrister's home member state was Ireland for the purposes of the above directives and that his host member state was Belgium. Further, the President held that the barrister could not rely on the Lawyers Services Directive to provide legal services back into Ireland in this scenario. The President stated that he was satisfied that the barrister remained a barrister in Ireland, was practising under that title and was subject to the Irish domestic legal requirements, including in relation to PII.
The President also held that applying the domestic PII regulations was not discriminatory or a breach of EU law. The President noted that the barrister could not provide confirmation that the policy provided actually covered his practice in Ireland in any event and further accepted a submission from the LSRA to the effect that one of the two co-insurers of the Brussels Bar policy put forward by the barrister did not comply with the LSRA's minimum requirements for insurers, as the insurer had not sought to exercise their rights under the EU Solvency II Directive to provide insurance in Ireland. Therefore, he concluded that the Brussels Bar policy put forward by the barrister did not comply with the LSRA requirements in any event.
Key Takeaways
The key takeaways from this decision are:
1. The judgment confirms the importance and scope of the obligations on practising barristers to have a qualifying policy of insurance in place that complies with the requirements of the Professional Indemnity Insurance for Barristers Regulations 2024.
2. Whilst a barrister who is qualified and practising in Ireland is entitled to avail of the provisions of EU law under the EU Lawyers Establishment Directive to practise on a permanent basis in another EU member state using their Irish title, a barrister exercising such rights remains bound by the domestic regulations concerning PII cover in respect of their practice in Ireland.
3. Whilst the High Court judgment concerned a practising barrister, the key points arising in this judgment would also apply to solicitors seeking to practise on a similar basis.
Legal Services Regulatory Authority v Sallabi [2026] IEHC 334
