Attorney Ammi Burke has clashed with a Supreme Court judge for the second time in just four days — this time after she was unsuccessful in trying to speed up her appeal against the termination of her false dismissal claim.
During the hearing of the petition, Ms. Judge Marguerite Bolger warned that she would have Ms Burke’s microphone muted if she continued to interrupt her.
Today’s hearing, which took place online, saw the continuation of heated exchanges between the attorney and the judge on Monday, when Ms Bolger allowed Ms Burke to challenge decisions by an arbitrator from the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC), but refused to do this. classifies the case as a matter of public interest.
“It’s a sad day in Ireland when a Supreme Court judge makes a decision she knows is wrong. Thank God there is a superior judge,” Ms Burke told the judge today.
Ms Bolger replied, not for the first time, that if Ms Burke didn’t like the decision, she could appeal to the Court of Appeal.
Ms. Burke was fired from her job in November 2019 as a junior associate in the banking and finance division of major law firm Arthur Cox.
The company says this was due to a rift in its relationship with three senior partners, but Ms Burke claims her dismissal was unfair.
However, her unfair dismissal case from the WRC was ended in April by arbitrator Kevin Baneham after what he described as “continuous and willful obstruction and disturbances” by the lawyer’s mother, Martina Burke.
Ammi Burke is now challenging that decision and other decisions made by Mr Baneham, including his refusal to call two witnesses and demand the production of emails.
She was authorized to initiate a judicial review process by Ms Bolger earlier this week, but denounced the judge for noting that the challenge was “not a matter of public interest” and for refusing to make a specific request for clarification about the application. of the law on calling witnesses.
The case was due to go to court in November, but Ms Burke today filed a request with the same judge for an earlier return date.
She put forward two grounds, the first being that her case concerned “the extremely rare circumstances of a lawyer’s summary dismissal”.
Ms Burke said she had not been able to find a legal job since she was fired two and a half years ago. She said the dismissal and WRC proceedings had a significant impact on her career and any prospects for future employment in the legal profession.
“As an employee, I had an exemplary and impeccable track record with Arthur Cox,” she said.
Ms Burke said if her Supreme Court challenge was successful, a new hearing would be held at the WRC and timing was key.
The second ground raised was that it considered that an expedited hearing was in the public interest as it concerned procedures used by the WRC in assessing unjustified dismissal claims.
“In the event that the waivers are granted, there will be serious implications for WRC procedures in assessing all claims,” Ms Burke argued.
She echoed the comments she had made repeatedly on Monday, criticizing Ms Bolger’s comment that it was not a matter of public interest. She claimed the statement was untrue and legally incorrect and repeatedly asked for it to be revoked.
“You are an expert in the field of employment law. It is my understanding that you specialized in employment law before you were appointed to the bank. So you are well aware that this judicial review raises issues of public interest. I again express my deep concern about your statement on Monday,” said the lawyer.
The judge asked Ms Burke not to interrupt her decision on the request.
Ms Justice Bolger began by pointing out that Ms Burke was raising issues that had already been decided, but the lawyer intervened again and started talking about the judge.
“If you interrupt me again when I make my decision, I will ask the Registrar to silence you,” Ms Bolger said.
The judge rejected the request for an earlier return date, saying she did not accept it was a matter of public interest.
The judge said she appreciated the great grief for an employee to be fired, but the legislation did not allow a distinction between a lawyer and another type of employee.
“You have to take your place in the same way as anyone who comes to this court,” the judge said.
After the decision was made, Ms. Burke continued to criticize the judge.
“There are rules that apply to all of us. There are rules that apply to me, but there are also rules that apply to you. You are also responsible,” she said.
Ms Bolger responded: “The verdict is over, so I’m going to end this hearing now. Goodbye Mrs. Burke.”
When the judge signed off, Ms Burke said, “It’s a sad day.”
Ms Burke’s WRC case attracted a lot of attention in April due to repeated objections and interjections.
She claims she was unfairly fired for criticizing an Arthur Cox partner after working until 2am while co-workers were socializing.
Arthur Cox denied that she unfairly resigned, arguing that there was a breakdown in her relationship with three senior partners. The WRC was told that Ms Burke, among others, “tried” with one partner, Gráinne Hennessy.
It was also heard that Ms. Burke criticized another partner, Kevin Lynch, when he congratulated her on closing a deal. She allegedly told him she “wouldn’t have had to work on that transaction so late if his team had done their job”.