Some time ago, I had to deal with a very difficult lawyer. I had libelled his client. Now this was a technical matter. In my opinion, no real harm had been inflicted on the man, but technically speaking he had been defamed.

After a horrendous amount of paper-serving in which the English language was the primary casualty, a settlement negotiation was arranged for 5pm at the Law Library to discuss the technical libel of his client. When I went to attend this meeting, my senior counsel and my solicitor turned up on time. The opposing senior counsel did not, delaying his arrival till almost an hour past the appointed time.

When he did arrive, he insisted on speaking from another room, conveying his messages to me via his junior, a bizarre approach apparently considered to be normal in legal circles. This very kind man walked back and forward from one room to another, mediating the views of his senior to me — the person who would pick up the tab for this outing. At one point the senior actually instructed his junior to tell me that he had nothing personal against me, and that he actually liked my work as a journalist.

At all times he was closeted in a different room, as the procedures of his trade appear to prevent face-to-face confrontation with opponents.

This appears to me to be an extraordinary way of doing business: surely it would be easier to solve problems if both parties were present in the same room.

Finally, this eminent lawyer casually demanded a sum of IR£100,000 in damages on behalf of his client. I had expected the worst. My own senior counsel had warned me of the brutal realities of the case in advance. Essentially I was being forced to pay a huge sum in relation to an alleged libel that had, in my view, inflicted no substantial wrong on the plaintiff.

The amount of cash that was demanded initially by the lawyer would have paid the wages of three young journalists for a year. The lesser sum that we ultimately had to give to the plaintiff when the case was finally settled was a minor relief.

There has been no substantial reform of the libel laws in Ireland for almost a century. Even the rudimentary issue of allowing a defendant to lodge money in court while pleading that he has not libelled a plaintiff has not been addressed, as was done in Britain in the 1930s.

An apology given, in advance, to a wronged person simply worsens the position of the defendant — typically a publisher or broadcaster. Publishers must operate in an extraordinary way. For example, if you are sued by a person of substantial means then you are in a good position, because the rich man simply wants a strongly worded apology or correction.

But if you are being sued by a person who has no means the situation is incomparably worse. The person has his eye on a mythical pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. His lawyer knows that the leverage he can exert grows in proportion to the costs racked up.

Make the whole issue more and more complicated, rack up the costs and there is a strong possibility that the defendant will simply fold before the case reaches court. The “pot of gold” is not a reward for a potentially wronged plaintiff, it is a reward for an already rich lawyer who has made a simple issue complex.

The Competition Authority last week published the most damning report on the legal profession in decades. Despite that, the Law Library and Kings Inns think everything is in order. As far as they are concerned the legal elite can plough ahead with its policy of extracting a bizarre ransom from the wider public for another 20 years, if that is what they want. Well, why would they not? Last week’s report from John Fingleton tells us that the average, yes average, wage of a senior counsel is now €270,618, or 10 times the average industrial wage.

Clearly there is a lot at stake here, including the future buoyancy of property values in Dublin 4 and Dublin 6.

Times Recommends

• Neda Soltan: Times Person of the Year
• Campaign to take horses off the menu
• Twilight arrives — and vampire fans seek Vlad