MR Justice 'ANO' need not worry. The unnamed High Court judge's identity is a secret that is safe with Frank Dunlop.
As Mr Dunlop himself told the Mahon tribunal last Monday, "wild horses" wouldn't get him to reveal who Mr ANO was, a man whom he met at the Davenport Hotel in Dublin on February 17, 2000 for an 8.30am meeting with his then barrister, Colm Allen SC.
In revealing that the breakfast meeting had taken place at all, Dunlop was quick to apologise to tribunal chairman Judge Alan Mahon and "other members of the bench" for the "discomfort" this might cause them, given that Mr ANO was a "gentleman seeking appointment to the High Court, which he subsequently was [given]".
And having exploded that gentlest of hand grenades, the former lobbyist withdrew, assuring his horrified audience of learned friends that Mr ANO's lobbying and appointment as a judge had nothing to do with the remit of the Mahon tribunal.
But it does have something to do with how some who have taken silk progress from the Bar to the Bench, and in more recent years, how solicitors from the ranks of the Law Society have joined them there.
While the establishment of the Judicial Appointments Advisory Board under the Courts and Court Officers' Act of 1995 was to have seen the removal of political influence, involvement or even interference -- perceived or otherwise -- from the appointment of judges, the lobbying of government ministers and key individuals with political influence persists to this day.
Membership of a particular political party, statutorily permitted political donations, attendance at political fundraising dinners and canvassing for individual candidates during election campaigns are just some of the more blatant methods employed by ambitious lawyers seeking future promotion to the Bench.
More subtle tactics adopted behind the scenes see barristers and solicitors give established politicians and politicians on the rise the benefit of their expertise by way of legal opinion on possible problems with existing and pending legislation.
And it hasn't been unknown for eminent Senior Counsel to give their services free, gratis and for nothing to politicians when it comes to preparing speeches for delivery in the Dail chamber.
For those lawyers who aren't prepared to invest such time and effort, there are other ways of attempting to inveigle -- albeit none too subtly -- one's way on to the Bench.
Take the example of the barrister on the southern circuit who believed that a post-midnight knock on the front door of the late Taoiseach Jack Lynch's Cork home would be sufficient to land him the big job.
While a newly-appointed judge's declared or undeclared political affiliation might only ever make for Law Library gossip, or muttering behind a cupped hand at the Dail Bar, occasionally the appointment process can surface in formal public debate. A good example of this came in 2002 with the controversy surrounding Mr Justice Daniel Herbert.
Widely acknowledged as a Fianna Fail supporter among his colleagues in the Law Library, Justice Herbert hit the headlines for all the wrong reasons after he imposed a suspended sentence on a convicted rapist.
In passing sentence, Herbert pointed out that "no actual injury was inflicted on the victim other than the rape".
He also stated how "the only one" aggravating factor in the rape was the threat to kill the victim.
The imposition of a suspended sentence and the remarks provoked outrage, and reopened the perennial debate on political considerations given to judicial appointments.
This was despite the fact that neither Mr Justice Herbert's appointment to the Bench nor his unfortunate remarks would have had anything to do with any his political loyalties.
Two years earlier, in October 2000, a 10-month delay in finding a replacement for District Court Judge Desmond Hogan, following his promotion to the Circuit Court, sparked a furious row and accusations in the Dail that the then Justice Minister John O' Donoghue was playing politics with the decision.
Taking the minister to task for his perceived tardiness at the time, Fine Gael's Justice spokesman Alan Shatter suggested the Government's problem with the seven candidates proposed by the Judicial Appointments Advisory Board was that none of them was a member of Fianna Fail.
Intriguingly, even as Mr O'Donoghue rejected that accusation, he revealed how the Government could legally choose to ignore the recommendations of the Judicial Appointments Advisory Board when appointing a judge.
In a bullish rebuke, the then justice minister said: "Had the Government wished to ignore the recommendations of the Board, it could have done so within the law of the land."
In another debate on judicial appointments in November 2000, the matter of political involvement in the selection process came to the fore once more.
Asked for details of the representations made on behalf of candidates for vacancies in the District Court, Mr O'Donoghue revealed that he had received 40 representations from members of the Oireachtas in relation to these and other judicial appointments.
He further disclosed how eight of those on whose behalf representations had been made were subsequently appointed to the District Court Bench.