In the matter of Peter Kenny, a solicitor formerly practising as Kenny Associates, College Street, Carlow, Co Carlow, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2011 [8864/DT109/14 and High Court record 2015 no 70 SA]

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)

Peter Kenny (respondent solicitor)

On 4 March 2015, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:

1)   Caused or allowed a deficit on the client account totalling €369,460 as at 18 October 2013,

2)   Breached regulation (7)(1)(a) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations, as amended, by creating debit balances of €124,665.36 as at 18 October 2013,

3)   Breached regulation 7(1) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations by withdrawing moneys on account of fees without the consent of the client,

4)   Breached regulation 11 of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations by failing to furnish bills of costs to clients and by the withdrawal of moneys not due to the respondent solicitor,

5)   Breached regulation 10(5) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations by the creation of credit balances on the office account of €274,042 as at 18 October 2013,

6)   Breached regulation 12 of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations by the failure to maintain such relevant supporting documents that could vouch moneys taken as solicitor/client fees,

7)   Breached regulation 12 of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations, in that the client ledger listing did not properly detail the full liabilities to clients because of the entries made for fee notes that had not been delivered to the client or agreed with them,

8)   Had substantial noncompliance with section 68 of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act 1994, in that clients were not informed of the party-and-party costs recovered, nor were they given full account details of all moneys spent on their behalf.

The tribunal ordered that the matter go forward to the High Court and, on 20 July 2015, the President of the High Court ordered that:

1)   The name of the respondent solicitor shall be struck from the Roll of Solicitors,

2)   The Society do recover the costs of the High Court proceedings and the costs of the proceedings before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal as against the respondent when taxed or ascertained.

In the matter of Peter Kenny, a solicitor formerly practising as Kenny Associates, College Street, Carlow, Co Carlow, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2011 [8864/DT61/14 and High Court record 2015 no 71 SA]

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)

Peter Kenny (respondent solicitor)

On 4 March 2015, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:

1)   Failed expeditiously, within a reasonable time, or at all to discharge fees properly due to the complainant in respect of his work carried out on behalf of the respondent solicitor’s former named clients,

2)   Improperly transferred fees and outlays received from third-party solicitors from the client account, which were properly due to the complainant, to the respondent solicitor’s office account,

3)   Failed to reply adequately or at all to the Society’s correspondence and, in particular, letters dated 17 December 2013, 14 January 2014, 31 January 2014, 7 February 2014 and 10 March 2014 respectively.

The tribunal ordered that the matter go forward to the High Court and, on 20 July 2015, the President of the High Court ordered that:

1)   The name of the respondent solicitor shall be struck from the Roll of Solicitors,

2)   The respondent solicitor pay the sum of €4,600 to the complainant,

3)   The Society recover the costs of the High Court proceedings and the costs of the proceedings before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal as against the respondent when taxed or ascertained.

In the matter of Christopher Lynch, a solicitor previously practising as Christopher Lynch Solicitors at 99 O’Connell Street, Limerick, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2011 [8386/DT72/13 and High Court record 2014 no 85SA]

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)

Christopher Lynch (respondent solicitor)

On 25 March 2014 and 6 November 2014, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal sat to consider this matter. They found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that, up to the date of the referral of the matter to the tribunal, he had:

1)   Created debit balances totalling €55,256.66 on the client account, in breach of regulation 7(2)(a) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations,

2)   Created a shortfall of €166,169.31 on the client account of the practice, as of 7 August 2012, by lodging client moneys to the office account and by failing to pay outlays out correctly from client funds received, in breach of regulations 7(1)(a)(iii), 8(ii) and 11(3) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations.

The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal referred the matter forward to the President of the High Court and, on 7 July 2014, the president ordered that:

1)    The respondent solicitor be suspended from practice for a period of 12 months,

2)    The respondent solicitor, after the expiration of the suspension period, be restricted from practising in the area of civil litigation for such period as the court may provide,

3)    The respondent solicitor, after the expiration of the suspension period, not be permitted to act as a sole practitioner or in partnership; that he be permitted only to practise as an assistant solicitor in the employment and under the direct control and supervision of another solicitor of at least ten years’ standing, to be approved in advance by the Society,

4)    That the respondent solicitor pay the whole of the costs of the Society, including witnesses’ expenses, to be taxed by a taxing master of the High Court in default of agreement.

The order of the tribunal made on 25 March 2014 and the report of the tribunal were amended on 6 November 2014, and this amendment was noted by the High Court on 22 June 2015, and the order made on 7 July 2014 was confirmed. The amendments made did not affect the actual findings of misconduct or recommendations as to sanction.

In the matter of Paul Lambert, a solicitor practising as Merrion Legal, Solicitors & Community Trademark Agents, Suite 12, Butlers Court, Sir John Rogerson’s Quay, Dublin 2, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2011 [8776/DT62/11 and High Court record no 5SA/2015]

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)

Paul Lambert (respondent solicitor)

On 22 July 2014, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:

1)   Failed to ensure compliance with Merrion Legal Services’ undertaking dated 17 November 2006 to the complainant bank to register a first legal charge in favour of the complainant over a named property,

2)   Failed to reply adequately to the complainant’s letters dated 30 September 2009, 8 March 2010, and 16 February 2010,

3)   Failed to reply adequately to the Society’s correspondence dated 7 May 2010, 26 May 2010, 28 June 2010, 15 October 2010, 9 December 2010, 17 December 2010, and 5 January 2011,

4)   Breached section 3(d) of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act 1960, as substituted by section 7(d) of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act 2002, when he allowed a solicitor to practise as a solicitor in Merrion Legal Services when he knew or ought to have known upon reasonable enquiry that a practising certificate was not in force in respect of that solicitor, in breach of section 56 of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act 1994.

The tribunal ordered that the matter should go forward to the High Court and, on 2 July 2015, the High Court ordered that:

1)   The name of the respondent solicitor be struck from the Roll of Solicitors,

2)   The respondent solicitor do pay to the Society its costs of the within proceedings and of the proceedings before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal when taxed and ascertained in default of agreement.

In the matter of Paul Madden, a solicitor formerly practising as Paul Madden & Company, Solicitors, Fitzpatrick Square, Clones, Co Monaghan, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2011 [10035/DT205/13 and High Court record 2015 no 55 SA]

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)

Paul Madden (respondent solicitor)

On 11 March 2015, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:

1)   Caused or allowed an estimated deficit to arise on the client account in the sum of in or about €1,422,067 as at 11 September 2013,

2)   Caused or allowed a deficit in respect of the client account of a named client in the sum of in or about €242,624 as at 11 September 2013,

3)   Caused or allowed a deficit in respect of the client account of a named client in the sum of in or about €126,841as at 11 September 2013,

4)   Caused or allowed a deficit in respect of the client account of a named client in the sum of in or about €193,500 as at 11 September 2013,

5)   Caused or allowed a deficit in respect of the client account of a named client in the sum of in or about €176,744 as at 11 September 2013,

6)   Caused or allowed a deficit in respect of the client account of a named client in the sum of in or about €175,000 as at 11 September 2013,

7)   Caused or allowed a deficit in respect of the client account of a named client of approximately €77,986 as at 11 September 2013,

8)   Caused or allowed a deficit in respect of the client account of a named client in the estimated sum of in or about €62,302 as at 11 September 2013,

9)   Caused or allowed a deficit in respect of the client account of a named client in the sum of in or about €60,000 as at 11 September 2013,

10) Caused or allowed a deficit in respect of the client account of a named client in the sum of in or about €56,858 as at 11 September 2013,

11) Caused or allowed a deficit in respect of the client account of a named client in the sum of in or about €38,550 as at 11 September 2013,

12) Caused or allowed a deficit in respect of the client account of a named client in the sum of in or about €36,982 as at 11 September 2013,

13) Caused or allowed a deficit in respect of the client account of a named client in the estimated sum of in or about €27,500 as at 11 September 2013,

14) Caused or allowed a deficit in respect of the client account of a named client in the sum of in or about €25,000 as at 11 September 2013,

15) Caused or allowed a deficit in respect of the client account of a named client in the sum of in or about €25,395 as at 11 September 2013,

16) Caused or allowed a deficit in respect of the client account of a named client in the sum of in or about €25,000 as at 11 September 2013,

17) Caused or allowed a deficit in respect of the client account of a named client in the sum of in or about €16,625 as at 11 September 2013,

18) Caused or allowed a deficit in respect of the client account of a named client in the sum of in or about €11,833 as at 11 September 2013,

19) Caused or allowed a deficit in respect of the client account of a named client in the sum of in or about €12,010 as at 11 September 2013,

20) Caused or allowed a deficit in respect of the client account of a named client in the sum of in or about €7,965 as at 11 September 2013,

21) Caused or allowed a deficit in respect of the client account of a named client in the sum of in or about €7,500,

22) Caused or allowed a deficit in respect of the client account of a named client in the sum of in or about €5,481 as at 11 September 2013;

23) Caused or allowed a deficit in respect of the client account of a named client in the sum of in or about €4,425 as at 11 September 2013,

24) Caused or allowed a deficit in respect of the client account of a named client in the sum of in or about €5,000 as at 11 September 2013,

25) Caused or allowed a deficit in respect of the client account of a named client in the sum of in or about €1,500 as at 11 September 2013,

26) Misappropriated clients’ money by (a) transferring around €577,912 to the solicitor’s office account as purported professional fees and for his own use, (b) using around €716,380 to finance other unrelated client matters through a series of teeming and lading, (c) paying €25,000 to his wife, and (d) using around €103,330, which cannot be accounted for.

27) Made numerous misrepresentations to Mary Devereux, investigating accountant, in respect of her report dated 12 July 2010 in relation to the deficit on the client account of a named client of €156,414.64,

28) Made material misrepresentations to Damien Colton, investigating accountant, in respect of the interim investigation reportdated 8 August 2011, in respect of his named client, to conceal a deficit on the client account at that time,

29) Made a material misrepresentation to the Regulation of Practice Committee at its meeting on 12 October 2011, in respect of a named client, to conceal the deficit on the client account,

30) Made material misrepresentations to Damien Colton, investigating accountant, during the course of his investigation on29-30 August and 2 September 2013 in respect of a fictitious client,

31) Created a fictitious client file, including fictitious correspondence and attendance notes in respect of a fictitious client,

32) Misappropriated client funds of €156,414 belonging to a named client to payvarious personal expenses, including some or all of the following: (a) MBNA personal credit card bill of €13,000 on 8 May 2006, (b) purchase of a grand piano for €19,800 on 26 May 2006, (c) further payment of an MBNA personal credit card bill of €15,000 on 3 August 2006, (d) in all, making 13 transactions between 8 May 2006 and 12 May 2007, thereby expending all client funds belonging to a named client,

33) Conducted an extensive practice of teeming and lading between client accounts to mask and conceal the deficit on the client account,

34) Made a material misrepresentation to the Regulation of Practice Committee in respect of the reimbursement of the client account and also the non-disclosure of the estimated deficit of €1.4 million on the client account.

The tribunal ordered that the matter go forward to the High Court and, on 22 June 2015, the President of the High Court ordered that:

1)   The name of the respondent solicitor shall be struck from the Roll of Solicitors,

2)   The respondent solicitor pay the whole of the Society’s costs and witness expenses in the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal proceedings, to be taxed in default of agreement,

3)   The respondent solicitor pay to the Society the costs of the High Court proceedings, to be taxed in default of agreement.

In the matter of Paul Madden, a solicitor formerly practising as Paul Madden & Company, Solicitors, Fitzpatrick Square, Clones, Co Monaghan, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2011 [10035/DT96/14 and High Court record 2015 no 52 SA]

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)

Paul Madden (respondent solicitor)

On 11 March 2015, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he failed to comply expeditiously, within a reasonable time, or at all with an undertaking given by him to AIB Bank on behalf of a named client over property at Ardee, Co Louth, by undertaking dated 10 August 2004.

The tribunal ordered that the matter go forward to the High Court and, on 22 June 2015, the President of the High Court ordered that:

1)   The name of the respondent solicitor shall be struck from the Roll of Solicitors,

2)   The respondent solicitor pay the whole of the Society’s costs and witness expenses in the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal proceedings, to be taxed in default of agreement,

3)   The respondent solicitor pay to the Society the costs of the High Court proceedings, to be taxed in default of agreement.

In the matter of Paul Madden, a solicitor formerly practising as Paul Madden & Company, Solicitors, Fitzpatrick Square, Clones, Co Monaghan, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2011 [10035/DT98/14 and High Court record 2015 no 53 SA]

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)

Paul Madden (respondent solicitor)

On 11 March 2015, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:

1)   Failed to comply expeditiously, within a reasonable time, or at all with an undertaking given by him in respect of named clients over property at Clones, Co Monaghan, to the complainant building society/bank dated 15 February 2007,

2)   Failed to comply expeditiously, within a reasonable time, or at all with an undertaking given by him on behalf of a named client over property at Clones, Co Monaghan, to the complainant building society bank dated 5 March 2007,

3)   Failed to comply expeditiously, within a reasonable time, or at all with an undertaking given by him on behalf of named clients over property at Aghaboy, Co Monaghan, to the complainant building society/bank by undertaking dated 26 July 2007,

4)   Failed to comply expeditiously, within a reasonable time, or at all with an undertaking given by him on behalf of named clients over property at Clones, Co Monaghan to the complainant building society/bank by undertaking dated 3 December 2007,

5)   Failed to comply expeditiously, within a reasonable time, or at all with an undertaking given by him on behalf of named clients over property at Clones, Co Monaghan, to the complainant building society/bank dated 13 December 2007,

6)   Failed to comply expeditiously, within a reasonable time, or at all with an undertaking given by him on behalf of a named client over property at Newbliss, Co Monaghan, to the complainant building society/bank dated 26 May 2008.

The tribunal ordered that the matter go forward to the High Court and, on 22 June 2015, the President of the High Court ordered that:

1)   The name of the respondent solicitor shall be struck from the Roll of Solicitors,

2)   The respondent solicitor pay the whole of the Society’s costs and witness expenses in the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal proceedings, to be taxed in default of agreement,

3)   The respondent solicitor pay to the Society the costs of the High Court proceedings, to be taxed in default of agreement.

In the matter of Paul Madden, a solicitor formerly practising as Paul Madden & Company, Solicitors, Fitzpatrick Square, Clones, Co Monaghan, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2011 [10035/DT104/14 and High Court record 2015 no 54 SA]

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)

Paul Madden (respondent solicitor)

On 11 March 2015, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he failed to comply expeditiously, within a reasonable time, or at all with an undertaking given by him on behalf of a named client over property at Carrick-on-Shannon, Co Leitrim, to KBC Homeloans by undertaking dated 2 November 2008.

The tribunal ordered that the matter go forward to the High Court and, on 22 June 2015, the President of the High Court ordered that:

1)   The name of the respondent solicitor shall be struck from the Roll of Solicitors,

2)   The respondent solicitor pay the whole of the Society’s costs and witness expenses in the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal proceedings, to be taxed in default of agreement,

3)   The respondent solicitor pay to the Society the costs of the High Court proceedings, to be taxed in default of agreement.

In the matter of Kevin M O'Gara, solicitor, formerly practising as Kevin O'Gara, Unit 4, Level 1, the Reeks Gateway, Killarney, Co Kerry, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2011 [8391/DT129/13 and High Court record 2015 no 25 SA]

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)

Kevin M O'Gara (respondent solicitor)

On 4 December 2014, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:

First complaint

1)   Failed to complete three conveyancing transactions,

2)   Deducted fees from moneys received for stamp duty,

3)   Failed to reply to multiple correspondence from the Society about the complaint,

4)   Failed to comply with a direction of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee on 14 September 2011 that he should furnish a full update in relation to the matter within 21 days,

5)   Failed to attend a meeting of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee on 14 December 2011, despite being required to attend;

6)   Failed to comply with a further direction of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee, as set out in detail in a letter from the Society to the respondent solicitor dated 16 December 2011,

7)   Failed to attend a meeting of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee on 28 February 2012, despite being required to attend,

8)   Failed to attend a further meeting of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee on 3 April 2012, despite being required to attend,

9)   Failed to attend a further meeting of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee on 15 May 2012, despite being required to attend,

10) Failed to attend a further meeting of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee on 26 June 2012, despite being required to attend.

Second complaint

1)   Failed to reply to multiple letters from the Society in relation to the complaint,

2)   Failed to process a claim as instructed by a named client,

3)   Failed to comply with a direction of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee that he should furnish a full update in relation to the matter within 21 days,

4)   Failed to comply with a further direction of the committee, made on 14 December 2011, that he should, on or before 15 January 2012, furnish the ledger card, his letter pursuant to section 68 of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act 1994, and a copy of the bill of costs,

5)   Failed to furnish the information sought by a named client’s new solicitors,

6)   Failed to attend a meeting of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee on 28 February 2012, despite being required to do so,

7)   Failed to attend a meeting of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee on 15 May 2012, despite being required to attend,

8)   Failed to attend a meeting of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee on 26 June 2012, despite being required to attend.

Third and fourth complaints

1)   Failed to comply with an undertaking dated 22 August 2008 relating to a property in Killarney in respect of named clients,

2)   Failed to comply with an undertaking dated 10 December 2007 relating to a property at Killarney in respect of a named client,

3)   Failed to reply to numerous letters from the Society,

4)   Failed to comply with a direction of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee made on 14 September 2011 that, in respect of the undertaking of 22 August 2008, he furnish a full update together with the ledger card within 21 days,

5)   Failed to comply with a direction of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee made on 14 September 2011 that, in respect of the undertaking of 10 December 2007, he should furnish a full update together with the ledger card within 21 days,

6)   Failed to respond to a copy of a letter in relation to each of these two undertakings from a named client to the Society dated 6 October 2011 when subsequently furnished by the Society to him,

7)   Failed to attend a meeting of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee on 14 December 2011, despite being required to attend,

8)   Failed to comply with a direction of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee on 14 December 2011 that, in relation to the update previously required, the committee directed that the respondent solicitor should furnish detailed information on or before 20 January 2012 in relation to the title of the properties that was the subject matter of the two undertakings,

9)   Failed to attend the meeting of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee on 3 April 2012, despite being required to attend,

10) Failed to attend the meeting of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee on 16 May 2012, despite being required to do so,

11) Failed to attend the meeting of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee on 26 June 2012, despite being required to attend.

Fifth complaint

1)   Failed to comply with an undertaking in respect of a named client dated 4 November 2010,

2)   Failed to reply to numerous correspondence from the Society,

3)   Failed to attend the meeting of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee on 3 April 2012, despite being required to attend,

4)   Failed to comply with a direction of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee on 3 April 2012 that he furnish detailed information on the title that was the subject matter of the complaint,

5)   Failed to attend the meeting of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee on 15 May 2012, despite being required to attend,

6)   Failed to attend the meeting of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee on 26 June 2012, despite being required to attend.

Five further complaints on behalf of EBS Limited

1)   Failed to comply with an undertaking dated 27 November 2006 in respect of a named client,

2)   Failed to comply with an undertaking dated 11 May 2009 in respect of a named client,

3)   Failed to comply with an undertaking dated 24 March 2006 in respect of a named client,

4)   Failed to comply with an undertaking dated 19 May 2006 in respect of a named client,

5)   Failed to comply with an undertaking dated 25 April 2006 in respect of a named client,

6)   Failed to reply to multiple correspondence from the Society,

7)   Failed to attend a meeting of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee on 3 April 2012, despite being required to attend,

8)   Failed to comply with a direction of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee made in respect of each of the five outstanding undertakings on 3 April 2012,

9)   Failed to attend a meeting of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee on 15 May 2012, despite being required to attend,

10) Failed to attend a meeting of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee on 26 June 2012, despite being required to attend.

Eleventh complaint

1)   Failed to comply with an undertaking dated 11 December 2008 to Listowel Credit Union Limited in respect of named clients,

2)   Failed to reply to numerous correspondence from the Society about the complaint,

3)   Failed to comply with a direction of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee to provide details of the precise state of the transaction within 21 days to the committee or at all,

4)   Failed to attend a meeting of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee on 3 April 2012, despite being required to attend,

5)   Failed to attend a meeting of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee on 15 May 2012, despite being required to attend,

6)   Failed to attend a meeting of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee on 26 June 2012, despite being required to attend.

The tribunal ordered that the matter go forward to the High Court and, on 8 June 2015, the President of the High Court made the following orders:

1)   That the name of the respondent solicitor shall be struck from the Roll of Solicitors,

2)   That the respondent pay to the Society the costs of the High Court proceedings and the costs of the proceedings before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, including witness expenses, to be taxed in default of agreement.

In the matter of Heather Perrin, a former solicitor, formerly practising as Heather Perrin, Solicitor, 54 Fairview Strand, Fairview, Dublin 3, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2011 [4732/DT158/13 and High Court record 2015 no 33SA]

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)

Heather Perrin (respondent)

On 18 November 2014, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent guilty of professional misconduct in that she:

1)   Was convicted before Dublin Circuit Criminal Court of an offence of making a gain or causing a loss by deception, contrary to section 6 of the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act 2001 and, on 28 November 2012, was sentenced to a term of two-and-a-half years’ imprisonment, to date from 28 November 2012,

2)   Was convicted by the Dublin Circuit Criminal Court of an offence of false accounting, contrary to section 10(1)(c) and (3) of the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act 2001 and, on 13 March 2013, was sentenced to a term of two years’ imprisonment, to date from 22 February 2013.

The tribunal ordered that the matter go forward to the High Court and, on 20 April 2015, the President of the High Court made the following order:

1)   An order striking the name of the respondent off the Roll of Solicitors,

2)   An order that the respondent pay whole of the costs of the Society, to be taxed by a taxing master of the High Court in default of agreement.

The respondent's name had previously been struck off the Roll of Solicitors by order of the High Court on 3 February 2014.