In the matter of David Walsh, solicitor, formerly practising as David Walsh & Co, Solicitors, at 12 Mount Street, Mullingar, Co Westmeath, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2011 [4550/DT68/11 and 2014 no 36 SA]

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)

David Walsh (respondent solicitor)

On 12 September 2013, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:

1)  Failed to honour an undertaking dated 29 April 2004 and an extension thereof given on behalf of named clients over property at Mullingar, Co Westmeath, expeditiously, within a reasonable time, or at all,

2)  Failed to honour an undertaking and an extension thereof given on behalf of named clients over property at Carrigallen, Co Leitrim, dated 14 October 2004, expeditiously, within reasonable time, or at all,

3)  Failed to honour an undertaking and an extension thereof given on behalf of named clients over property at Mullingar, Co Westmeath, dated 17 January 2006, expeditiously, within a reasonable time, or at all,

4)  Failed to respond adequately or in some cases at all to the complainant’s correspondence, in particular, letters dated 6 January 2010, 12 August, 2010, 19 August 2010 (email), 14 September 2010, 23 September 2010, 28 September 2010, and 5 October 2010 respectively.

The tribunal ordered that the matter go forward to the High Court and, on 27 May 2014, 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 do pay the Society the costs of the proceedings before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal only, to include witness expenses, to be taxed in default of agreement.

In the matter of David Walsh, solicitor, formerly practising as David Walsh & Co, Solicitors, at 12 Mount Street, Mullingar, Co Westmeath, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2011 [4550/DT124/12 and 2014 no 70 SA]

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)

David Walsh (respondent solicitor)

On 18 February 2014, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he failed to comply with the undertaking given to the complainant dated 26 April 2005 on behalf of a named client over property at Mullingar, Co Westmeath, expeditiously, within a reasonable time, or at all.

The tribunal ordered that the matter go forward to the High Court and, on 27 May 2014, 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 do pay the Society the costs of the proceedings before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal only, to include witness expenses, to be taxed in default of agreement.

In the matter of David Walsh, solicitor, formerly practising as David Walsh & Co, Solicitors, at 12 Mount Street, Mullingar, Co Westmeath, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2011 [4550/DT143/12 and 2014 no 41 SA]

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)

David Walsh (respondent solicitor)

On 30 July 2013, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he failed to comply with a direction made by the Complaints and Client Relations Committee at its meeting on 4 February 2011 to refund the fees he had deducted from a named estate in a timely manner or at all.

The tribunal ordered that the matter go forward to the High Court and, on 27 May 2014, 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 solicitor pay the sum of €24,411 as restitution to the complainant,

3) That the respondent do pay the Society the costs of proceedings before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal only, to include witness expenses, to be taxed in default of agreement.

In the matter of David Walsh, solicitor, formerly practising as David Walsh & Co, Solicitors, at 12 Mount Street, Mullingar, Co Westmeath, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2011 [4550/DT141/12 and 2014 no 40 SA]

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)

David Walsh (respondent solicitor)

On 5 December 2013, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he failed to comply with a direction of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee meeting of 9 February 2012 to refund fees totalling €20,470 plus VAT to the complainant.

The tribunal ordered that the matter go forward to the High Court and, on 27 May 2014, 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 solicitor pay the sum of €18,970 plus VAT as restitution to the complainant,

3)  That the respondent do pay the Society the costs of the proceedings before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal only, to include witness expenses, to be taxed in default of agreement.

In the matter of David Walsh, solicitor, formerly practising as David Walsh & Co, Solicitors, at 12 Mount Street, Mullingar, Co Westmeath, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2011 [4550/DT41/10 and 2014 no 37 SA]

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)

David Walsh (respondent solicitor)

On 30 July 2013, 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 of in or about €26,039 to arise on his client account as at 31 October 2006,

2)  Caused or allowed debit balances of €3,160, €2,500, €73, €100 and €650 to arise on five clients’ ledger accounts as at 31 October 2006,

3)  Caused or allowed debit balances to arise on a personal account of the respondent solicitor in the clients’ ledger in the amounts of €10,000 on 26 October 2006, €10,612.54 on 15 February 2006, and €142,000 on 29 October 2004,

4)  Failed to ensure the stamping of a deed of transfer to named clients with reasonable expedition, which deed (dated 4 July 2006) was not sent to the Revenue Commissioners prior to the investigation carried out in March/April 2007,

5)  Improperly caused or allowed €175 of clients’ money (made up of €125 received to pay for searches and €50 received to pay other specified outlay) to be drawn from the clients’ ledger account of named clients to the office account on or about 22 May 2006, and failed to ensure that the searches were carried out at closing in or about May 2006 or at any time prior to the investigation of his practice in March/April 2007, despite having informed his clients in a section 68(1) letter that searches would be carried out on the day of closing,

6)   Improperly caused or allowed clients’ money, which included €250 received to pay for searches in two purchases, plus €125 received to pay for searches in a remortgage, to be drawn from the clients’ ledger account of named clients to the office account in March and July 2006, and failed to ensure that the searches were carried out in the case of the two purchases and remortgage at closing in 2006 or at any time prior to the investigation carried out in March/April 2007, despite his clients being informed in section 68(1) letters on the files for the three matters that searches would be carried out on the day of closing,

7)  Improperly caused or allowed clients’ money of €380 to be drawn from the clients’ ledger account of named clients to the office account in 2003, out of a total sum of €755 that had been received to pay registration fees of €625, searches of €80, and other specified outlay of €50, and failed to ensure that the searches were carried out at closing in 2003 or at any time prior to the investigation carried out in March/April 2007, despite having informed his clients in a section 68(1) letter in March 2003 that searches would be carried out on the day of closing,

8)  Improperly caused or allowed clients’ money of €625, belonging to named clients that had been received to pay outlay, including searches of €75, to be incorrectly transferred from their clients’ ledger account as part of a larger amount to the clients’ ledger account of named clients on or about 16 December 2004, and failed to ensure that the searches were carried out at closing in 2004 or at any time prior to the investigation carried out in March/April 2007, despite having informed his clients in a section 68(1) letter in November 2004 that searches would be carried out on the day of closing,

9)  Improperly caused or allowed clients’ money of €500 to be drawn from the clients’ ledger account of named clients to the office account in April 2005, out of money received to pay outlay in May 2003 in the case of named clients and out of clients’ money received to pay outlay in the case of named clients that had been received into the client account in November 2004,

10) Improperly caused or allowed clients’ money of €385 to be drawn from the client’s ledger account of named clients to the office account in March/April 2003, out of a sum of €760 that had been received to pay outlay, including searches of €85, and failed to ensure that the searches were carried out at closing in 2003 or at any time prior to the investigation carried out in March/April 2007,

11) Failed to ensure the stamping of a deed of transfer to named clients with reasonable expedition, which deed (dated 27 May 2003) was not sent to the Revenue Commissioners prior to the investigation in March/April 2007,

12) Improperly caused or allowed client’s money of €380 to be drawn from a named clients’ ledger account to the office account in November 2003, out of the sum of €790 that had been received to pay outlay, including search fees of €80, and failed to ensure that the searches were carried out at closing in 2003 or at any time prior to the investigation carried out in March/April 2007,

13) Failed to ensure the stamping of a deed of transfer to a named client with reasonable expedition, which deed (dated 15 May 2005) was not sent to the Revenue Commissioners prior to the investigation carried out in March/April 2007,

14) Improperly caused or allowed clients’ money of €366.63, which had been received to pay outlay, to be drawn from the clients’ ledger account of named clients to the office account in April 2003,

15) Failed to ensure the stamping of a deed of transfer to named clients with reasonable expedition, which deed (dated 24 January 2001) was not sent to the Revenue Commissioners until 18 May 2007, causing penalties/interest of in or about €6,680 to arise,

16) Improperly caused or allowed clients’ money of €135, which had been received to pay outlay, including searches of €85, to be drawn to the office account from the clients’ ledger account of named clients in June 2006, and failed to ensure that the searches were carried out in or about June 2006 at the drawdown of the mortgage or at any time prior to the investigation carried out in March/April 2007, despite having informed his clients in a section 68(1) letter in May 2006 that searches would be carried out on the day of closing,

17) Improperly caused or allowed client’s money of €315 to be drawn from a named clients’ ledger account to the office account in October 2005 and May 2006, out of client’s money received to pay outlay, including searches of €80, and failed to ensure that the searches were carried out at closing in or about April 2006 or at any time prior to the investigation carried out in March/April 2007, despite having informed his client in a section 68(1) letter in June 2005 that he would carry out searches on the day of closing,

18) Improperly caused or allowed clients’ money of €300 to be drawn from the clients’ ledger account of a named client to the office account in July and September 2006, out of clients’ money received to pay outlay including searches of €125, and failed to ensure that a search against named borrowers was carried out at closing in or about August 2006 or at any time prior to the investigation carried out in March/April 2007,

19) Improperly caused or allowed clients’ money of €242 to be drawn from the clients’ ledger account of named clients to the office account in September 2006, out of clients’ money received to pay outlay including search fees of €85, and failed to ensure that the searches were carried out at closing/drawdown of the mortgage in or about May 2006 or at any time prior to the investigation carried out in March/April 2007, despite having informed his clients in a section 68(1) letter in March 2006 that searches would be carried out on the day of closing,

20) In the course of acting for named clients in a purchase of a house, caused or allowed a deed to be updated from in or about August 2005 to February 2006, thereby avoiding possible interest and penalties on the stamp duty,

21) Improperly caused or allowed €532.93 of clients’ money to be drawn from the clients’ ledger account of named clients to the office account in two tranches in March 2006 and September 2006, out of clients’ money received to pay searches and other outlay, and failed to ensure that a search against the clients/borrowers was carried out at closing of the purchase of a house in or about August 2005 or at any time prior to the investigation carried out in March/April 2007,

22) Failed to maintain the deed generated in the course of a purchase of a site by named clients in or about February 2005 on the relevant matter file when the deed had not been submitted to the Revenue or for registration, in breach of regulation 20(1)(h), and failed to locate and provide the deed for examination during the investigation carried out in March/April 2007,

23) Caused or allowed a total of €3,602.25, which included clients’ money of up to €1,575 received to pay outlay, to be drawn to the office account from the clients’ ledger account of named clients, and could only provide a bill of costs dated 4 February 2005 for a total of €1,633.50 during the investigation carried out in March/April 2007 in support of the €3,602.25, and also failed to carry out searches at closing of the purchase of a site in 2005 or at any time prior to the investigation carried out in March/April 2007 for these clients,

24) Failed to ensure that the deed arising in the purchase of a site by named clients in or about February 2005 was stamped prior to the investigation carried out in March/April 2007,

25) In the course of acting for named clients in a purchase of a house, caused or allowed a deed to be updated from in or about February 2005 to 11 May 2007, thereby avoiding possible interest and penalties on the stamp duty,

26) Improperly caused or allowed clients’ money of €590, out of a total of €1,125 received to pay registration fees of €950, search fees of €100, and other specified outlay of €75, to be drawn from the clients’ ledger account of named clients to the office account in two tranches during August/September 2005, and failed to ensure that searches were carried out in the case of named clients at closing in or about July 2005 or at any time prior to the investigation carried out in March/April 2007, despite his clients being informed in a section 68(1) letter in March 2005 that searches would be carried out on the day of closing,

27) Improperly caused or allowed clients’ money of €202.47, which had been received to pay outlay, to be drawn from the clients’ ledger account of a named client in September 2005 and failed to ensure that a search against the client/borrower was carried out at closing in or about September 2005 or at any time prior to the investigation carried out in March/April 2007,

28) Improperly caused or allowed clients’ money of €225, received to pay outlay, including search fees of €75, to be drawn to the office account in August 2006 from the clients’ ledger account of a named client in a remortgage matter, and failed to ensure that the searches were carried out at closing/drawdown of the mortgage in or about August 2006 or at any time prior to the investigation carried out in March/April 2007, despite his client being informed in a section 68(1) letter in June 2006 that searches would be carried out on the day of closing,

29) In the course of acting for a named client in a purchase and a mortgage in 2002/2003, improperly drew clients’ money in the net sum of €855.35, which included €85 received for searches, from client account to the office account, and failed to ensure that the searches were carried out in 2002/2003 or at any time prior to the investigation in March/April 2007,

30) Improperly caused or allowed clients’ money of €1,143.95 to be drawn from the clients’ ledger account of named clients to the office account in or about August/September 2006, out of money that had been partly received to pay for searches and failed to ensure that the searches were carried out at closing in or about September 2006 or at any time prior to the investigation carried out in March April 2007, despite his clients being informed in a section 68(1) letter in May 2006 that searches would be carried out on the day of closing,

31) Caused or allowed a purchase deed to be updated from on or about 29 September 2006 to 14 December 2006 in the course of acting for named clients, with the result that possible interest and penalty on the stamp duty of €24,600 was avoided,

32) Improperly caused or allowed clients’ money in the net sum of €100, which included €75 received to pay for searches, to be drawn from the clients’ ledger account of named clients to the office account during 2002/2003, and failed to ensure that searches were carried out at closing in or about June 2002 or at any time prior to the investigation carried out in March April 2007,

33) Improperly caused or allowed clients’ money of €150 to be drawn from the clients’ ledger account of a named client to the office account during 2005/2006, out of client’s money received to pay outlay, including €75 for searches, and failed to carry out the searches at closing in or about 2005 or at any time prior to the investigation carried out in March April 2007, despite his client being informed in a section 68(1) letter dated 2 November 2006 that searches would be carried out on the day of closing,

34) Caused or allowed title deeds to be furnished to lending institutions that had advanced mortgage loans to named clients without having carried out any or all required up to date searches,

35) Provided incorrect or inaccurate information to the Society during the investigation on 21 March 2007, when he stated that up-to-date searches were done prior to sending the title deeds to the relevant lending institution,

36) In the course of acting for named clients, caused or allowed the purchase deed to be updated from on or about 5 December 2005 to 10 April 2006, with the result that possible interest and penalty on the stamp duty was avoided,

37) Failed to ensure that searches were carried out in the case of named clients at closing in or about December 2005 or at any time prior to the investigation carried out in March/ April 2007,

38) Caused or allowed fees to be debited to the office ledger when costs were transferred from the client account to the office account instead of when bills of costs were issued, contrary to regulation 10(4),

39) Caused or allowed client account cheques to be made payable to banks that did not specify the name of the person into whose account each of the cheques were to be lodged or to whom drafts were to be made payable, contrary to regulation 8(3),

40) Failed to maintain proper books of account, in breach of regulation 12.

The tribunal ordered that the matter go forward to the High Court and, on 27 May 2014, 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 do pay the Society the costs of the proceedings before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal only, to include witness expenses, to be taxed in default of agreement.

In the matter of David Walsh, solicitor, formerly practising as David Walsh & Co, Solicitors, at 12 Mount Street, Mullingar, Co Westmeath, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2011 [4550/DT20/12 and 2014 no 39 SA]

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)

David Walsh (respondent solicitor)

On 30 July 2013, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:

1)  Failed to maintain supporting documentation to vouch the transfer of moneys of named clients in the amount of €110,000 approximately to the office account, in breach of regulation 12(1),

2)  Prior to the investigation of his practice, failed to discharge outlays received totalling €8,368 from a named client,

3)  Prior to the investigation of his practice, failed to discharge outlays received totalling €13,129 from a named client,

4)  Failed to maintain books of account that showed the true financial position in relation to transactions with clients’ moneys, in breach of regulation 12(2);

5)  Withdrew funds for fees from the client account other than as authorised by the regulations and, in particular, regulation 7(1)(a)(iii),

6)  Caused or allowed debit balances to arise on the clients’ ledger accounts, in breach of regulation 7(2)(a),

7)  Breached regulation 7(4)(d) by failing to pay interest due to clients,

8)  Breached regulation 10(2) by failing to pay all moneys received in respect of fees into either client or office bank accounts,

9)  Breached regulation 4 by failing to pay clients moneys received into clients account,

10) Breached regulation 20(1 (b) by failing to maintain individual client’s ledger for each client and each client matter,

11) Breached regulation 8(2) by taking costs from the client account in cash.

The tribunal ordered that the matter go forward to the High Court and, on 27 May 2014, 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 do pay the Society the costs of the proceedings before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal only, to include witness expenses, to be taxed in default of agreement.

In the matter of Elizabeth McGrath,a solicitor formerly practising as O’Connell McGrath Solicitors, 5 Athlunkard Street, Limerick, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2011 [11016/DT118/12 and High Court record 2014 no 23SA]

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)

Elizabeth McGrath (respondent solicitor)

On 8 October 2013, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in her practice as a solicitor in that she:

1)   Allowed a minimum deficit of €80,000 on her client account as of 30 September 2011,

2)   Allowed this minimum deficit to increase to €91,026.84 as of 20 December 2011,

3)   Allowed client ledger debit balances amounting to €66,565.49 to arise as of 30 September 2011,

4)   Made payments of €40,082.28 from the client account for wages and drawings and other business expenses up to 30 September 2011,

5)   Made further payments of €4,714.11 in respect of wages, drawings and office expenses from the client account in October 2011,

6)   Made further payments of €4,411.74 in respect of wages and other drawings from other office expenses drawn from the client account in November 2011,

7)   Retained €16,450 in the client account in respect of stamp duty that should have been paid in March 2010 and left the deed unstamped,

8)   Transferred one round sum amount of €12,500 to the office account in respect of costs and disbursed the VAT element of some costs from the client account.

The tribunal recommended that the matter be sent forward to the High Court and, on 28 April 2014, the President of the High Court ordered that the name of the respondent solicitor should be struck from the Roll of Solicitors and that the respondent solicitor pay the Society the costs of the proceedings before the disciplinary tribunal and the costs of the High Court proceedings, to be taxed in default of agreement.

In the matter of Aiden Barry, solicitor, formerly practising as Aiden Barry Solicitor, Roche House, 8 Bank Place, Limerick, Co Limerick, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2011 [7243/DT59/13 and High Court record 2014 no 47 SA]

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)

Aiden Barry (respondent solicitor)

On 7 January 2014, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:

a)   Failed expeditiously, within a reasonable time or at all, to register a charge on a property and transfer €50,000 to a third party in accordance with the instructions of the complainant,

b)   Caused or allowed the complainant to be exposed to civil litigation for the payment of the €50,000 plus damages, interest and costs,

c)   Failed to respond adequately or at all to the Society’s correspondence, in particular, letters dated 21t February 2012, 8 March 2012 and 21 March 2012 respectively,

d)   Through his failure to respond to the Society’s correspondence, caused the Society to have to make an application to the High Court pursuant to section 10(A) of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act 1994 (as amended by substitution) for orders requiring him to respond to the Society’s correspondence and attend before the Complaints and Client Relations Committee meeting on 15 May 2012,

e)   Breached an order made by the President of the High Court on 30 April 2012 directing him to attend a meeting of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee on 15 May 2012 by not so attending,

f)    Failed expeditiously, within a reasonable time or at all, to honour an agreement made with the complainant whereby he agreed to pay the outstanding sum of €50,000 to a specified third party, as set out in his email to the Society of 14 May 2012 and advised to the President of the High Court on 11 June 2012,

g)   Failed without reasonable excuse to attend a meeting of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee on 3 April 2012, as required by letter from the Society dated 26 March 2012.

The tribunal ordered that the matter go forward to the High Court, and the President of the High Court, on 28 April 2014, made the following orders:

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

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

In the matter of Aiden Barry, solicitor, formerly practising as Aiden Barry Solicitor, Roche House, 8 Bank Place, Limerick, Co Limerick, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2011 [7243/DT58/13 and High Court record 2014 no 46 SA]

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)

Aiden Barry (respondent solicitor)

On 7 January 2014, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:

a)    Failed expeditiously, within a reasonable time or at all, to pay stamp duty on behalf of the complainants in relation to the purchase of a site in Co Clare, despite being put in funds to do so,

b)    Failed expeditiously, within a reasonable time or at all, to register the interest of the complainants on the property in Co Clare,

c)    Misrepresented in an email of 26 April 2012 that he had a certificate from the Revenue Commissioners, but it was lost and a new certificate would be reissued, where this was not the position as confirmed in an email of 25 June 2012,

d)    Failed expeditiously, within a reasonable time or at all, to comply with the directions of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee made at its meeting on 15 May 2012,

e)    Failed expeditiously, within a reasonable time or at all, to comply with the directions of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee made at its meeting on 26 June 2012,

f)    Failed to respond to correspondence from the Society either in a timely manner or at all, in particular, letters dated 16 March 2012, 17 May 2012, 2 July 2012 and 10 September 2012,

g)    Failed to attend a meeting of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee on 15 May 2012 as required by letter from the Society dated 9 May 2012,

h)    Failed to attend a meeting of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee on 16 October 2012 as directed by the committee on 4 September 2012.

The tribunal ordered that the matter go forward to the High Court, and the President of the High Court, on 28 April 2014, made the following orders:

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

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

In the matter of Aiden Barry, solicitor, formerly practising as Aiden Barry Solicitor, Roche House, 8 Bank Place, Limerick, Co Limerick, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2011 [7243/DT96/13 and High Court record 2014 no 50 SA]

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)

Aiden Barry (respondent solicitor)

On 7 January 2014, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:

a)    Failed to refund the sum of €18,000 to a named client in a timely fashion or at all,

b)    Failed to account to a named client in a timely fashion or at all,

c)    Failed to respond adequately or at all to the Society’s correspondence, in particular letters dated 7 November 2011, 23 November 2011, 7 December 2011, 20 December 2011, 14 February 2012, 29 February 2012, 14 March 2012, 2 April 2012, 19 April 2012 and 24 April 2012 respectively,

d)    Failed to attend a meeting of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee on 11 September 2012, despite being required to do so,

e)    Failed to respond in a timely fashion to requests from a named client and his new solicitor to hand over the files,

f)    Released monies held for the payment of stamp duty to a named client, despite having given an undertaking to the complainant’s lending institution.

The tribunal ordered that the matter go forward to the High Court, and the President of the High Court, on 28 April 2014, made the following orders:

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

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