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/DT65/13 and High Court record 2014 no 49 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 comply expeditiously, within a reasonable time or at all, with an undertaking given by him to the complainant on behalf of his named clients over property in Co Clare, dated 4 March 2004,

b)    Failed to respond adequately or at all to the correspondence of the complainant and, in particular, letters dated 14 March 2005, 12 September 2005, 13 March 2006, 3 April 2006 and 30 March 2010 respectively.

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/DT60/13 and High Court record 2014 no 48 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, within a reasonable time or at all, to expeditiously comply with the totality of directions made by the Complaints and Client Relations Committee at a meeting on 10 July 2012 and 26 July 2012, respectively, to furnish documentation and information regarding the transaction of the sale of the complainants’ share of a named business,

b)    Failed to provide a proper account and breakdown to the complainants in respect of the sale of their share of a named business expeditiously, within a reasonable time or at all, despite being requested to do so.

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 Daniel Downes, a solicitor formerly practising as O’Dea & Company, Solicitors, at 1st Floor, Hardiman House, Eyre Square, Galway, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2011 [4298/DT150/12 and High Court record 2014 no 52 SA]

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)

Daniel Downes (respondent solicitor)

On 21 January 2014, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:

1)   Allowed a deficit in his client account as of 1 May 2012 totalling €69,938,

2)   Allowed deficits in his client account as of 31 December 2010 and 30 June 2011 of €31,388 and €32,497 respectively,

3)   Allowed debit balances of €67,710 to occur on the client ledger account as of 1 May 2012,

4)   Cancelled a payment to a barrister in the client ledger and transferred part of the amount involved to the office account as fees,

5)   Allowed round sum of lodgements to be made to the office account at times when the office account was under pressure,

6)   Failed to keep adequate books of account.

The tribunal ordered that the matter go forward to the High Court and, on 28 April 2014, the High Court ordered that:

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

2)   The respondent solicitor pay the applicant the costs of the proceedings before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, to be taxed in default of agreement,

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

In the matter of Cindy McCarthy Yates, a solicitor practising under the style and title of McCarthy Solicitors at 5 The Old Market, Market Street, Bandon, Co Cork, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2011 [12313/DT13/13, 12313/DT14/13, 12313/DT15/13 and High Court record 2014 no 51 SA]

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)

Cindy McCarthy Yates (respondent solicitor)

12313/DT13/13

On 21 February 2014, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of professional misconduct in her practice as a solicitor in that she:

1)   Failed to comply with an undertaking furnished to the complainants on 10 September 2010 in connection with property in Co Cork and the named borrowers in a timely manner or at all,

2)   Failed to attend a meeting of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee on 5 June 2012, despite being required to do so.

12313/DT14/13

On 21 February 2014, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of professional misconduct in her practice as a solicitor in that she:

1)   Failed to comply with an undertaking furnished to the complainants on 13 August 2010 in respect of property in Co Cork and her named clients and borrowers in a timely manner or at all,

2)   Failed to respond to the Society’s letters of 23 November 2011, 14 December 2011, 27 January 2012, 20 February 2012, 2 March 2012 and 27 March 2012 in a timely manner or at all,

3)   Did not attend the Complaints and Client Relations Committee meeting on 5 June 2012, despite being required to do so.

12313/DT15/13

On 21 February 2014, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of professional misconduct in her practice as a solicitor in that she:

1)   Failed to comply with an undertaking furnished to the Complainants on 26 March 2009 in respect of her named clients and property in Co Cork in a timely manner or at all,

2)   Failed to attend the Complaints and Client Relations Committee meeting on 5 June 2012, despite being required to do so.

The tribunal ordered that the matters go forward to the High Court and, on 18 April 2014, the High Court ordered that:

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

2)   The respondent solicitor pay the applicant 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 Denise McNulty, solicitor, practising as Denise McNulty & Co, Solicitors, Zion Court, Zion Church Grounds, Rathgar, Dublin 6, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2011 [4457/DT113/13 and High Court record 2014 no 26SA]

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)

Denise McNulty (respondent solicitor)

On 16 January 2014, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty in her practice as a solicitor in that she:

1)   Created a deficit in client funds of €194,007 as at 31 December 2012 by dishonestly and wrongly misappropriating client funds for her benefit,

2)   Created a further deficit in client funds of €25,076 as at 11 April 2013 – the total apparent deficit in client funds as at 11 April 2013 was €219,083 – by dishonestly and wrongly misappropriating client funds for her benefit, in particular:

a)   Misappropriated client moneys of €49,900 by transferring client moneys to the office bank account without the clients approval, in breach of regulation 7(1)(a)(iii) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations,

b)   Misappropriated client moneys of €18,500 by transferring client moneys to the office bank account without the clients approval, in breach of regulation 7(1)(a)(iii) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations,

c)   Misappropriated the proceeds of a sale in the amount of €25,000 by lodging same directly to the office bank account, in breach of regulation 4(1) and regulation 6(4) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations,

d)   Misappropriated the proceeds of a sale’s deposit in the amount of €36,000 by lodging same directly to the office bank account, in breach of regulation 4(1) and regulation 6(4) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations,

e)   Misappropriated client moneys by transferring client moneys to the office bank account of €3,655.80 over and above the amount due in relation to professional fees, in breach of regulation 7(1)(a)(iii) and regulation 11(3) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations,

f)   Misappropriated the proceeds of a sale’s deposit in the amount of €16,500 by lodging same directly to the office bank account, in breach of regulation 4(1) and regulation 6(4) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations,

g)   Misappropriated client moneys by lodging undischarged outlays totalling €1,615 to a personal bank account, in breach of regulation 4(1), regulation 4(2) and regulation 6(1) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations,

h)   Misappropriated client moneys by lodging settlement moneys of €6,050 directly to the office bank account, in breach of regulation 4(1) and regulation 6(4) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations,

i)   Misappropriated client moneys by lodging estate moneys of €1,659.85 directly to the office bank account, in breach of regulation 4(1) and regulation 6(4) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations,

j)   Misappropriated client moneys by lodging undischarged outlay of €2,096 directly to the office bank account, in breach of regulation 4(1), regulation 4(2) and regulation 6(1) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations,

k)   Misappropriated the proceeds of a sale’s deposit in the amount of €9,200 by lodging same directly to the office bank account, in breach of regulation 4(1) and regulation 6(4) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations,

l)    Misappropriated the proceeds of the balance of the booking deposit in the amount of €1,601.50, in breach of regulation 4(1) and regulation 6(4) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations – there was no evidence available to identify where the money was lodged,

m)  Misappropriated client moneys by transferring part of the sales proceeds of €28,527.54 to the office bank account without the client’s approval, in breach of regulation 7(1)(a)(iii) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations,

n)   Misappropriated client moneys by transferring €3,750 to the office bank account without the client’s approval, in breach of regulation 7(1)(a)(iii) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations,

3)   Sought to conceal the said deficit by falsifying the books of account through numerous instances of ‘teeming and lading’,

4)   Misled the Society at the commencement of the investigation by representing there was no deficit in client moneys;

5)   Misled her reporting accountant by representing that €51,500 paid into the client account was introduced as capital from her own personal funds to regularise the deficit, when the moneys were in fact taken out of settlement moneys in relation to other clients,

6)   Swore a false affidavit on 22 February 2013 to the effect that there was no deficit in the accounts of her practice and that there was no dishonesty involved in the management of her practice,

7)   Circumvented the signing arrangements, whereby her reporting accountant had to be a cheque signatory in addition to the respondent solicitor, by misappropriating €3,000 by way of online banking from client moneys on 19 February 2013, subsequent to the changing of the bank mandate,

8)   Dishonestly ‘updated’ the execution date on the stamping of a deed in a named client matter by approximately nine months,

9)   Dishonestly ‘updated’ the execution date on the stamping of a deed in a named client matter by approximately two months,

10) Deducted professional fees from stakeholder funds in the matters relating to named clients, as set out in the Society’s investigating accountant’s report and another named client as also set out in that report – this is also in breach of regulation 11(3) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations, as the moneys withdrawn were not properly payable to the solicitor at the time of withdrawal,

11) Breached regulation 10(2) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations by failing to pay moneys received in relation to professional fees into client or office account, instead lodging same to a personal account,

12) Breached regulation 10(4) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations by failure to record as a debit on the office side of the relevant clients’ ledger account the amount of professional fees in a matter referred to in the Society’s grounding affidavit,

13) Breached regulation 10(5) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations by allowing credit balances to arise on the office ledger, as set out in the Society’s investigating accountant’s report,

14) Breached regulation 12 of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations by failing to maintain proper books of account at all times that show the true financial position in relation to the solicitor’s transactions with client moneys,

15) Breached regulation 12(4) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations by failing to record each transaction with clients’ moneys and with any other moneys through the client account in the books of account, as set out in the Society’s investigating accountant’s report,

16) Breached regulation 12(3)(a) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations by failing to maintain separate ledger cards for each matter dealt with, as set out in the Society’s investigating accountant’s report.

The tribunal ordered that the matter go forward to the High Court and, on 10 March 2014, the President of the High Court ordered:

1)   That the respondent solicitor not be permitted to practise as a sole practitioner or in partnership,

2)   That the respondent solicitor 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 Law Society of Ireland,

3)   That the respondent solicitor will never have signing rights either solely or jointly over any client account,

4)   That the respondent solicitor pay the sum of €5,000 to the compensation fund,

5)   That the respondent solicitor pay the whole of the Society’s costs of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal proceedings, with taxation in default of agreement

6)   That the respondent solicitor pay the costs of the application in the High Court.

In the matter of Gregory F O’Neill, solicitor, formerly practising as Greg O’Neill, Solicitors, Suite 109, The Capel Building, Mary’s Abbey, Dublin 7, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2011 [3365/DT123/11 and 2014 no 3 SA]

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)

Gregory F O’Neill (respondent solicitor)

On 19 September 2013, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor, in that he:

a)     Failed to discharge expeditiously, within a reasonable time or at all, the complainant’s fees of €1,000, given on behalf of a named client of the respondent solicitor in a personal injuries/loss of earnings claim, despite having been paid the costs by the defendant’s insurance company,

b)     Failed to respond adequately or at all to the complainant’s correspondence and, in particular, letters dated 4 November 2010, 20 January 2011 and 8 February 2011,

c)     Failed to respond adequately or at all to the Society’s correspondence and, in particular, letters dated 23 February 2011, 16 March 2011,

d)     Failed to attend a meeting of the committee on 2 June 2011, despite being required to do so.

The tribunal ordered that the matter go forward to the High Court, and the President of the High Court, on 3 March 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 do 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 Gregory F O’Neill, solicitor, formerly practising as Greg O’Neill Solicitors, Suite 109, The Capel Building, Mary’s Abbey, Dublin 7, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2011 [3365/DT34/12 and High Court record 2014 no 7SA]

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)

Greg O’Neill (respondent solicitor)

On 19 September 2013, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of professional misconduct in that he failed to ensure that there was furnished to the Society an accountant’s report for the year ended 31 December 2010 within six months of that date, in breach of regulation 21(1) of the Solicitors’ Accounts Regulations 2001 (SI 421 of 2001).

The tribunal ordered that the matter go forward to the President of the High Court and, on 3 March 2014, the President of the High Court ordered that the solicitor’s name be struck from the Roll of Solicitors and that the respondent solicitor pay the costs of the Society’s proceedings before the disciplinary tribunal and the cost of the High Court proceedings, to be taxed in default of agreement.

In the matter of Gregory F O’Neill, solicitor, formerly practising as Greg O’Neill, Solicitors, Suite 109, The Capel Building, Mary’s Abbey, Dublin 7, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2011 [3365/DT127/11 and 2014 no 6 SA]

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)

Gregory F O’Neill (respondent solicitor)

On 19 September 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 committee dated 18 January 2011, whereby he was directed (and to which he subsequently agreed) to refund the sum of €1,235 to the complainant within 28 days.

The tribunal ordered that the matter go forward to the High Court, and the President of the High Court, on 3 March 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 solicitor do pay the sum of €1,235 as restitution to a named client,

c)     That the respondent do pay to 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 Gregory F O’Neill, solicitor, formerly practising as Greg O’Neill, Solicitors, Suite 109, The Capel Building, Mary’s Abbey, Dublin 7, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2011 [3365/DT126/11 and 2014 no 11 SA]

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)

Gregory F O’Neill (respondent solicitor)

On 19 September 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 committee meeting on 4 February 2011, whereby he was to compensate the complainant in the sum of €3,000.

The tribunal ordered that the matter go forward to the High Court, and the President of the High Court, on 3 March 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 solicitor do pay the sum of €3,000 as restitution to named clients,

c)     That the respondent do 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 Gregory F O’Neill, solicitor, formerly practising as Greg O’Neill, Solicitors, Suite 109, The Capel Building, Mary’s Abbey, Dublin 7, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2011 [3365/DT124/11 and 2014 no 4 SA]

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)

Gregory F O’Neill (respondent solicitor)

On 19 September 2013, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor, in that he:

a)     Failed to pay over expeditiously, within a reasonable time or at all, the balance of settlement compensation to the complainant, despite having been paid by the defendant’s insurance company,

b)     Failed to respond adequately or at all to the complainant’s correspondence and, in particular, emails dated 20 December 2010, 26 January 2011 and 22 March 2011,

c)     Failed to respond adequately or at all to the Society’s correspondence, dated 13 April 2011.

The tribunal ordered that the matter go forward to the High Court, and the President of the High Court, on 3 March 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 do 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.