In the matter of Brendan MacNamara, solicitor, formerly practising as a partner in the practice of Devitt Doorley MacNamara, The Valley, Roscrea, Co Tipperary, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2011 [10447/DT44/10 and High Court record no 2011 86 SA]

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)

Brendan MacNamara (respondent solicitor)

On 21 July 2011, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:

a)     Conducted a conveyancing transaction in relation to a named client in a manner that fell so far below what could be regarded as prudent standard conveyancing practice that his client obtained no title to the property,

b)     Breached his solicitor’s undertaking to Roscrea Credit Union,

c)     Left his client with a liability to repay a loan and interest to Roscrea Credit Union, notwithstanding that he obtained no title to the property that was the subject matter of the loan from the credit union,

d)     Conducted a conveyancing transaction in relation to another named client in a manner that fell so far below what could be regarded as prudent standard conveyancing practice that his client obtained no title to the property,

e)     Breached his solicitor’s undertaking to Bank of Ireland in respect of a loan of €170,000,

f)      Left his client with a liability to repay a loan and interest to Bank of Ireland, notwithstanding that he obtained no title to the property that was the subject matter of the loan from the bank,

g)     Conducted a conveyancing transaction in relation to another named client in a manner that fell so far below what could be regarded as prudent standard conveyancing practice that his client obtained no title to the property.

The tribunal made an order that the respondent solicitor:

a)     Do stand censured,

b)     Pay a sum of €12,000 to the compensation fund,

c)     Pay the whole of the costs of the Society, including witness expenses, as taxed by a taxing master of the High Court in default of agreement.

The matter, on appeal, came before the President of the High Court on 21 January 2013. The President acceded to the Society’s appeal and ordered that:

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

2)     The order of the tribunal censuring the respondent solicitor and directing him to pay a sum of €12,000 to the compensation fund of the Society be rescinded,

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

In the matter of Brian Johnston, a solicitor formerly practising as Brian Johnston & Co, Solicitors, 79 Park Street, Dundalk, Co Louth and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2008 [6927/DT65/10 and High Court record no 2013/1 SA]

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)

Brian Johnston (respondent solicitor)

On 16 November 2012, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:

a)      Failed to honour an undertaking to pay a named lending institution the net funds due to be paid by his clients by Tipperary County Council under the terms of the compulsory purchase order,

b)      Failed to adequately respond to the Society’s correspondence and, in particular, letters dated 1 December 2009 and 5 January 2010 respectively.

The tribunal ordered that the matters go forward to the High Court, and the President of the High Court, on 21 January 2013, made the following orders:

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

2)      That the Society do recover the costs of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal when taxed or ascertained,

3)      That the Society do recover the costs of the High Court proceedings when taxed or ascertained.

In the matter of Brian Johnston, a solicitor formerly practising as Brian Johnston & Co, Solicitors, 79 Park Street, Dundalk, Co Louth and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2008 [6927/DT78/09 and High Court record no 2013/2 SA]

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)

Brian Johnston (respondent solicitor)

On 16 November 2012, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:

a)     Failed to comply with instructions from the bank to ensure the bank obtained good and marketable title to properties and that the bank’s security was in place,

b)     Informed the bank in letters dated 14 August 2006, 15 August 2006, 18 August 2006 and 19 February 2007 that security requirements had been fulfilled, that the borrower had good marketable title to the properties over which it was anticipated that the bank would have a fixed charge, and that the bank’s security was in order, when this was not the case,

c)     Failed to adequately reply to the bank and the complainant in relation to the security position of properties to which the bank had loaned approximately €7 million,

d)     Failed to reply to correspondence from the Society dated 7 April 2008, 23 April 2008, 6 May 2008, 23 May 2008, 13 October 2008 and 23 October 2008,

e)     Failed to comply with a direction of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee made at its meeting of 3 September 2008 to respond within 48 hours,

f)      Failed to comply with a direction of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee at its meeting held on 7 October 2008 to send copies of the mortgages lodged at the Land Registry to the complainant,

g)     Stated in a letter to the Society dated 29 September 2008 and to the Complaints and Client Relations Committee at its meetings held on 7 October 2008 and 11 November 2008 that deeds of charges were lodged at the Land Registry for registration, when this was not the case,

h)     Failed to comply with a direction of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee made at its meeting held on 11 November 2008 to respond to the Society within 48 hours of the meeting to provide confirmation of the charges lodged in the Land Registry.

The tribunal ordered that the matters go forward to the High Court, and the President of the High Court, on 21 January 2013, made the following orders:

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

2)      That the Society do recover the costs of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal when taxed or ascertained,

3)      That the Society do recover the costs of the High Court proceedings when taxed or ascertained.

In the matter of Margaret AM Casey and Greg (otherwise John G) Casey, solicitors, formerly practising as Casey & Co, Solicitors, at North Main Street, Bandon, Co Cork, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2002 [8372-5355/DT41/08 and 2012 no 15 SA]

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)

Margaret AM Casey (first-named respondent solicitor)

Greg (otherwise John G) Casey (second-named respondent solicitor)

On 23 November 2011, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitors guilty of misconduct in their practice as solicitors, in that they:

a)     Breached the Solicitors’ Accounts Regulations, whereby they retained the sum of €25,000 of the complainant’s monies, ostensibly by way of a loan, until a further period of six weeks, pending payment of the party-and-party costs from a named county council. The party-and-party costs were paid, but the respondent solicitors did not account to the complainant for these monies or at no point have ever issued a bill of costs in respect of these monies.

b)     Provided inadequate professional services, in that they failed to act on the complainant’s instructions in relation to taking an unfair dismissal action for constructive dismissal from a named employer.

c)     Provided inadequate professional services, in that the respondent solicitors failed to communicate with their client:

i)      Failed to communicate, in particular failure to keep the complainant advised of progress in relation to proceedings brought by a named bank over a considerable period and, in particular, the respondent solicitor and the co-respondent solicitor had not communicated with the complainant since July 2007, when both proceedings brought by the named bank and the proceedings to set aside the judgment were listed for hearing. This was apparently adjourned until October 2007, when the Society was requesting updates in regard to the above without a response to date.

ii)     A cheque for €7,757.15 for interest relating to the compulsory purchase orders monies was forwarded to the co-respondent solicitor on 22 November 2004 by a local authority. He failed to forward this amount to the complainant despite requests and was obliged to obtain a replacement cheque in November 2006, subsequent to the making of the complaint to the Society.

The tribunal ordered that the matter go forward to the High Court, and the President of the High Court, on 3 December 2012, made the following orders on consent:

1)     That the first-named respondent solicitor (that is, Margaret AM Casey) not be permitted to practise as a sole practitioner or in partnership; that she 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,

2)     That there be no order for costs made against the first-named respondent solicitor.

On 16 January 2013, the President of the High Court made the following orders:

1)     That the name of the second-named respondent solicitor (that is, Greg (otherwise John G) Casey) shall be struck off the Roll of Solicitors,

2)     That 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 second-named respondent, to be taxed in default of agreement.

In the matter of Greg (otherwise John G) Casey, formerly practising in the solicitors’ firm of Casey & Co, Solicitors, at North Main Street, Bandon, Co Cork, and in the matter of Mairead Casey, a solicitor formerly practising as the principal of the solicitors’ firm of Casey & Co, Solicitors, at North Main Street, Bandon, Co Cork, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2002 [5355-8372/DT104/08 and 2012 no 76 SA]

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)

Greg (otherwise John G) Casey (first-named respondent solicitor)

Mairead Casey (second-named respondent solicitor)

On 27 June 2012, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the first-named respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:

a)     Misrepresented to a lending institution, in an undertaking given to that lending institution on his own behalf, dated 4 October 2001, that he was a partner in the practice of Casey & Co, Solicitors,

b)     Subsequently failed to comply with his undertaking to the bank, in that he failed to complete the legal formalities in relation to the purchase of the property concerned so as to ensure that the bank obtained a good marketable title to the property free from any encumbrances,

c)     He further failed to comply with his undertaking, in that he failed to secure that the bank obtained a valid first legal mortgage or charge on the property,

d)     Failed to reply to multiple correspondence from the bank.

On 27 June 2012, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the second-named respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in her practice as a solicitor in that she failed to supervise the first-named respondent solicitor, in that he gave the relevant undertaking to the bank without her knowledge.

The tribunal ordered that the matters go forward to the High Court, and the President of the High Court, on 3 December 2012, made the following orders on consent:

1)     That the second-named respondent solicitor (Mairead Casey) not be permitted to practise as a sole practitioner or in partnership; that she 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,

2)     That there be no order for costs made against the second-named respondent solicitor.

On 16 January 2013, the President of the High Court made the following orders:

1)     That the name of the first-named respondent solicitor (that is, Greg (otherwise John G) Casey) shall be struck off the Roll of Solicitors,

2)     That 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 first-named respondent, to be taxed in default of agreement.

In the matter of Pamela Wall, solicitor, formerly of 8 Carmody Street, Ennis, Co Clare, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2008 [6728/DT88/11 and 2012 no 75 SA]

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)

Pamela Wall (respondent solicitor)

On 10 July 2012, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in her practice as a solicitor in that she:

1)      Failed to maintain proper books of account in respect of her practice, insofar as books were not kept written up to date, transfers between ledger accounts were back-dated, and some ledger accounts did not show the true financial position, in breach of regulation 12,

2)     Failed to maintain books of account sufficient to allow the true clients’ funds position in her practice to be determined at the time of the Society’s inspections in December 2007 and February 2008,

3)     Caused or allowed clients’ moneys of €312,429 to be improperly lodged to an account that was not designated as a client account, in breach of regulation 4, and instead caused or allowed the money to be held in a joint account bearing her name and that of a person who worked in her office,

4)     Improperly caused or allowed the Society’s investigating accountant to be presented with in or about 23 section 68(1) letters, which were created after notification of the investigation issued in July 2007 but which were backdated to dates between 12 September 2005 and 14 March 2007, thereby giving the misleading appearance of compliance with section 68(1),

5)      Improperly caused or allowed up to €651 of clients’ money from a named client ledger account to be drawn to the office account by way of transfers on 29 September 2005 and 10 November 2005,

6) Improperly caused or allowed in or about €111.04 of client’s money, which was received to pay for outlay, to be transferred from a named client ledger account to the office account on 10 November 2005, which money was not disbursed for outlay,

7)      Improperly caused or allowed €8,000 of clients’ monies to be drawn from the client account to the office account on 19 December 2005, creating a debit balance of €8,000 on a named client ledger account, in breach of regulation 7,

8)     Improperly caused or allowed €140,500 to be drawn from a named client ledger account in round sum amounts from in or about 3 January 2006 to 28 July 2006 without having issued bills of costs or interim bills of costs to the client, in breach of regulation 11,

9)      Improperly caused or allowed clients’ money of €4,367.50 to be drawn from the client account to the office account on 4 September 2006, causing debit balances of €4,367.50 on three clients’ ledger accounts, in breach of regulation 7,

10)   Improperly caused or allowed up to €4,748 of clients’ money received from deposits in sales to be drawn to the office account on 4 September 2006,

11)    Improperly caused or allowed €4,098.59 to be drawn from the client account to the office account on 15 September 2006, causing debit balances on the clients’ ledger accounts, in breach of regulation 7,

12) Improperly caused or allowed €1,439.78 of clients’ money to be drawn from the client account to the office account on 21 November 2006, causing a debit balance of €1,439.78 on a named client ledger account, in breach of regulation 7,

13)    Improperly caused or allowed €3,000 of clients’ money to be drawn from the client account to the office account on 30 November 2006 and the debit balance on a named clients’ ledger account to increase to €4,439.78, in breach of regulation 7,

14)    Improperly caused or allowed €1,075.50 of clients’ money to be drawn from the client account to the office account on 5 December 2006 and the debit balance on a named clients’ ledger account to increase to €5,515.28, in breach of regulation 7,

15)    Improperly caused or allowed €5,000 of clients’ money to be drawn from the client account to the office account on 5 January 2007, increasing the debit balance on the deposit interest account in the clients’ ledger to €8,383.54, in breach of regulation 7,

16)   Improperly caused or allowed €6,955 of a named clients’ money to be lodged to the office account over a period from 15 August 2005 to 5 December 2005,

17)   Caused or allowed debit balances in the clients’ ledger account and moneys to be incorrectly transferred to the office account, totalling €52,325.57 as at 30 May 2007,

18) Drew various round sum amounts totalling €148,500 from client account to office account over a period from December 2005 to July 2006, which were debited to a named clients’ ledger account with no supporting documentation in the client’s files, in breach of regulation 12,

19) Improperly caused or allowed monies to be drawn as fees from a named clients’ ledger account for work that had not yet been carried out,

20)    Furnished the Registrar of Solicitors with false or misleading information in a written response in October 2007 concerning a total of in or about €47,000 drawn from a named clients’ ledger account, when she stated that the monies drawn were the repayment of a loan given to the named client by the respondent solicitor and her parents,

21)   Caused or allowed false or misleading documentation to be created and retained on a named client file, namely a file memo dated 9 August 2005 stating that there was “a sum of €20,000 due to [named persons] re an historic loan” and “a sum of €30,000 due to P Wall re an historic loan”; a receipt stating that the amount of €19,810 drawn from the client account was the repayment of a loan; and a receipt stating that the amount of €27,150 drawn from the client account was the repayment of a loan,

22)    Improperly caused or allowed transfers between clients’ ledger accounts of €5,833.30 and €19,810.53 to be backdated in the books of account from in or after April 2007 to September and October 2006, having the effect of concealing debit balances on a named clients’ ledger account,

23)   Improperly caused or allowed transfers between ledger accounts of €10,000 and €15,000 to be backdated in the books of account from in or after April 2007 to 7 November 2006 and 13 November 2006,

24)    Improperly caused or allowed €5,942.36 of clients’ money to be taken from the client account for her own benefit on 30 July 2007, when she caused a debit balance of that amount on a named clients’ ledger account, in breach of regulation 7,

25)   Improperly caused or allowed €20,000 of clients’ money to be drawn from the client account on 28 January 2003 and created a debit balance in that amount on a named client ledger account, in breach of regulation 7, according to the books of account maintained by the respondent as detailed in the investigation report of 17 January 2008,

26)   Improperly caused or allowed €25,394.76 of clients’ money to be drawn from the client account on 11 March 2003 and created a debit balance in that amount on a named client ledger account, in breach of regulation 7, according to the books of account maintained by the respondent as detailed in the investigation report of 17 January 2008,

27)   Improperly caused or allowed monies to be drawn from a deposit in a sale received in a named client’s estate, causing a deficit of €18,668 on the client account on 30 June 2007,

28)   Caused or allowed €32,991.21 to be drawn from client account to office account in the matter of a named clients’ estate, in circumstances where her costs amounted to only €27,030.40 according to the executor’s account, and thereby improperly caused clients’ money of in or about €5,960.81 to be drawn to the office account,

29)    Improperly caused or allowed the recording of a figure of €145,200 for costs in a client matter to be backdated by in or about ten months on the debit side of the office ledger,

30) Improperly caused or allowed a debit balance of €13,851.61 on a named client ledger account, in breach of regulation 7, according to the books of account maintained by the respondent as detailed in the investigation report of 17 January 2008, over the period from 27 February 2001 to 7 December 2001, which debit balance included €7,259.73 of other clients’ moneys drawn to the office account as fees,

31) Improperly failed to maintain any or adequate documentation in the clients’ files to enable drawings of fees from a named client ledger account to be appropriately vouched,

32) Improperly caused or allowed a debit balance on a named client ledger account of €48,757.94 on 28 August 2002 and a debit balance of €47,814.10 on 22 May 2003, which increased to €76,846.84 on 20 June 2003, in breach of regulation 7, according to the books of account maintained by the respondent as detailed in the investigation report of 17 January 2008,

33)   Improperly caused or allowed a debit balance on a client ledger account in her name of €1,234.02 between 23 October 2002 and 15 April 2003, in breach of regulation 7, which debit balance was concealed by a credit entry incorrectly dated 15 April 2002,

34)   Failed to disclose relevant documentation during the investigation in December 2007, namely ledger cards for a named client,

35)   Caused or allowed €14,520 of clients’ money to be incorrectly drawn from client account to office account in a named clients’ estate in May 2007, creating a deficit of €14,520 in the estate ledger account, which was cleared on or about 27 August 2007,

36)   Caused or allowed two section 68(1) letters to be created in respect of a named client’s estate on 4 September 2007, two days before the Society’s investigation commenced, which were backdated to 24 November 2006 and placed on the client file between documents dated 22 November 2006 and 22 December 2006, thereby misleadingly appearing to have been created in November 2006,

37)   Improperly caused or allowed a net debit balance to arise on a named clients’ ledger accounts over a period, which amounted to €49,441.63 at 30 April 2002, according to the books of account maintained by her as detailed in the investigation report of 13 March 2008,

38)   Improperly caused or allowed IR£5,000 of clients’ money to be drawn from the client account on 17 May 2001 and created a debit balance in that amount on a named client ledger account, in breach of regulation 7(2)(a), according to the books of account maintained by her as detailed in the investigation report of 13 March 2008,

39)   Improperly caused or allowed €19,001.81 of clients’ money from a named client ledger account to be transferred from the client account to the office account on or about 11 February 2002, as part of a sum of €20,000, as detailed in the investigation report of 13 March 2008,

40)   Improperly used clients’ money of IR£4,668.05 on 13 September 2000, when she paid a client account cheque for IR£5,250 to named piano retailers and caused a debit balance on her account in the clients’ ledger, in breach of regulation 7(2)(a), according to the books of account maintained by the respondent as detailed in the investigation report of 13 March 2008,

41)   Improperly caused or allowed the net debit balance on her clients’ ledger accounts to increase from IR£4,668.05 to IR£12,668.05 on 18 September 2000, according to the books of account maintained by the respondent as detailed in the investigation report of 13 March 2008,

42) Misleadingly sent to a named client and a named bank in November 2001 a schedule of monies stating that she was holding a balance of IR£2,186.26 at that date, when the clients’ ledger account showed a debit balance of IR£10,909.03 at that date,

43)   Misleadingly informed a named bank in writing on 18 May 2004 that she was holding a balance of €73,000 relating to a named client, when some or all of that money had already been drawn to the office account, in breach of the regulations,

44)   Caused or allowed €72,912 to be drawn as fees from a named client ledger account to the office account without furnishing bill(s) of costs in accordance with regulation 11,

45)   Improperly caused or allowed a total of €114,154.87 to be drawn from a named clients’ ledger account in circumstances where the final bill of costs subsequently prepared in respect of that client, dated September 2008, only totalled €99,201.59 – a difference of €14,953.28,

46)   Caused or allowed a deficit on the client account of in or about €3,918.49 at 30 April 2001, as per the books of account detailed in the investigation report of 20 May 2008,

47)   Failed to ensure that debit balances of in or about €20,624.05 that she caused or allowed to arise over a period of months leading up to 29 April 2001 were disclosed as a breach of the regulations in the accountant’s report for year ended 30 April 2001,

48) Caused or allowed debit balances to arise on her account in the clients’ ledger of in or about €13,769.48 at 29 April 2001, €4,804.69 in November 2000 and €9,989.19 in January 2001, in breach of regulation 7, as per the books of account detailed in the investigation report of 20 May 2008,

49)   Caused or allowed a deficit of at least in or about €23,938.39 in the client account at 30 April 2002, as per the books of account detailed in the investigation report of 20 May 2008,

50)   Improperly caused or allowed a round sum transfer of IR£10,000 to be made from the client account to the office account on 21 September 2001, which led to debit balances on the following accounts, in breach of regulation 7(2)(a): €279.47 on a named client ledger account, €385.85 on another named client ledger account, €177.78 on another named client ledger account, €759.30 on another named client ledger account, €1,767.48 on another named client ledger account, and €261.16 on another named client ledger account, as per the books of account detailed in the investigation report of 20 May 2008,

51)   Caused or allowed a deficit of in or about €68,511.98 in the client account at 30 April 2003, as per the books of account detailed in the investigation report of 20 May 2008,

52)    Improperly caused or allowed debit balances totalling at least in or about €111,557.53 and up to in or about €115,569.96 in the clients’ ledger at 30 April 2004, in breach of regulation 7(2)(a), as per the books of account detailed in the investigation report of 20 May 2008,

53)   Improperly caused or allowed €10,000 of clients’ money to be drawn from the client account to the office account on 6 May 2003, as per the books of account detailed in the investigation report of 20 May 2008,

54)   Improperly caused or allowed €10,000 of clients’ money to be drawn from the client account to the office account on 12 May 2003, as per the books of account detailed in the investigation report of 20 May 2008,

55)   Improperly caused or allowed €6,050 of clients’ money to be drawn from the client account to the office account on 20 May 2003, as per the books of account detailed in the investigation report of 20 May 2008,

56)   Caused or allowed a deficit on the client account of in or about €26,086 at 31 March 2005,

57)   Improperly caused or allowed debit balances of in or about €99,843 to arise in the clients’ ledger in the period up to 31 March 2005,

58)   Improperly left client liabilities of in or about €26,086 unpaid as at 31 March 2005, when her then practice ceased with no remaining monies in her client account,

59)   Improperly caused or allowed monies totalling in or about €146,956.99 to be drawn from a named client ledger account, in breach of the regulations, without having issued bills of costs, as per the books of account detailed in the investigation report of 20 May 2008.

The tribunal ordered that the matter go forward to the High Court, and the President of the High Court, on 10 December 2012, made the following orders by consent:

1) The respondent solicitor be suspended from practising as a solicitor indefinitely,

2) The respondent do pay the Society’s agreed costs of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal proceedings,

3) The respondent do pay the Society’s agreed costs of the High Court proceedings,

4) Liberty to both parties to apply in respect of the question of costs.

In the matter of Gabrielle M Dalton, a solicitor formerly practising under the style and title of Gabrielle Dalton & Associates, 21 Otteran Place, South Parade, Waterford, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2008 [S5330/DT06/11 and 2012 no 64SA]

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)

Gabrielle M Dalton (respondent solicitor)

On 2 February 2012, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in her practice as a solicitor in that she:

a)     Caused or allowed a deficit to arise on her client account as at 31 March 2008,

b)     Caused or allowed monies totalling in or about €68,970 to be improperly withdrawn from the client account between 15 November 2007 and 30 January 2008, in breach of regulation 7 of the Solicitors’ Accounts Regulations 2001 by posting fees in that amount to the ‘dummy’ ledger card and drawing same to the office account,

c)      Caused or allowed a deficit to arise on her client account totalling in or about €68,970 as of 30 January 2008 as a result of the drawing of fees through the ‘dummy’ ledger card,

d)      Caused or allowed monies totalling in or about €27,830 to be improperly transferred from the client account to the office account between 3 April 2008 and 21 April 2008, in breach of regulation 7,

e)      Failed to maintain accounting records that showed the true financial position in relation to her transactions with the client monies of a named company, in breach of regulation 12,

f)      Failed to maintain accounting records that showed the true financial position in relation to her transactions with the client monies of a different named company, in breach of regulation 12,

g)      Failed to draw professional fees in the client matters of a named client company in accordance with the regulations,

h)      Improperly drew fees totalling in or about €8,711 from the client monies of a named client, received in the purchase of an apartment in Kilkenny, in breach of regulation 7,

i)       Improperly caused or allowed fees of €8,772 to be drawn twice in a named client matter,

j)       Failed to maintain accounting records that showed the true financial position in relation to her transactions with the client monies of a named client, in breach of regulation 12,

k)      Caused or allowed fees to be improperly drawn from the client account on 1 October 2007 by debiting fees totalling €3,630 (€1,815 plus €1,815) to the client ledger accounts of two named clients, where there were no funds available in the client ledger accounts at that date,

l)       Caused or allowed fees to be improperly drawn from the client account on 21 June 2007 by debiting fees of in or about €1,028 to the client ledger account of a named client, when there were no funds available at that date on the client ledger,

m)     Failed to complete stamping of the deed in the matter of a named client in a timely manner,

n)      Caused or allowed a deficit to arise on her client account as at 31 May 2008 and at 4 June 2008,

o)      Caused or allowed a deficit on the client accounts as at 31 May 2008, in respect of a named client, of in or about €101,604,

p)      Caused or allowed a further deficit on the client accounts as at 31 May 2008, in respect of other client matters, of in or about €44,671,

q)      Misappropriated client funds of a named client in the amount of €30,539 from monies of €44,355 received to pay stamp duty, Land Registry fees and outlay in respect of the purchase of a premises in Waterford,

r)      Misappropriated client funds of a named client in the amount of in or about €8,711 received to pay stamp duty, outlays and Land Registry fees in respect of the purchase of an apartment in Kilkenny,

s)       Failed to stamp the purchase deeds of clients, despite having been put in funds of in or about €5,332 to do so, and instead drew fees from the amount received so that there were insufficient funds remaining to complete stamping,

t)       Demonstrated a gross disregard for client funds,

u)     Failed to maintain proper books of account, in breach of regulation 12 of the 2001 regulations, over a continued period of time and, in particular, from in or about November 2007 to November 2008 such that it was not possible to determine from her accounting records a true and accurate statement of client affairs,

v)     Breached regulation 7 by withdrawing monies from the client account that were not properly available to be so withdrawn in accordance with the provisions of that regulation,

w)    Caused or allowed debit balances to arise on client ledger accounts in breach of regulation 7(2),

x)     Transferred monies between clients’ ledger accounts other than in circumstances permitted by the regulations, in breach of regulation 9,

y)       Failed to maintain and keep in respect of transfers between clients’ ledger accounts such accounting records and other documents as would enable such transactions to be appropriately vouched, in breach of regulation 9(a),

z)     Breached regulation 11 by failing to furnish bills of costs to clients prior to drawing fees.

The tribunal ordered that the matter go forward to the President of the High Court, and the President of the High Court, on 8 October 2012, made an order striking the name of the respondent solicitor from the Roll of Solicitors and ordering that the respondent solicitor pay the costs of the Society, to be taxed in default of agreement.

In the matter of Jacqueline M Durcan, solicitor, formerly practising as Durcans Solicitors, 1 Hazel Grove, Spencer Park, Castlebar, Co Mayo, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2008 [7083/DT86/11 and 2012 no 70 SA]

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)

Jacqueline M Durcan (respondent solicitor)

On 12 July 2012, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in her practice as a solicitor in that she:

a)     Failed to comply with an undertaking given by her on 5 July 2005, in respect of named clients over properties in Co Mayo, to AIB Bank plc expeditiously or within a reasonable time or at all, whereby she, among other things, undertook to stamp and register the documents of title to give AIB Bank plc a first legal mortgage/charge over the properties and to forward documents of title and certificates of title to AIB Bank plc duly registered,

b)     Failed to correspond adequately or at all to the complainant’s correspondence, in particular letters dated 23 April 2009 and 1 September 2009,

c)     Failed to respond adequately to the Society’s correspondence, in particular letters dated 16 March 2010, 31 March 2010, 23 April 2010, 10 May 2010, 31 May 2010, 28 June 2010, 27 July 2010, 3 August 2010, 12 August 2010, 27 September 2010, 26 October 2010 and 29 October 2010,

d)     Failed to comply adequately or at all with the directions of the committee meeting on 26 May 2010.

The tribunal ordered that the matter go forward to the High Court and, on 8 October 2012, the President of the High Court made the following orders:

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

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

In the matter of Noel Brennan, a solicitor formerly practising as a partner in Joy Brennan & Company, Solicitors, at 1 New Quay, Clonmel, Co Tipperary, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2008 [4028/DT21/11 and 2012 no 62SA]

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)

Noel Brennan (respondent solicitor)

On 24 April 2012, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:

a) Improperly retained substantial fees in the client account, in breach of regulation 5(2), and avoided tax thereon until the matter was rectified after the Society’s investigation in June 2007,

b) In the case of a named client, transferred €22,097.72 to the office account in circumstances where €19,427 of the said monies was received to pay stamp duty,

c) In the course of acting for a named client, delayed in stamping a deed on which the stamp duty was €19,427 from in or about 2001 until after the Society’s investigation was completed in June 2007,

d) Transferred to the office account, in the case of a named client, monies received for Land Registry fees,

e) Was in serious delay in registering the transfer of properties purchased by a named client in 1997 and in 2001, in that the transfers were not registered at the time of the completion of the investigation report in June 2007,

f) Caused or allowed a deed to be updated from December 2003 to December 2005 while in the course of acting for a named client in the transfer of property to him, thereby avoiding interest and penalty on the stamp duty amount of €5,400,

g) Improperly caused or allowed the sum of €170,800 to be misapplied from the client account in May 2003 for the benefit of a named client, when there was no money to his credit in the client account to cover the payment, in breach of regulation 7(1)(a),

h) Failed to reimburse monies referred to at (g) above to the client account until in or about June 2006,

i) Failed to maintain the relevant ledger account card for the named client at (a) above, in breach of regulation 12(3)(a),

j) Maintained inaccurate listings of clients’ ledger balances at the balancing dates of 30 June 2004 and 31 December 2004, which did not show the sum of €170,800 referred to at (g) above as a debit balance,

k) Improperly caused or allowed the sum of €50,000 to be paid from the client account to a builder in October 2004, on foot of the respondent solicitor’s personal liability to the builder, in breach of regulation 7(2)(b),

l) Caused or allowed the updating of a deed in relation to a named client in the purchase of property, thereby avoiding interest and penalties for late stamping of the deed,

m) Caused or allowed the updating of a deed in relation to two other named clients in the purchase of property, thereby avoiding interest and penalties for late stamping of the deed,

n) Caused or allowed the updating of a deed in relation to another two named clients in the purchase of property, thereby avoiding interest and penalties for late stamping of the deed,

o) Caused or allowed the updating of a deed in relation to another named client in the purchase of property, thereby avoiding interest and penalties for late stamping of the deed,

p) Caused or allowed the updating of a deed in relation to another named client in the purchase of property, thereby avoiding interest and penalties for late stamping of the deed,

q) Caused or allowed the updating of a deed in relation to another named client in the purchase of property, thereby avoiding interest and penalties for late stamping of the deed,

r) Caused or allowed the updating of a deed in relation to another named client in the purchase of property, thereby avoiding interest and penalties for late stamping of the deed,

s) Caused or allowed the updating of a deed in relation to another two named clients in the purchase of property, thereby avoiding interest and penalties for late stamping of the deed,

t) Caused or allowed the updating of a deed in relation to another named client in the purchase of property, thereby avoiding interest and penalties for late stamping of the deed,

u) Caused or allowed the updating of two deeds in relation to another named client in the purchase of property, thereby avoiding interest and penalties for late stamping of the deeds,

v) Caused or allowed the updating of a deed in relation to another named client in the purchase of property, thereby avoiding interest and penalties for late stamping of the deed,

w) Caused or allowed the updating of a deed in relation to another named client in the purchase of property, thereby avoiding interest and penalties for late stamping of the deed,

x) In the course of acting for both a named vendor and the named purchasers, in a property transaction that closed in April 2006, was in delay in stamping the deed, which was not stamped until after the investigation was completed in June 2007,

y) Breached regulation 7(1)(a)(iii) by transferring to the office account the balance of €3,900 on a named client ledger account without furnishing to the clients a bill of costs,

z) Caused or allowed his reporting accountant to submit unqualified accountant’s reports for the years ended 31 December 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004, in circumstances where he knew or ought to have known that such reports should have been qualified.

The tribunal ordered that the matter go forward to the President of the High Court, and the President of the High Court on 23 July 2012 made an order striking the name of the respondent solicitor from the Roll of Solicitors and ordered that the respondent solicitor pay the costs of the Society, to be taxed in default of agreement.

In the matter of Noel Brennan, a solicitor formerly practising as a partner in Joy Brennan & Company, Solicitors, at 1 New Quay, Clonmel, Co Tipperary, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2008 [4028/DT22/11 and 2012 no 62SA]

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)

Noel Brennan (respondent solicitor)

On 24 April 2012, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:

a) Failed to comply with his undertaking to Bank of Scotland (Ireland) in respect of clients identified in the proceedings,

b) Failed to comply with his undertaking to Bank of Ireland Mortgage Bank in respect of clients identified in the proceedings,

c) Failed to comply with his undertaking to ICS Building Society in respect of a client identified in the proceedings,

d) Failed to comply with his undertaking to Bank of Ireland in respect of a client identified in the proceedings,

e) Failed to comply with his undertaking to National Irish Bank in respect of a client identified in the proceedings,

f) Failed to comply with his undertaking to Ulster Bank in respect of clients identified in the proceedings,

g) Failed to comply with his undertaking to Allied Irish Bank in respect of clients identified in the proceedings,

h) Failed to comply with his undertaking to Permanent TSB in respect of clients identified in the proceedings,

i) Failed to comply with his undertaking to ACC Bank in respect of clients identified in the proceedings,

j) Failed to act properly or at all in or about the purchase of property for a named client,

k) In the course of acting for a named client in the purchase of property at Urlingford, Co Kilkenny, obtained funds from Ulster Bank on foot of an undertaking dated 16 December 2005, but failed to perfect the bank’s security, in breach of his undertaking,

l) In the course of acting for a named client in the purchase of property at Clonmel, obtained funds from Ulster Bank on foot of an undertaking dated 16 December 2005, but failed to perfect the bank’s security, in breach of his undertaking,

m) In the course of acting for a named client in the purchase of property in Clonmel, obtained funds from First Active on foot of an undertaking dated 10 June 2005, but failed to perfect the bank’s security, in breach of his undertaking,

n) In the course of acting for a named client in the purchase of property at Moangariff, obtained funds from National Irish Bank on foot of undertakings in November 2002 and April 2008, but failed to perfect the bank’s security, in breach of his undertaking,

o) In the course of acting for a named client in the purchase of a property in Clonmel, obtained funds from Permanent TSB on foot of an undertaking dated 5 June 2007, but failed to perfect the bank’s security, in breach of his undertaking,

p) In the course of acting for a named client in the purchase of property in Clonmel, obtained funds from ACC Bank on foot of an undertaking, but failed to perfect the bank’s security, in breach of his undertaking,

q) In the course of acting for a named client in the purchase of a property in Stillorgan, obtained funds from Bank of Ireland Mortgage Bank on foot of an undertaking, but failed to perfect the bank’s security, in breach of his undertaking,

r) In the course of acting for a named client in the purchase of a property in Pembroke Square, obtained funds from Bank of Ireland on foot of an undertaking, but failed to perfect the bank’s security, in breach of his undertaking,

s) In the course of acting for a named client in the purchase of a named property, obtained funds from Bank of Ireland Mortgage Bank on foot of an undertaking, but failed to perfect the bank’s security, in breach of his undertaking,

t) In the course of acting for a named client in the purchase of a named property, obtained funds from Ulster Bank on foot of an undertaking, but failed to perfect the bank’s security, in breach of his undertaking,

u) In the course of acting for named clients in the purchase of a property at Burgess Court, obtained funds from IIB Homeloans on foot of an undertaking, but failed to perfect the bank’s security, in breach of his undertaking,

v) In the course of acting for a named client in the purchase of a property at Fitton Street, obtained funds from Bank of Ireland on foot of an undertaking, but failed to perfect the bank’s security, in breach of his undertaking,

w) In the course of acting in respect of named clients in the purchase of a property at Kilsheelin, obtained funds from National Irish Bank on foot of an undertaking, but failed to perfect the bank’s security, in breach of his undertaking.

The tribunal ordered that the matter go forward to the President of the High Court, and the President of the High Court on 23 July 2012 made an order striking the name of the respondent solicitor from the Roll of Solicitors and ordered that the respondent solicitor pay the costs of the Law Society of Ireland, to be taxed in default of agreement.