In the matter of Katherine MA Ryan, a solicitor formerly practising under the style and title of Ryan & Company at 42 Woodley Park, Kilmacud, Dublin 14, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2008 [6970/DT35/10; 6970/DT75/10; 6970/DT76/10; 6970/DT110/10; 6970/DT124/10 and High Court record no 2012 no 21SA]

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)

Katherine MA Ryan (respondent solicitor)

6970/DT35/10

On 13 October 2011, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in her practice as a solicitor in that she:

a)      Failed to ensure that there was furnished to the Society an accountant’s report for the year ended 30 April 2009 within six months of that date, in breach of regulation 21(1) of the Solicitors’ Accounts Regulations 2001 (SI 421 of 2001),

b)     Through her conduct, showed disregard for her statutory obligation to comply with the Solicitors’ Accounts Regulations and showed disregard for the Society’s statutory obligation to monitor compliance with the Solicitors’ Accounts Regulations for the protection of clients and the public.

6970/DT75/10

On 13 October 2011, 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 to the complainant’s bank on 30 November 2006 in a timely manner,

b)     Failed to reply adequately and in a timely fashion or at all to the Society’s correspondence and, in particular, the Society’s letters of 28 July 2009, 18 August 2009, 2 September 2009, 1 October 2009, and 25 February 2010,

c)      Failed to comply with the direction of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee made at its meeting on 30 September 2009 that she make a contribution of €550 towards the costs incurred by the Society as a result of her failure to communicate.

6970/DT76/10

On 13 October 2011, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in her practice as a solicitor in that she:

a)      Delayed in the payment of stamp duty given to her by the complainant on 14 September 2007,

b)      Failed to respond to the Society’s correspondence and, in particular, the Society’s letters of 21 September 2009, 8 October 2009, 29 October 2009 and 23 February 2010 in a timely manner or at all,

c)     Failed to attend at a meeting of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee on 25 March 2010, despite being required to do so by letter dated 10 March 2010.

6970/DT110/10

On 13 October 2011, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in her practice as a solicitor in that she:

a)     Failed to complete the conveyancing work for which she had been paid and, in particular, to stamp and register the title documentation for the complainants in respect of four named properties in Dublin in a timely manner or at all,

b)     Misled the Complaints and Client Relations Committee at their meeting on 9 October 2009 by indicating to the committee that she had handed over the complainants’ file to another solicitor with their consent, when this was not the case,

c)       Failed to respond to the Society’s correspondence and, in particular, the Society’s letters of 30 July 2009, 17 August 2009, and 2 September 2009 in a timely manner or at all,

d)     Failed to attend the Complaints and Client Relations Committee meeting of 29 April 2010, despite being required to attend,

e)     Continued to hold monies paid to her by the complainants for stamp duty/registration fees, despite the fact that she held no practising certificate.

6970/DT124/10

On 13 October 2011, 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 the direction in a timely manner or at all made by the Complaints and Client Relations Committee at its meeting on 10 July 2009 that she refund all professional fees and undischarged outlay paid by the complainant within 21 days,

b)     Failed to comply in a timely manner with the direction of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee made on 10 July 2009 that she furnish all of the complainant’s files over to his new solicitor, having only furnished those files to the Society at the meeting of 9 October 2009,

c)     Brought the profession into disrepute by recklessly disregarding the interests of her client.

Having heard these five matters, the tribunal recommended that the matter be sent forward to the President of the High Court and, in proceedings record number 2012 no 21SA, the President of the High Court on 26 March 2012 made an order:

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

b)     That the respondent solicitor make restitution to the Society in respect of any payments made by the Society from the compensation fund in respect of the solicitor’s practice,

c)     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 respondent when taxed or ascertained.

In the matter of Katherine MA Ryan, a solicitor formerly practising under the style and title of Ryan & Company, Solicitors, at 42 Woodley Park, Kilmacud, Dublin 14, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2008 [6970/DT77/10; 6970/DT78/10; 6970/DT111/10; 6970/DT120/10; 6970/DT121/10 and High Court record no 2012 no 22SA]

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)

Katherine MA Ryan (respondent solicitor)

6970/DT77/10

On 25 October 2011, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in her practice as a solicitor in that she:

a)     Failed to furnish evidence that she had stamped and registered her client’s title to the property at Amiens Street, Dublin 1, which he purchased in 2006, in a timely manner or at all,

b)     Failed to return the deeds relating to that property to the complainant’s bank in a timely manner or at all,

c)     Failed to respond to the Society’s letter of 23 February 2010 in a timely manner or at all,

d)     Failed to attend the meeting of the Complaints and Client Relations committee on 25 March 2010, despite being required to do so by letter dated 10 March 2010.

6970/DT78/10

On 25 October 2011, 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 to the complainant bank on 22 September 2004 in a timely manner or at all,

b)     Failed to reply adequately and in a timely manner to the Society’s correspondence and, in particular, the Society’s letters of 24 July 2009 and 29 September 2009 in a timely manner or at all,

c)     Failed to comply with the direction of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee made at its meeting on 20 October 2009 that she make a contribution of €550 towards the costs incurred by the Society as a result of her failure to respond to its correspondence.

6970/DT111/10

On 25 October 2011, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in her practice as a solicitor in that she:

a)     Failed to respond to the Society’s letter of 23 February 2010,

b)     Failed to attend the meeting of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee on 25 March, despite being required to do so by letter dated 10 March 2010.

6970/DT120/10

On 25 October 2011, 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 the direction of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee made at its meeting on 29 May 2009 that she furnish a progress report and vouching documentation in relation to the complaint within ten days and a further progress report by 26 June 2009,

b)     Failed to comply in full, in a timely fashion or at all with the direction of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee made at its meeting on 10 July 2009 to refund all professional fees paid by the client to the solicitor within 21 days,

c)     Failed to attend the Complaints and Client Relations Committee meeting of 29 March 2010, despite being required to do so,

d)     Failed to reply to the Society’s correspondence in a timely manner or at all and, in particular, letters of 9 July 2008, 24 July 2008, 26 July 2008, 17 September 2008, 15 October 2008, 6 November 2008, 5 December 2008, 7 January 2009, 6 March 2009, 30 March 2009, 23 April 2009 and 23 February 2010.

6970/DT121/10

On 25 October 2011, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in her practice as a solicitor in that she:

a)     Failed to advise the complainant that her case was statute barred and led the complainant to believe that proceedings were in being and that her case was being processed,

b)     Sought instructions from the complainant on a settlement offer without informing the complainant that she, the solicitor, was the source of this offer,

c)     Failed to attend the meeting of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee on 10 June 2010, despite being required to do so,

d)     By her reckless disregard for the interests of her client, brought the profession into disrepute.

Having heard these five matters, the tribunal recommended that the matter be sent forward to the President of the High Court and, in proceedings record number 2012 no 22SA, the President of the High Court on 26 March 2012 made an order:

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

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

In the matter of William J Davis (otherwise Liam), solicitor, of William J Davis & Co, Solicitors, 14 Herbert Street, Dublin 2, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2008 [4399/DT34/09 and High Court record 2012 no 5SA]

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)

William J Davis (respondent solicitor)

On 30 July 2009, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:

1)   Breached regulation 21(1) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations (SI 421 of 2001) in failing to ensure that there was furnished to the Society an accountant’s report covering his financial year ended 30 November 2006 within six months thereafter, that is, by 31 May 2007,

2)   Through his conduct, showed a disregard for his own statutory obligations and the Society’s statutory obligation to monitor compliance with the Solicitors Accounts Regulations for the protection of clients, the solicitors’ profession, and the public.

The tribunal ordered that the matter go forward to the High Court and, on 27 February 2012, 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 Society do recover the costs of the High Court proceedings and the costs of the proceedings before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, to include witness expenses in these proceedings and in other High Court proceedings involving the same parties as against the respondent when taxed or ascertained as one set of costs.

In the matter of Jacqueline M Durcan, solicitor, formerly practising as Durcans Solicitors, no 1 Hazel Grove, Spencer Park, Castlebar, Co Mayo, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2011 [7083/DT46/11 and 2012 no 8 SA]

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)

Jacqueline M Durcan (respondent solicitor)

On 15 November 2011, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in her practice as a solicitor in that she:

a) Failed to comply within a reasonable time or at all with her undertaking given to the complainant dated 3 May 2005, in which she undertook to put a first legal charge in place on a named property in Castlebar, Co Mayo, in favour of ACC Bank Plc in respect of a named client,

b) Failed to reply adequately or at all to the complainant’s correspondence, in particular, letters dated 11 February 2008, 6 June 2008, 29 September 2009, 10 February 2010 and 12 March 2010 respectively,

c) Failed to comply with her undertaking given to the Complaints and Client Relations Committee at its meeting on 1 October 2010, whereby she undertook to lodge the stamped deed of mortgage and deed of conveyance with the Registry of Deeds within 14 days and, within the same time, to furnish the Society with a copy of her letter to the Registry of Deeds and a copy of the deeds submitted for registration,

d) Failed to reply adequately or at all to the Society’s correspondence dated 16 April 2010, 11 May 2010, 28 June 2010, 19 July 2010, 4 October 2010, 20 October 2010 and 22 November 2010.

The tribunal was of the opinion that:

a) The respondent solicitor is not a fit person to be a member of the solicitors’ profession,

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

c) The respondent solicitor make a contribution of €5,000 towards the costs of the Law Society of Ireland.

On foot of an application to the President of the High Court, the following orders were made on 13 February 2012:

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

2) That the Society do recover the costs of the proceedings against the respondent solicitor when taxed or ascertained.

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)

Katherine MA Ryan (respondent solicitor)

On 13 October 2010, in disciplinary matter 6970/DT96/09, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in her practice as a solicitor in that she failed to respond in a timely manner to the Society’s correspondence and, in particular, the Society’s letters of 14 January 2009, 12 March 2009 and 24 June 2009 in a timely manner or at all.

On 13 October 2010, in disciplinary matter 6970/DT99/09, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in her practice as a solicitor in that she:

a) Up to the date of the referral of this matter to the tribunal, failed to comply with an undertaking given to the complainants, IIB Homeloans (now known as KBC Homeloans), on 9 August 2006 in a timely manner or at all,

b) Failed to reply to the Society’s correspondence and, in particular, the Society’s letters of 2 October 2008, 14 October 2008, 22 October 2008, 12 November 2008, 26 November 2008, 12 December 2008, 6 January 2009, 14 January 2009, 9 March 2009, and 16 April 2009 in a timely manner or at all,

c) Failed to comply with the direction of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee made on 29 May 2009 to furnish within ten days a full report on the complaint file, supported by vouching documentation, and to furnish an updated report by 26 June 2009 in a timely manner or at all.

On 13 October 2010, in disciplinary matter 6970/DT111/09, 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 dated 15 November 1998 in respect of a named property in Dublin 3, furnished to Irish Life and Permanent plc, in a timely manner or at all,

b) Failed to comply with an undertaking dated 20 June 2000, furnished in respect of a named property in Dublin 7, furnished to Irish Life and Permanent plc, in a timely manner,

c) Failed to comply with an undertaking dated 23 April 2003 in respect of a named property in Co Wicklow, furnished to Irish Life and Permanent plc, in a timely manner or at all,

d) Failed to comply with an undertaking dated 29 March 2004 in respect of a named property in Co Dublin, furnished to Irish Life and Permanent plc, in a timely manner or at all,

e) Failed to comply with an undertaking dated 28 April 2004 in respect of a named property in Co Kildare, furnished to Irish Life and Permanent plc, in a timely manner or at all,

f) Failed to comply with an undertaking dated 10 December 2004 in respect of a named property in Co Meath, furnished to Irish Life and Permanent plc, in a timely manner,

g) Failed to comply with an undertaking dated 20 May 2005 in respect of a named property in Co Dublin, furnished to Irish Life and Permanent plc, in a timely manner or at all,

h) Failed to comply with an undertaking dated 1 December 2005 in respect of a named property in Dublin 12, furnished to Irish Life and Permanent plc, in a timely manner,

i) Failed to comply with an undertaking dated 1 December 2005 in respect of a named property in Co Kilkenny, furnished to Irish Life and Permanent plc, in a timely manner or at all,

j) Failed to comply with an undertaking dated 6 September 2005 in respect of a named property in Co Cork, furnished to Irish Life and Permanent plc, in a timely manner,

k) Failed to comply with an undertaking dated 1 February 2006 in respect of a named property in Co Dublin, furnished to Irish Life and Permanent plc, in a timely manner or at all,

l) Failed to comply with an undertaking dated 24 February 2006 in respect of a named property in Co Wicklow, furnished to Irish Life and Permanent plc, in a timely manner or at all,

m) Failed to comply with an undertaking dated 28 March 2006 in respect of a named property in Co Dublin, furnished to Irish Life and Permanent plc, in a timely manner or at all,

n) Failed to comply with an undertaking dated 29 September 2006 in respect of a named property in Co Meath, furnished to Irish Life and Permanent plc, in a timely manner or at all,

o) Failed to comply with an undertaking dated 23 November 2006 in respect of a named property in Dublin 24, furnished to Irish Life and Permanent plc, in a timely manner or at all,

p) Failed to comply with an undertaking dated 1 May 2007 in respect of a named property in Dublin 15, furnished to Irish Life and Permanent plc, in a timely manner or at all,

q) Failed to comply with an undertaking dated 31 July 2007 in respect of a named property in Dublin 8, furnished to Irish Life and Permanent plc, in a timely manner or at all,

r) Failed to comply with an undertaking dated 30 October 2007 in respect of a named property in Dublin 15, furnished to Irish Life and Permanent plc, in a timely manner or at all,

s) Failed to comply with an undertaking dated 7 May 2008 in respect of named properties in Dublin 18, Dublin 20, Dublin 8 and Dublin 18, furnished to Irish life and Permanent plc, in a timely manner or at all,

t) Failed to comply with an undertaking dated 9 June 2008 in respect of a property in Dublin 22, furnished to Irish Life and Permanent plc, in a timely manner,

u) Failed to comply with an undertaking dated 24 July 2008 in respect of another named property in Co Wicklow, furnished to Irish Life and Permanent plc, in a timely manner or at all,

v) Failed to furnish a report on each file within ten days of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee meeting of 29 May 2009 and failed to furnish a progress report for the Complaints and Client Relations Committee on or before 26 June 2009, as directed by the Complaints and Client Relations Committee.

The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, having made findings of misconduct in relation to the above three disciplinary matters, recommended that the Society bring the matter forward to the President of the High Court with a recommendation that the respondent solicitor was not a fit person to be a member of the solicitors’ profession and that the name of the respondent solicitor be struck off the Roll of Solicitors and that the respondent solicitor pay the whole of the costs of the Society, including witnesses’ expenses, to be taxed by a taxing master of the High Court in default of agreement.

On 24 October 2011, the President of the High Court ordered that the name of the respondent solicitor be struck off the Roll of Solicitors and 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 respondent solicitor when taxed or ascertained.

In the matter of Michael Small, a solicitor previously carrying on practice as Michael Small, Solicitor, at Carraig House, 10 Newenham Street, Limerick, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2008 [10119/DT19/11 and High Court record 2011 no 90SA]

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)

Michael Small (respondent solicitor)

On 5 April 2011, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he failed to account to his clients, the complainants, for the total proceeds of their mortgage advance, leaving them with at least an admitted shortfall of €49,915.

The tribunal ordered that the Society bring their findings to the High Court and, on 21 October 2011, the President of the High Court ordered that:

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

2)   The Society do recover the costs of the proceedings before the High Court and the cost of the proceedings before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, to include witness expenses as against the respondent solicitor 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/DT64/10 and High Court record no 2011/81 SA]

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)

Brian Johnston (respondent solicitor)

On 2 June 2011, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:

a) Failed to maintain proper books of account in respect of his practice,

b) Failed to furnish reporting accountant’s reports to the Society as required by the Solicitors’ Accounts Regulations 2001,

c) Falsely stated in his application for a practising certificate that a reporting accountant’s reports had been filed when in fact this had not been done,

d) Allowed overpayments to be made to a number of clients, giving rise to a deficit on client accounts in excess of €700,000,

e) Committed several breaches of regulation 7(2)(a) of the Solicitors’ Accounts Regulations 2001 by allowing debit balances to arise on the clients’ ledger account in respect of a client other than a debit balance that was totally offset by a credit balance arising on another clients’ ledger account in respect of the same client,

f) Failed to make income tax returns in respect of his practice,

g) Failed to make VAT returns in respect of his practice,

h) Retained his name on the headed notepaper of his former practice, thus giving the impression he was still in practice at a time when he had been suspended from practising as a solicitor.

The tribunal made the following recommendations:

1) The respondent solicitor is not a fit person to be a member of the solicitors’ profession,

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

3) The respondent solicitor pay 50% of the costs of the Society, to be taxed by a taxing master of the High Court in default of agreement.

In recognition of the respondent solicitor’s efforts to pay back the monies to clear the deficit and to regularise his affairs, the tribunal did not make any recommendation in regard to imposing a monetary penalty on him.

On 17 October 2011, the President of the High Court ordered that:

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

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

In the matter of Michael Small, a solicitor previously carrying on practice as Michael Small, Solicitor, at Carraig House, 10 Newenham Street, Limerick, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2008 [10119/DT172/10 and High Court record 2011 no 58SA]

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)

Michael Small (respondent solicitor)

On 5 April 2011, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:

1)   Allowed a deficit of client funds in the sum of €1,181,667.04 as of 16 August 2009,

2)   Operated a secret bank account where funds of approximately €1.2 million were lodged, in breach of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations,

3)   Used client moneys to discharge the mortgage debts of clients who defaulted on mortgages,

4)   Paid the money to third parties and withdrew money for his own use,

5)   Failed to maintain proper records, and

6)   Allowed claims to arise on the compensation fund of €1,123,245.11, with €428,735.81 already paid out as of the date of swearing of the Society’s affidavit.

The tribunal ordered that the Society bring their findings to the High Court and, on 11 July 2011, the High Court ordered that:

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

2)   The respondent solicitor do make such restitution, if and when he is in a position to do so, in respect of all payments by the compensation fund arising from the respondent solicitor’s practice,

3)   The Law Society do recover the costs of the proceedings before the High Court and the cost of the proceedings before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal when taxed or ascertained.

In the matter of Charles O’Neill, a solicitor formerly practising as Cathal O’Neill & Company, Solicitors, 10 Church Avenue, Rathmines, Dublin 6, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2008 [2707/DT81/09 and High Court record no 2011 no 64 SA]

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)

Charles O’Neill (respondent solicitor)

On 7 April 2011, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:

a) Failed/neglected to furnish to the complainant the information requested by him in relation to the disposal of his property in Wexford,

b) Failed to account to the complainant in relation to the balance of proceeds of sale of the property in Wexford for the period of 12 January 2005 to 13 July 2007,

c) Through his failure to account to his client for the balance of sale proceeds or to furnish the information required by the client in relation to the disposal of the property in Wexford, failed to protect the interests of his client,

d) Failed, refused or neglected to transfer title deeds in respect of two other properties in Wexford in a timely manner,

e) Failed to provide a written explanation to the complainant for not handing over the title deeds to the complainant’s new solicitors in a timely manner,

f) Gave an assurance to the complainant in an email dated 8 August 2008 to the effect that he would finally deal with the problems at (a), (b) and (c) above during the weekend of 8 August 2008, which assurance he did not carry out,

g) Failed to reply adequately to the complainant’s correspondence by email on several occasions from 20 June 2008 onwards,

h) Failed to reply or instruct his solicitor to reply to the Society’s letters dated 18 August 2008, 1 September 2008, 17 September 2008 and 1 October 2008,

i) In his failure to correspond or instruct his solicitor to correspond with the Society, obstructed the Society’s investigation into the complaint.

The tribunal recommended that:

a) The respondent solicitor is not a fit person to be a member of the solicitors’ profession,

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

c) The respondent solicitor pay the whole of the costs of the Society, to be taxed by a taxing master of the High Court in default of agreement.

The tribunal ordered that the matter be brought before the High Court and, on 27 June 2011, the President of the High Court ordered that:

1) The name of the respondent solicitor, Charles O’Neill, be struck from the Roll of Solicitors,

2) The Society do recover as against the respondent solicitor the costs of the proceedings before the High Court when taxed and ascertained,

3) The Society do recover as against the respondent solicitor the costs of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal proceedings, to include witness expenses when taxed and ascertained.

In the matter of Peter McGarry, a solicitor, formerly practising as Peter McGarry & Co, Solicitors, 27 Capel Street, Dublin 1, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2008 [4989/DT02/11 and High Court record no 2011/54 SA]

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)

Peter McGarry (respondent solicitor)

On 20 April 2011, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:

a) Caused or allowed an estimated deficit in the client account as at 30 November 2009 in the sum of €126,449.

b) Failed to keep proper books of account in that books were not kept up to date, in breach of regulation 12(1) of the Solicitors’ Accounts Regulations 2001.

c) Failed on numerous occasions to furnish his clients with a bill of costs, in breach of regulation 11(1) of the Solicitors’ Accounts Regulations 2001.

d) Failed to redeem an existing mortgage on a property from the proceeds of a re-mortgage credited to the client bank account. The respondent solicitor gave an undertaking to AIB that he would discharge a mortgage outstanding with Permanent TSB with approximately €103,000. The sum of €102,000 had been transferred from the relevant client ledger account on the basis that apparently the respondent solicitor provided a loan to the client and this represented the repayment of same.

e) Failed to redeem an existing mortgage on a property, despite giving an undertaking to provide a discharge or vacated mortgage to the solicitor acting on behalf of the purchaser. The respondent solicitor failed to do this from the proceeds of sale credited to the client bank account. Confirmation was received from Bank of Scotland (Ireland) Limited that the mortgage in the sum of approximately €250,000 was paid on 18 November 2009.

f) Allowed or permitted the client ledger account of a named client to go into debt in the sum of €12,986.77 in March 2009. On 25 November 2009, the sum of €11,000 was credited to this client ledger account to reduce the deficit to €1,986.77, but it was not possible to vouch the source of these funds.

g) Made a payment to the Revenue Commissioners of €6,000 on behalf of a named client, which was funded, by six other separate clients of the practice and the respondent solicitor.

h) Transferred the sum of €30,555.56 from the client ledger account of a named client to the client ledger account of the respondent solicitor without any apparent authorisation or evidence to show that the respondent solicitor was legally and beneficially entitled to the funds transferred to the credit of his client ledger account.

i) Transferred round sum amounts in respect of fees from the client ledger prior to the posting of the fee note to the office ledger, in breach of regulation 10(4) of the Solicitors’ Accounts Regulations 2001.

j) Caused or allowed, through his conduct, claims to be made on the Society’s compensation fund, resulting in a payment from the Society’s compensation fund to named clients in the sum of €508,000 on 24 June 2010.

k) Dealt with the re-mortgage of various properties on the same client ledger account, in breach of regulation 12(3)(a) of the Solicitors’ Accounts Regulations 2001.

The tribunal made the following recommendations:

1) The respondent solicitor is not a fit person ever again to be a member of the solicitors’ profession,

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

3) The respondent solicitor make such restitution to the Society in respect of payments made by the compensation fund arising from the respondent solicitor’s practice as the court thinks fit and, pending such restitution, the High Court make an ancillary order freezing the respondent solicitor’s assets,

4) The respondent solicitor pay the whole of the costs of the Society as taxed by a taxing master of the High Court in default of agreement.

On 30 May 2011, the President of the High Court ordered that:

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

2) The respondent solicitor do make such restitution, being the amount in respect of payments made by the compensation fund arising from the respondent solicitor’s practice, and that the assets of the respondent solicitor’s practice be frozen pending such restitution to the Society,

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