In the matter of Matthew Breslin, solicitor, practising as Donal J O’Neill & Co, Solicitors, 3 Denny Street, Tralee, Co Kerry, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2008 [7159/DT123/09 and 2011 no 49 SA]

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)

Matthew Breslin (respondent solicitor)

On 24 March 2011, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:

a) Failed in a timely fashion or at all to honour an undertaking contained in a letter dated 4 April 2006 to the complainant, whereby he undertook to lodge with the complainant the net proceeds of sale of residential units from a development in Co Laois when the sales were completed,

b) Failed to adequately respond to the complainant’s letters to him and, in particular, letters dated 1 May 2008, 5 June 2008, 1 July 2008, 27 August 2008 and 2 September 2008 respectively,

c) Failed to adequately respond to the Society’s correspondence, in particular letters dated 6 October 2008, 26 November 2008, and 16 January 2009.

The tribunal made the following recommendations:

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

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

3) That the respondent solicitor pay the whole of the costs of Society, to include witness expenses, to be taxed by the taxing master of the High Court in default of agreement.

On 16 May 2011, the High Court made an order in the following terms, on foot of an application by the Society to bring the report and order of the disciplinary tribunal to the President of the High Court:

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, to include witness expenses, before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal as against the respondent when taxed or ascertained.

In the matter of Seosamh O’Daimhin (otherwise Joseph Devine), solicitor, practising as Devine Solicitors at 9 O’Rahilly Street, Nenagh, Co Tipperary, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2008 [6260/DT17/09 and High Court record no 2010/97 SA]

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)

Seosamh O’Daimhin (otherwise Joseph Devine) (respondent solicitor)

On 22 October 2009, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:

• Failed to pursue a tax rebate application to the Revenue Commissioners in respect of capital gains tax paid on the sale of the property of the complainant’s father, located at Garrykennedy in early 2005,
• Failed to respond adequately to the complainant’s correspondence, telephone calls and emails over a three-year period from 2005 to 2007,
• Failed to comply with the directions of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee of 16 April 2008, whereby he was directed to do the following:

1) Provide a copy of his letter and cheque paying the capital gains tax,

2) Provide a letter from the Revenue confirming the amount of CGT paid and the date upon which it is was paid,

3) Provide a statement from his accountant giving a statement of account and, in particular, confirming that the €2,000 referred to in the complainant’s letter of complaint had been paid,

4) Provide a copy of his letter to the complainant furnishing a refund of the fees,

• Failed to reply adequately to the Society’s correspondence and, in particular, letters dated 12 April 2007, 18 July 2007, 1 August 2007, 9 August 2007, 24 August 2007, 3 September 2007, 11 September 2007, 18 October 2007, 26 October 2007, 18 January 2008, 1 February 2008, 11 February 2008, 26 February 2008, 6 March 2008, 26 March 2008, 9 April 2008, 22 April 2008, 13 May 2008, 28 May 2008 and 5 June 2008 respectively.

The tribunal made the following recommendations in respect of the respondent solicitor:

a) That the respondent solicitor not be permitted to practise as a sole practitioner or in partnership, that he be permitted only to practise as an assistant solicitor 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,

b) That the respondent solicitor make restitution to a named former client in the sum of €2,000 plus VAT at 21%, which figure includes the fee of another named solicitor,

c) That the respondent solicitor pay the reasonable expenses of the named former client and the other named solicitor in relation to their attendance at the hearing on the 22 October 2009, to be taxed by a taxing master of the High Court, in default of agreement.

On 29 November 2010, the President of the High Court ordered that:

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

2) The respondent solicitor pay restitution to the named former client in the sum of €2,000 plus VAT at 21%, which figure includes the fee of the other named solicitor,

3) That the respondent solicitor pay the reasonable expenses of the named former client and the other named solicitor in relation to their attendance at the hearing on the 22 October 2009, to be taxed by a taxing master of the High Court, in default of agreement;

4) The respondent solicitor pay the costs of the proceedings to be taxed in default of agreement,

5) The respondent solicitor pay the costs of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal proceedings, to include witness expenses to be taxed in default of agreement.

Subsequent to the making of that order by the president, the respondent solicitor has appealed against that order to the Supreme Court and the appeal bears record number 004/2011.

In the matter of Seosamh O’Daimhin (otherwise Joseph Devine), solicitor, practising as Devine Solicitors at 9 O’Rahilly Street, Nenagh, Co Tipperary, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2008 [6260/DT106/09 and High Court record no 2010/84 SA]

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)

Seosamh O’Daimhin (otherwise Joseph Devine) (respondent solicitor)

On 15 July 2010, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:

a) Caused or allowed a minimum deficit to arise on his client account of in or about €262,864 as at, on or about, 28 May 2008,

b) Failed to maintain proper accounting records in the client account of the estate of a named deceased person, in breach of regulation 12, and, in particular, failed to maintain a ledger card that recorded all transactions in the distribution of the estate and failed to record costs of €17,222.12 transferred to the office account,

c) Misappropriated and/or wrongly drew to the office account excess costs of in or about €54,676 from the same estate,

d) Caused a debit balance on the client account of the same estate of in or about €7,808 by making overpayments in that amount to beneficiaries of the estate,

e) Failed to maintain proper accounting records in the client account of a named client family, in breach of regulation 12, and, in particular, failed to maintain ledger accounts that showed the true financial position in relation to his transactions with the client’s monies, such that amounts totalling €38,912.10 debited to the ledger account were not written up,

f) Misappropriated and/or wrongly transferred to the office account costs totalling in or about €42,500 in the client transactions of the same client family, causing a deficit on the client ledger account in or about that amount,

g) Misappropriated and/or wrongly discharged VAT payments to the Revenue Commissioners out of the client account in the amount of €12,000 on 14 February 2008, €36,314 on 20 February 2008 and €18,140 on 29 February 2008, creating a deficit of €66,454 on the client account,

h) Wrongly debited costs and VAT of in or about €5,687 on 21 April 2008 in the client matter of a named file from the client account when there were no funds to meet the payment, and subsequently misappropriated and/or wrongly debited the same costs and VAT to the office account on 29 April 2008, 1 May 2008 and 20 May 2008, causing a total deficit of in or about €22,748,

i) Wrongly discharged a booking deposit of €10,000 in the client matter of a named file from the client account on or about 26 October 2007 and did not lodge an office account cheque to the client account to meet that payment because there were insufficient funds in the office account to meet the payment,

j) Wrongly drew a cheque of €300 on the client account for personal expenses, in breach of regulation 7(2)(b),

k) Wrongly caused or allowed bank charges to be debited to the client accounts in the two years ended 30 April 2008 amounting to a total of €897.61, causing a deficit of that amount on the client account,

l) Caused or allowed stamp duty funds of €3,779 received from the client on or about 21 December 2006 in a named client matter to be lodged to the office account and, on 4 January 2007, discharged stamp duty in that amount by way of client account cheque, causing a debit balance on the client ledger account, which debit balance increased following the payment of a Land Registry fee of €585 on 15 March 2007, also from the client account,

m) Failed to maintain proper accounting records in the client matters of a named client and, in particular, failed to maintain separate ledger accounts for each client matter dealt with by him, in breach of regulation 12(3)(a),

n) Misappropriated and/or wrongly drew costs allocated to a named client file of €3,630 on 15 January 2007 and €4,000 on 30 April 2007 from the client account, causing a debit balance on the client ledger account of €5,226.14,

o) Wrongly debited the amount of €6,755 in costs from the estate of a named deceased person, instead of the costs due of €675.50, causing a deficit of €6,079.50 on the client account, and subsequently wrongly transferred a further €1,500 to the office account debited to this client matter, increasing the deficit to €7,579.50,

p) Wrongly drew costs of €3,872 from the client account to the office account in a named client matter in circumstances where monies to cover costs and outlay were not received from clients, causing a debit balance of that amount on the client account,

q) Failed to maintain proper accounting records in the client matter of the estate of a named deceased person, in breach of regulation 12, and, in particular, failed to post payments of €7,186.15 to the beneficiaries to the ledger card, thereby failing to show a debit balance on the ledger card,

r) Wrongly lodged two receipts totalling €6,951.41 in the same estate directly to the office account in June 2007 and February 2008, in breach of regulation 4(1) and regulation 6(4)(a), and further wrongly drew costs of €2,325 to the office account on 13 February 2008, which costs had already been drawn in November 2006, causing a total deficit in the client ledger account of €9,276.41,

s) Misappropriated and/or wrongly transferred costs of €1,210 to the office account from the estate of a named client, causing a debit balance of €847.91 on the client account,

t) Wrongly lodged monies received in the estate of a named deceased person of €4,199.71 to the office account and failed to lodge further monies received, in the amount of €956.61, to the client account, in breach of regulations 4(1) and regulation 6(4), causing a total deficit in the client ledger account of €5,156.32,

u) Caused a net overpayment to be made from the client ledger account of a named client of in or about €3,850, creating a deficit in the client account in that amount,

v) Wrongly caused payments to be made from the client account to or for the personal benefit of his wife in the amount of €50 on 1 February 2008, €135 on 1 February 2008, €12,000 on 6 February 2008 and €639 on 18 March 2008,

w) Discharged personal expenditure or expenditure to his personal benefit from the client account, in breach of regulation 7(2)(b), and, in particular, mortgage payments of €2,000 on 22 January 2008 and 31 March 2008, payment of €400 to a supermarket on 22 February 2008, and a payment of €122 on 31 March 2008,

x) Wrongly caused payments to be made from the client account to or for the benefit of a named individual in the amounts of €1,300 on 22 January 2008 and 31 March 2008,

y) Through wrongful payment out of the client account to or for the benefit of the respondent solicitor, his wife and her cousin, a named individual as detailed above, contributed to a net deficit in the client ledger account of in or about €17,307.40,

z) Failed to maintain proper books of account for his practice, in breach of regulation 12(1).

The tribunal recommended by report dated 11 August 2010 that:

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

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

The tribunal made no recommendation in relation to costs.

Subsequent to the hearing of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, the respondent solicitor brought an appeal against the decision of the tribunal to make findings of professional misconduct on allegations 10(d), (g), (h), (i), (j), (o) and (t). The respondent solicitor claimed, among other things, that the tribunal had erred in law and on the facts in the manner in which it arrived at the above findings; that he had not acted dishonestly or fraudulently in connection with any of the matters; that his conduct resulted from confusion, distraction, inadvertence and error caused by ill health and bad management of his practice; and that he was suffering at the time of the matters under inquiry from acute anxiety and depression such that his capacity and judgement were impaired. The respondent solicitor claimed that the tribunal had failed to have adequate regard to the significance of missing documentation (among other things, cheque books, VAT books and records, and bank statements) and that, contrary to natural justice, the tribunal had failed to allow him to pursue the significance of the missing documentation by way of cross-examination.

When the matter came before the President of the High Court on 29 November 2010, he asked the respondent solicitor’s counsel on what statutory section he was appealing. Counsel stated that there was none and that he relied on the president’s inherent jurisdiction to hear the appeal. Counsel, under questioning from the president, confirmed that it was the respondent solicitor’s position that there was no prima facie case for the disciplinary tribunal inquiry in the first place. The president stated that he was satisfied that no real issues had been raised by the respondent solicitor to merit an appeal.

On 29 November 2010 the President of the High Court ordered that:

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

2) The respondent solicitor pay restitution in the sum of €379,385.66 to the Compensation Fund of the Law Society,

3) The respondent solicitor pay the costs of the proceedings when these are ascertained,

4) The respondent solicitor pay the costs of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal proceedings, to include witness expenses when these are ascertained.

On 29 November 2010, the President of the High Court also ordered that:

1) The recommendation of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal made on 11 August 2010 be affirmed and adopted,

2) The respondent solicitor pay the costs of the High Court proceedings when taxed in default of agreement.

Subsequent to the making of that order by the president, the respondent solicitor has appealed against that order to the Supreme Court and the appeal bears record number 003/2011.

In the matter of Daniel J Coleman, solicitor, formerly practising as Coleman & Co, Solicitors, Main Street, Ballinrobe, Co Mayo, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2008 [8347/DT20/09 and High Court record no 2010/65SA]

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)

Daniel J Coleman (respondent solicitor)

On 10 February 2010, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:

a) Caused or allowed the name of another named solicitor to be written on contracts for sale dated 19 May 2004 without the authority of that solicitor,

b) Caused or allowed a fictitious contract, dated 19 May 2004, to come into existence and purportedly made between the complainant’s clients and that other solicitor in trust for the purpose of misleading ACC Bank into advancing monies to a named client, knowing that the sale of the land from that named client had not closed and that the dwelling units had not been constructed,

c) Destroyed a file consisting of merely three contracts relating to the contested contract, dated 19 May 2004, without the express or implied instructions of both parties and, in particular, the complainant’s named clients,

d) Acted for both the vendor/builder, a named client, and purchasers of 13 newly constructed houses at Galway Road, Tuam, Co Galway, involving himself in a possible conflict of interest contrary to the provisions of article 4(a) of the Solicitors (Professional Practice, Conduct and Discipline) Regulations 1997, SI no 85 of 1997.

The tribunal directed that:

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

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

iii) The respondent solicitor pay the whole of the costs of the Law Society of Ireland (to include the Law Society’s costs of the adjourned hearing of 26 November 2009), to be taxed by a taxing master of the High Court in default of agreement.

On 26 July 2010, the President of the High Court ordered that:

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

2) The respondent pay the applicant the costs of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, to include witness expenses, same to be taxed in default of agreement,

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

Subsequent to the making of that order, the respondent solicitor has lodged an appeal against the decision of the President of the High Court under Supreme Court appeal number 319/2010.

In the matter of Joseph Traynor, solicitor, formerly practising as Traynor & Company, Solicitors, 86 Clanbrassil Street, Dundalk, Co Louth, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2008 [5554/DT125/09 and High Court record no 2010 no 58 SA]

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)

Joseph Traynor (respondent solicitor)

On 18 March 2010, 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 given to the complainant, dated 17 November 2004, whereby he undertook to do the following:

1) Execute security documents in that, prior to negotiating the loan cheque or the proceeds thereof, he failed to ensure that the borrower had executed a mortgage deed/charge in the lender’s standard form as produced by the lender over the property,

2) Ensure that the mortgage ranked as a first legal mortgage/charge on the property,

3) Register the mortgage in the appropriate registry so as to ensure that the lender/complainant obtained a first legal mortgage/charge on the property and, expeditiously, as soon as practicable thereafter, to lodge the following documents with the lender/complainant:

i) All deeds and documents to the property, stamped and registered as appropriate, including, if applicable, the assignment of the life policy, stamped collateral to the mortgage,

ii) The original mortgage (with certificate of charge endorsed thereon under rule 156 of the Land Registry Rules 1972, if Land Registry title),

iii) If Land Registry title, the land certificate or, if not issued, an up-to-date certified copy folio of the property showing the mortgage registered as a burden thereon,

iv) The complainant’s certificate of title in the Law Society’s standard form.

4) Hold all title documents of the property in trust for the lender/complainant.

b) Failed to adequately or at all respond to the complainant’s correspondence, in particular letters dated 18 July 2008, 6 October 2008 (twice), 22 October 2008, 7 January 2009, 9 January 2009 and 6 February 2009,

c) Failed to adequately respond to the Society’s correspondence, in particular letters dated 23 February 2009, 11 March 2009, 19 March 2009, 1 April 2009 and 3 June 2009 respectively.

The tribunal directed:

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

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

c) That the respondent solicitor pay the sum of €45,275.94 to KBC Mortgages Limited,

d) That the respondent solicitor pay the whole of the costs of the Law Society of Ireland, including witness expenses, to be taxed by a taxing master of the High Court in default of agreement.

The tribunal directed that the matter be referred forward to the High Court and, on 5 July 2010, the President of the High Court ordered:

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

2) That the respondent solicitor pay the sum of €45,275.94 as restitution to KBC Homeloans Limited,

3) That the applicant forward the papers in respect of this application to the Director of Public Prosecutions,

4) That the respondent solicitor surrender his passport forthwith to An Garda Síochána,

5) That the respondent solicitor pay the applicant the costs of the High Court proceedings, together with the costs of the disciplinary tribunal proceedings, to include witness expenses, to be taxed in default of agreement.

In the matter of Joseph Traynor, solicitor, formerly practising as Traynor & Company, Solicitors, 86 Clanbrassil Street, Dundalk, Co Louth, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2008 [5554/DT126/09 and High Court record no 2010 no 59 SA]

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)

Joseph Traynor (respondent solicitor)

On 18 March 2010, 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 given to the complainant’s clients, Start Mortgages Limited, in respect of his named client, involving property at Rosehill, Mullagh, Co Cavan, in a solicitor’s undertaking dated 25 January 2008, whereby he undertook to do the following:

i) To register the mortgage in the appropriate registry to ensure that the complainant’s clients, Start Mortgages Limited, obtained the first legal charge on the property,

ii) To, as soon as practicable thereafter, register the first legal charge on the property and to lodge with the lender, Start Mortgages Limited, all deeds and documents properly stamped and registered,

iii) As soon as practicable after registration of Start Mortgages Limited first legal mortgage of the property, to lodge the original mortgage with the lender, Start Mortgages Limited,

iv) To ensure the borrowers acquiring the property obtained good marketable title to it or, where the borrower already owned the property, to satisfy himself that such borrower had good marketable title to it.

b) Failed to adequately or at all respond to the complainant’s correspondence, in particular letters dated 9 December 2008, 9 January 2009, 28 January 2009, 16 February 2009 and 26 February 2009 respectively.

The tribunal directed:

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

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

c) That the respondent solicitor pay restitution in the sum of €180,000 to Start Mortgages,

d) That the respondent solicitor pay the whole of the costs of the Law Society of Ireland, including witness expenses, to be taxed by a taxing master of the High Court in default of agreement.

The tribunal directed that the matter be referred forward to the High Court and, on 5 July 2010, the President of the High Court ordered:

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

2) That the respondent solicitor pay the sum of €180,000 as restitution to Start Mortgages Limited,

3) That the applicant forward the papers in respect of this application to the Director of Public Prosecutions,

4) That the respondent solicitor surrender his passport forthwith to An Garda Síochána,

5) That the respondent solicitor pay the applicant the costs of the High Court proceedings, together with the costs of the disciplinary tribunal proceedings, to include witness expenses, to be taxed in default of agreement.

In the matter of Joseph Traynor, solicitor, formerly practising as Traynor & Company, Solicitors, 86 Clanbrassil Street, Dundalk, Co Louth, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2008 [5554/DT75/09 and High Court record no 2010 no 54 SA]

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)

Joseph Traynor (respondent solicitor)

On 26 January 2010, 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 on 25 August 2006 to lodge the title documents relating to lands at Castlewarden, Naas, Co Kildare, immediately upon the sale being completed,

b) Failed to honour an undertaking on 29 August 2006 to stamp and register the title documents relating to lands at Castlewarden, Naas, Co Kildare,

c) Failed to honour an undertaking on 26 September 2006 to stamp the deed of transfer in respect of the sale of lands at Castlewarden, Naas, Co Kildare,

d) Failed to honour an undertaking on 13 February 2007 to stamp the title documents relating to lands at Castlewarden, Naas, Co Kildare, and to arrange to have them lodged in the Land Registry within six weeks from that date,

e) Failed to comply with the direction of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee on 11 February 2009 to reply to the Society by 1 March 2009 with a copy of the stamped deed, the dealing number and copy correspondence to ACC Bank plc informing them that the deed was stamped.

The tribunal directed:

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

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

c) That the respondent solicitor pay a monetary penalty of €630,000 to the Revenue Commissioners,

d) That the respondent solicitor pay the whole of the costs of the Law Society of Ireland, including witness expenses, to be taxed by a taxing master of the High Court in default of agreement.

The tribunal urged that the papers in respect of this application be forwarded to the Director of Public Prosecutions.

The tribunal directed that the matter be referred forward to the High Court and, on 5 July 2010, the President of the High Court ordered:

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

2) That the respondent solicitor pay the sum of €630,000 to ACC Bank plc, who will remit said sum to the Revenue Commissioners if due in respect of stamp duty, or retain if not due,

3) That the applicant forward the papers in respect of this application to the Director of Public Prosecutions,

4) That the respondent solicitor surrender his passport forthwith to An Garda Síochána,

5) That the respondent solicitor pay the applicant the costs of the High Court proceedings, together with the costs of the disciplinary tribunal proceedings, to include witness expenses, to be taxed in default of agreement.

In the matter of Joseph Traynor, solicitor, formerly practising as Traynor & Company, Solicitors, 86 Clanbrassil Street, Dundalk, Co Louth, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2008 [5554/DT01/10 and High Court record no 2010 no 56 SA]

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)

Joseph Traynor (respondent solicitor)

On 11 May 2010, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:

a) Caused or allowed a fictitious contract for the purported sum of €7 million in relation to the purchase of lands at Castlewarden, being a false and misleading contract as to the purchase price, as there was an existing contract for the sum of €4.6 million,

b) Caused or allowed a fictitious contract for the purchase of lands at Castlewarden to bear the signature of the vendor and the complainant’s signature as witness, when such signatures were not the signatures of the vendor and the complainant,

c) Permitted or allowed a fictitious contract to be forwarded to the solicitors for a bank for the purchase of the site the bank placed reliance upon,

d) Failed to progress the true contract for the purchase price of €4.6 million, leaving a capital balance outstanding of €1,140,000 plus interest, which entailed proceedings for specific performance being issued and served by the complainant,

e) Failed to have the original deed of transfer signed by the purchaser dated, stamped and registered,

f) Failed to explain why €3.4 million occurred on the client ledger account when he claimed that he had no money to stamp the deed,

g) Failed to explain why there were two versions of a contract for the same lands,

h) Released title documents held on trust to the order of the complainant pending payment of the full amount of the purchase monies,

i) Failed to explain why he had not brought the matter of the fictitious contract and purported fraud to the immediate attention of the gardaí,

j) Failed to respond adequately or at all to the complainant’s correspondence, in particular letters dated 1 November 2006, 7 November 2006, 11 December 2006, 15 June 2007, 9 August 2007, 22 August 2007, 19 October 2007, 20 December 2007, 13 June 2008, 3 April 2009, 15 April 2009, 22 April 2009 and 27 April 2009,

k) Failed to respond adequately or at all to the Society’s correspondence, in particular letters dated 20 August 2009 and 21 September 2009.

The tribunal directed:

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

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

c) That the respondent solicitor pay the whole of the costs of the Law Society of Ireland, including witness expenses, to be taxed by a taxing master of the High Court in default of agreement.

The tribunal directed that the matter be referred forward to the High Court and, on 5 July 2010, the President of the High Court ordered:

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

2) That the applicant forward the papers in respect of this application to the Director of Public Prosecutions,

3) That the respondent solicitor surrender his passport forthwith to An Garda Síochána,

4) That the respondent solicitor pay the applicant the costs of the High Court proceedings, together with the costs of the disciplinary tribunal proceedings, to include witness expenses, to be taxed in default of agreement.

In the matter of Joseph Traynor, solicitor, formerly practising as Traynor & Company, Solicitors, 86 Clanbrassil Street, Dundalk, Co Louth, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2008 [5554/DT102/09 and High Court record no 2010 no 53 SA]

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)

Joseph Traynor (respondent solicitor)

On 26 January 2010, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he failed, up to the date of referral to this tribunal, in a timely manner or at all, to honour an undertaking given to the complainant by letter dated 22 February 2008, whereby he failed to discharge the mortgage on title in favour of ACC Bank plc from the proceeds of sale of property at Tullydonnell, Ardee, Co Louth, and to furnish a mortgage vacate of the said mortgage, together with a cheque in the sum of €25, in respect of Land Registry fees as soon as possible thereafter.

The tribunal directed:

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

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

c) That the respondent solicitor pay a monetary penalty of €800,000,

d) That the respondent solicitor pay the whole of the costs of the Law Society of Ireland, including witness expenses, to be taxed by a taxing master of the High Court in default of agreement.

The tribunal urged that the papers in respect of this application be forwarded to the Director of Public Prosecutions.

The tribunal directed that the matter be referred forward to the High Court and, on 5 July 2010, the President of the High Court ordered:

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

2) That the respondent solicitor pay the sum of €800,000 as restitution to a named client,

3) That the applicant forward the papers in respect of this application to the Director of Public Prosecutions,

4) That the respondent solicitor surrender his passport forthwith to An Garda Síochána,

5) That the respondent solicitor pay the applicant the costs of the High Court proceedings, together with the costs of the disciplinary tribunal proceedings, to include witness expenses, to be taxed in default of agreement.

In the matter of Joseph Traynor, solicitor, formerly practising as Traynor & Company, Solicitors, 86 Clanbrassil Street, Dundalk, Co Louth, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2008 [5554/DT11/10 and High Court record no 2010 no 55 SA]

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)

Joseph Traynor (respondent solicitor)

On 11 May 2010, 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 given to the complainant on behalf of a named client for property at Lislin, Mullagh, Co Cavan, dated 31 August 2007, in which he undertook to register the mortgage of the complainant in the appropriate registry and to ensure that the lender/complainant obtained a first legal mortgage on the property and, as soon as practical thereafter, to lodge with the lender/complainant all deeds and documents properly stamped and registered as appropriate together with the original mortgage,

b) Failed to reply adequately to the complainant’s correspondence and to the complainant’s solicitors’ correspondence, in particular letters dated 9 December 2008, 9 January 2009, 28 January 2009, 16 February 2009 and 26 February 2009,

c) Failed to adequately respond to the Society’s correspondence, in particular letters dated 5 May 2009 and 20 May 2009,

d) Failed to attend or arrange representation before the Complaints and Client Relations Committee meeting on 9 October 2009, despite being directed to attend.

The tribunal directed:

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

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

c) That the respondent solicitor pay the sum of €570,000 as restitution to Start Mortgages,

d) That the respondent solicitor pay the whole of the costs of the Law Society of Ireland, including witness expenses, to be taxed by a taxing master of the High Court in default of agreement.

The tribunal directed that the matter be referred forward to the High Court and, on 5 July 2010, the President of the High Court ordered:

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

2) That the respondent solicitor pay the sum of €570,000 as restitution to Start Mortgages Limited,

3) That the applicant forward the papers in respect of this application to the Director of Public Prosecutions,

4) That the respondent solicitor surrender his passport forthwith to An Garda Síochána,

5) That the respondent solicitor pay the applicant the costs of the High Court proceedings, together with the costs of the disciplinary tribunal proceedings, to include witness expenses, to be taxed in default of agreement.