Check a Solicitor's Record
The Law Society has a statutory duty to maintain a register of all orders containing findings of misconduct made against solicitors by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal and the High Court.
Any person can apply to the Law Society for a copy of entries on that register that relate to a particular solicitor by submitting a request in writing to the Regulation Department of the Law Society.
The Law Society also has a statutory obligation to publish disciplinary findings against solicitors. The Society has developed a publication policy for this website that is linked to the severity of sanction imposed. This policy provides for the ongoing publication of the most serious sanctions and the publication of less serious findings and related sanctions for specified periods of time.
-
Where the finding includes a sanction to strike the solicitor’s name off the roll of solicitors the order will remain published indefinitely.
-
Where a finding includes an order to suspend the solicitor’s practising certificate the finding will be published for the duration of the period of suspension or three years, whichever is the longer.
-
Where the finding includes a sanction to impose a condition upon a solicitor’s practising certificate that finding will be published for a period of 3 years, or the duration of time specified in the order, whichever is the longer.
-
All other findings of misconduct will be published for a period of three years.
By law, findings of misconduct are made against individual solicitors, not firms of solicitors. SCROLL DOWN to view the search results. To view more details, click on the 'Show Details' link.
Mary Miley
Mary Miley & Co, Solicitors, Brewery Place, Rathdrum, Co Wicklow
In the matter of Mary Miley, solicitor, formerly practising as Mary Miley & Co, Solicitors, at Brewery Place, Rathdrum, Co Wicklow, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2008 [3916/DT18/09 and High Court record 2010 no 8SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Mary Miley (respondent solicitor)
On 17 June 2009, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in her practice as a solicitor in that she:
1) Dishonestly held herself out as a person entitled to practise as a solicitor when she did not hold a current practising certificate,
2) Gave an undertaking to a named firm of solicitors by letter dated 30 August 2007 in circumstances where she did not hold a current practising certificate,
3) Gave an undertaking to a named firm of solicitors by letter dated 18 January 2008 in circumstances where she did not hold a current practising certificate,
4) Failed to reply to correspondence from a named firm of solicitors, dated 15 February 2008, 14 March 2008, 15 May 2008, 15 August 2008 and 4 September 2008,
5) Failed to comply with the undertaking given to a named firm of solicitors, dated 30 August 2007, in a timely manner or at all,
6) Failed to comply with the undertaking given to a named firm of solicitors, dated 18 January 2008, in a timely manner or at all.
The tribunal ordered that the matter go forward to the High Court and, on 18 January 2010, the President of the High Court made the following orders:
1) That the name of the respondent solicitor shall be struck from the Roll of Solicitors,
2) That the respondent solicitor, within 14 days of the making of this order, submit to the Society proposals to the satisfaction of the Society for the orderly disposition of all files and documents, including title deeds, in her possession or control or within her procurement arising from her practice as a solicitor,
3) That the respondent solicitor disclose on affidavit, within 14 days of the making of this order, what files and documents, including title deeds, are in her possession or control or within her procurement arising from her practice as a solicitor and the current whereabouts, or last known whereabouts, of any specific file or documentation or title deeds notified by the Society to her and, in particular, as detailed in the affidavit on behalf of the Society sworn on 21 December 2009,
4) That the respondent solicitor make herself available before the court should the Society so require, on a specified dated and at a specified time, for oral examination under oath in relation to the contents of any affidavit sworn by her pursuant to the order of the court,
5) If necessary, an order pursuant to section 8(1)(c)(v) of the 1960 act, as substituted and amended, that the respondent solicitor forthwith deliver up to the Society’s nominee all files and documents, including title deeds, in her possession or control or within her procurement arising from her practice as a solicitor, which files and documents to be dealt with by the Society pursuant to the provisions of section 19 of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act 1960, as amended by substitution by section 27 of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act 1994,
6) That the respondent solicitor, within 24 hours of the making of this order, surrender her passport to the registrar,
7) That the Law Society do recover for the costs of the proceedings herein and the costs of the proceedings as against the respondent solicitor before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, to be taxed in default of agreement.
Mary Miley
Mary Miley & Co, Solicitors, Brewery Place, Rathdrum, Co Wicklow
In the matter of Mary Miley, solicitor, formerly practising as Mary Miley & Co, Solicitors, at Brewery Place, Rathdrum, Co Wicklow, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2008 [3916/DT39/09 and High Court record 2010 no 3SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Mary Miley (respondent solicitor)
On 16 July 2009, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in her practice as a solicitor in that she:
1) Fraudulently obtained loans for her own personal benefit and use totalling, in or about, €570,000 from Secured Property Loans Ltd (SPL),
2) Fraudulently obtained/fraudulently assisted others to obtain further loans totalling, in or about, €425,000 from SPL,
3) Fraudulently held herself out as a person entitled to practise as a solicitor when she did not hold a practising certificate,
4) Dishonestly obtained a loan of, in or about, €220,000 from SPL on foot of a fraudulent loan application, which was made in her married name, Mary Ann Dore, and which contained false information,
5) Forged or falsified, or permitted to be forged or falsified, employment documentation, namely payslips and P60s, for use in support of the loan application(s) of Mary Ann Dore to SPL,
6) Dishonestly furnished/permitted to be furnished to SPL forged or false employment documentation in support of the loan application of Mary Ann Dore for €220,000, namely payslips in the name of Mary Dore and a P60 in the name of Mary Dore for the year ended 31 December 2005,
7) Forged or falsified, or permitted to be forged or falsified, the personal details page of a passport, or a copy thereof, for use in support of the loan application(s) of Mary Ann Dore,
8) Dishonestly furnished/permitted to be furnished to SPL a copy of a forged or falsified personal details page of a passport in support of the application of Mary Ann Dore for a loan of €220,000,
9) Forged or falsified, or permitted to be forged or falsified ESB bill(s), or copies thereof, for use in support of the loan application(s) of Mary Ann Dore,
10) Dishonestly furnished/permitted to be furnished to SPL a copy of a forged or false ESB bill in support of the loan application of Mary Ann Dore for a loan of €220,000,
11) Forged or falsified, or permitted to be forged or falsified, AIB Bank statements for use in support of the loan application(s) of Mary Ann Dore,
12) Dishonestly furnished/permitted to be furnished to SPL a forged or falsified AIB Bank Statement in support of the loan application of Mary Ann Dore for a loan of €220,000,
13) Forged or falsified, or permitted to be forged or falsified, a notification of grant of planning permission by Wexford County Council Planning Authority (no 20043915), or a copy thereof, for use in support of a loan application by Mary Ann Dore,
14) Dishonestly furnished/permitted to be furnished to SPL a copy of a forged or falsified notification of grant of planning permission in support of the loan application of Mary Ann Dore for a loan of €220,000,
15) Dishonestly failed to disclose to SPL that she and Mary Ann Dore were one and the same person and deliberately misled SPL and caused SPL to believe that she and Mary Ann Dore were separate individuals by completing/permitting the completion of loan applications in the name of Mary Ann Dore and purportedly acting as solicitor, in the name of Mary Miley, for the said Mary Ann Dore and fraudulently advising SPL that she had provided Mary Ann Dore with independent legal advice,
16) Fraudulently signed a solicitors certificate, which was furnished to SPL dated 7 July 2007, confirming that she had independently advised her client Mary Ann Dore (that is, herself),
17) Dishonestly signed, in the capacity of a witness to the signature of Mary Dore (that is, herself), a letter from Mary Dore to SPL dated 7 July 2006 confirming that Mary Dore had been provided with independent legal advice from Mary Miley with regard to the loan of €220,000 to be provided by SPL, which said letter was furnished to SPL,
18) Failed to comply with an undertaking dated 7 July 2006 given by her to SPL by which she, among other things, undertook to register a first charge in the name of SPL over the property provided as security for the loan of €220,000 to Mary Ann Dore,
19) Fraudulently stated in her undertaking dated 7 July 2006 to SPL that the title to the property offered as security for the loan was good and marketable and might be safely accepted by SPL, in circumstances where she knew that the borrower of the loan (that is, herself) did not have title to the property,
20) Fraudulently undertook to register, by way of security for the loan of €220,000 to Mary Ann Dore, a first charge in the name of SPL over a property at Co Wexford registered under folio 10374F, which said folio did not relate to the property being provided as security for the loan and further dishonestly signed a loan commitment letter issued by SPL to Mary Ann Dore that stated that the borrower, Mary Ann Dore, was the sole owner of a property registered under folio 10374F, knowing that this was untrue,
21) Dishonestly obtained a loan of €350,000 from SPL on foot of a fraudulent loan application, which was made in her married name, Mary Ann Dore, and which contained false information,
22) Dishonestly furnished/permitted to be furnished to SPL a copy of a forged or falsified personal details page of a passport in support of the application of Mary Ann Dore for a loan of €350,000,
23) Dishonestly furnished/permitted to be furnished to SPL forged or false employment documentation in support of the loan application of Mary Ann Dore for €350,000, namely payslips in the name of Mary Dore and two P60 forms in the name of Mary Dore for years ended 31 December 2005 and 31 December 2006,
24) Dishonestly furnished/permitted to be furnished to SPL a copy of a forged or falsified ESB bill in support of the loan application of Mary Ann Dore for a loan of €350,000,
25) Dishonestly furnished/permitted to be furnished to SPL a forged or falsified AIB Bank statement in support of the loan application of Mary Ann Dore for a loan of €350,000,
26) Fraudulently undertook to register, by way of security for the loan of €350,000 to Mary Ann Dore, a first charge in the name of SPL over property being part transferred from folio 20460F, which was registered to a named person, and further dishonestly signed a loan commitment letter issued by SPL to Mary Ann Dore that stated that the borrower, Mary Ann Dore, was sole owner of a property being part transferred from folio 20460F Wexford, knowing that same was not true,
27) Dishonestly signed, in the capacity of a witness to the signature of Mary Dore (that is, herself), a customer care booklet on 1 November 2007 declaring “I/we have not made any false statements to Secured Property Limited or omitted any matters that would affect the granting of a loan to myself/ourselves”, knowing the said declaration to be untrue,
28) Fraudulently furnished a solicitors certificate to SPL dated 1 November 2007 confirming that she had independently advised her client Mary Ann Dore (that is, herself),
29) Dishonestly signed, in the capacity of a witness to the signature of Mary Dore (that is, herself), a letter from Mary Dore to SPL dated 1 November 2007 confirming that Mary Dore had been provided with independent legal advice from Mary Miley with regard to the loan of €350,000 to be provided by SPL, which said letter was furnished to SPL,
30) Dishonestly furnished a solicitors certificate to SPL dated 1 November 2007 confirming that she had independently advised her client Mary Ann Dore (that is, herself),
31) Dishonestly furnished a solicitors certificate to SPL dated 1 November 2007, at which date she did not hold a current practising certificate,
32) Failed to comply with an undertaking dated 1 November 2007 given by her to SPL by which she, among other things, undertook to register a first charge in the name of SPL over a property provided as security for the loan of €350,000 to Mary Ann Dore and further undertook to execute a partial transfer of land from folio 20460F Co Wexford into a newly created Land Registry Folio at her earliest opportunity,
33) Fraudulently gave a solicitors undertaking dated 1 November 2007 when she did not hold a current practising certificate for that year, and which said undertaking stated that she was a solicitor licensed to practise in Ireland and a member of the firm of Mary Miley & Co,
34) Fraudulently obtained/fraudulently assisted in the obtaining of loan moneys of €55,000 from SPL,
35) Caused or permitted an application to be submitted to SPL for a loan in the amount of €55,000 to a named person, which contained false information and was accompanied by a forged or falsified valuation of the property being provided as security for the loan,
36) Failed to comply with an undertaking dated 25 January 2007 given by her to SPL by which she, among other things, undertook to register a first charge in the name of SPL over a property provided as security for the loan of €55,000 to a named person,
37) Fraudulently gave a solicitors undertaking dated 25 January 2007 when she did not hold a current practising certificate for that year and which said undertaking stated that she was a solicitor licensed to practise in Ireland and a member of the firm of Mary Miley & Co,
38) Fraudulently furnished a solicitors certificate to SPL dated 25 January 2007, at which date she did not hold a current practising certificate,
39) Fraudulently obtained/fraudulently assisted in the obtaining of loan moneys of €150,000 from SPL,
40) Caused or permitted an application to be submitted to SPL for a loan in the amount of €150,000 to a named person, which contained false information and was accompanied by a forged or falsified valuation of the property being provided as security for the loan,
41) Failed to comply with an undertaking dated 5 March 2007 given by her to SPL by which she, among other things, undertook to register a second charge in the name of SPL over a property provided as security for the loan of €150,000 to a named person,
42) Fraudulently gave a solicitors undertaking dated 5 March 2007 when she did not hold a current practising certificate for that year and which said undertaking stated that she was a solicitor licensed to practise in Ireland and a member of the firm of Mary Miley & Company,
43) Fraudulently furnished a solicitors certificate to SPL dated 5 March 2007, at which date she did not hold a current practising certificate,
44) Fraudulently obtained/fraudulently assisted in the obtaining of loan moneys of €220,000 from SPL on or about 7 February 2008,
45) Caused or permitted an application to be submitted to SPL for a loan in the amount of €220,000 to a named person, which contained false information,
46) Caused or permitted an application to be submitted to SPL for a loan in the amount of €220,000 to a named person, which was accompanied by a copy of a forged or falsified driving licence,
47) Caused or permitted an application to be submitted to SPL for a loan in the amount of €220,000 to a named person, which was accompanied by forged or false supporting employment documentation, namely a P60 and payslips,
48) Dishonestly gave an undertaking dated 5 February 2008 to SPL stating that the property being provided as security for the loan to her client was at Wicklow Town, Co Wicklow, registered under stated folio number Co Wicklow and undertaking to register a first charge in the name of SPL over same, in circumstances where she knew/ought to have known that the property was not owned by the said client,
49) Fraudulently gave a solicitors undertaking dated 5 February 2008 when she did not hold a current practising certificate for that year and which said undertaking stated that she was a solicitor licensed to practise in Ireland,
50) Dishonestly furnished a solicitors certificate to SPL dated 5 February 2008, at which date she did not hold a current practising certificate,
51) Failed to comply with an undertaking dated 5 February 2008 given by her to SPL by which she undertook, among other things, to register a first charge in the name of SPL over a property provided as security for the loan of €220,000 to a named client,
52) Failed to obtain run-off cover for the years 2007 and 2008, as required by the Professional Indemnity Insurance Regulations 1995 (SI 312/1995), having ceased practice at the end of December 2006.
The tribunal ordered that the matter go forward to the High Court and, on 18 January 2010, the President of the High Court made the following orders:
1) That the name of the respondent solicitor shall be struck from the Roll of Solicitors,
2) That the respondent solicitor do make restitution to Secured Property Loans Limited in the amount of €1.25 million,
3) That the respondent solicitor, within seven days of the making of this order, submit to the Society proposals to the satisfaction of the Society for the orderly disposition of all files and documents, including title deeds, in her possession or control or within her procurement arising from her practice as a solicitor,
4) That the respondent solicitor disclose on affidavit, within 14 days of the making of this order, what files and documents, including title deeds, are in her possession or control or within her procurement arising from her practice as a solicitor and the current whereabouts, or last known whereabouts, of any specific file or documentation or title deeds notified by the Society to her and, in particular, as detailed in the affidavit on behalf of the Society sworn on 21 December 2009 and filed on 6 January 2010,
5) That the respondent solicitor make herself available before the court should the Society so require, on a specified date and at a specified time, for oral examination under oath in relation to the contents of any affidavit sworn by her pursuant to the order of the court,
6) If necessary, an order pursuant to section 8(1)(c)(v) of the 1960 act, as substituted and amended, that the respondent solicitor forthwith deliver up to the Society’s nominee all files and documents, including title deeds, in her possession or control or within her procurement arising from her practice as a solicitor, which files and documents to be dealt with by the Society pursuant to the provisions of section 19 of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act 1960, as amended by substitution by section 27 of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act 1994,
7) That the respondent solicitor, within 24 hours of the making of this order, surrender her passport to the Registrar of the High Court,
8) That the Law Society do recover the costs of the proceedings herein and the costs of the proceedings before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal as against the respondent, to be taxed in default of agreement,
9) That the Registrar of the High Court do refer the papers in the matter to the Director of Public Prosecutions to enquire into the matters contained therein.
Mary Miley
Mary Miley & Co, Solicitors, Brewery Place, Rathdrum, Co Wicklow
In the matter of Mary Miley, solicitor, formerly practising as Mary Miley & Co, Solicitors, at Brewery Place, Rathdrum, Co Wicklow, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2008 [3916/DT49/09 and High Court record 2010 no 7SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Mary Miley (respondent solicitor)
On 22 September 2009, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in her practice as a solicitor in that she:
1) Failed to respond satisfactorily to the complainant’s correspondence requesting a comprehensive statement of account, properly vouched, in respect of the disbursement of funds of in or around €86,620.09 received by her on behalf of her former client,
2) Failed, up to the expiration of the stay of 21 days imposed by the committee on 20 June 2007, to provide a comprehensive statement of account, properly vouched, in respect of the disbursement of funds of in or around €86,620.09 received by her on behalf of her former client to the complainant.
The tribunal ordered that the matter go forward to the High Court and, on 18 January 2010, the President of the High Court made the following orders:
1) That the name of the respondent solicitor shall be struck from the Roll of Solicitors,
2) That the respondent solicitor, within 14 days of the making of this order, submit to the Society proposals to the satisfaction of the Society for the orderly disposition of all files and documents, including title deeds, in her possession or control or within her procurement arising from her practice as a solicitor,
3) That the respondent solicitor disclose on affidavit, within 14 days of the making of this order, what files and documents, including title deeds, are in her possession or control or within her procurement arising from her practice as a solicitor and the current whereabouts, or last known whereabouts, of any specific file or documentation or title deeds notified by the Society to her and, in particular, as detailed in the affidavit on behalf of the Society sworn on 21 December 2009,
4) That the respondent solicitor make herself available before the court should the Society so require, on a specified date and at a specified time, for oral examination under oath in relation to the contents of any affidavit sworn by her pursuant to the order of the court,
5) If necessary, an order pursuant to section 8(1)(c)(v) of the 1960 act, as substituted and amended, that the respondent solicitor forthwith deliver up to the Society’s nominee all files and documents, including title deeds, in her possession or control or within her procurement arising from her practice as a solicitor, which files and documents to be dealt with by the Society pursuant to the provisions of section 19 of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act 1960, as amended by substitution by section 27 of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act 1994,
6) That the respondent solicitor, within 24 hours of the making of this order, surrender her passport to the registrar,
7) That the Law Society do recover for the costs of the proceedings herein and the costs of the proceedings as against the respondent solicitor before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, to be taxed in default of agreement.
Gerard Corcoran
James H Powell & Son, Solicitors, at East Green, Dunmanway, Co Cork
In the matter of Gerard Corcoran, a solicitor previously carrying on practice as James H Powell & Son, Solicitors, at East Green, Dunmanway, Co Cork, and in the matter of the
Solicitors Acts 1954 to 2008 [5559/DT22/09 and High Court record 2009 no 110SA]Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Gerard Corcoran (respondent solicitor)
On 17 November 2009, 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 deficit of €340,645 to occur on the client account as of 31 July 2008,
b) Failed to maintain proper books of account, with the result that the books of account did not show the true clients’ funds position as of 31 July 2008,
c) Misappropriated clients’ money totalling €337,962 as of 31 July 2008,
d) Concealed his misappropriation of clients’ money through teeming and lading in the books of account,
e) Initially denied that he had borrowed or taken clients’ money (before subsequently going on to disclose that he had misappropriated clients’ money),
f) Incorrectly took client’s money of €96,500 from a named client’s ledger account to another client’s ledger account where it helped to partly clear a debit balance of €152,495.10 on another client’s ledger account and, as a result, left a shortfall of €96,500 on the named client’s ledger account,
g) Subsequently incorrectly took the sum of €93,816.69 from another named client’s ledger account and used it to clear part of the shortfall on the client ledger account of the client mentioned at (f),
h) Incorrectly caused a debit balance of €81,013.08 on the client’s ledger account mentioned at (g) when he transferred the above sum of €93,816.69 therefrom,
i) Caused transfers to be made between accounts in the clients’ ledger without maintaining supporting documents to enable the transfers to be appropriately vouched, in breach of the regulations,
j) Caused entries in the books of accounts to be backdated from March 2008 to October 2007, with the result that a debit balance of approximately €337,000 on the ledger account of a named client was concealed.
The tribunal ordered the Society to bring the matter forward to the High Court and, on Monday 11 January 2010, the President of the High Court ordered:
1) That the respondent solicitor should not be permitted to practise as a sole practitioner or in partnership, that he be permitted only to practise as an assistant solicitor or consultant in the employment and under the direct control and supervision of another solicitor of at least ten years’ standing, to be approved in advance by the Law Society of Ireland,
2) That the Law Society do recover the costs of the proceedings in the High Court and the costs of the proceedings before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, to include witness expenses as against the respondent when taxed or ascertained.
Michael Gleasure
Michael Gleasure & Co, Solicitors, 7 Maine Street, Tralee, Co Kerry
In the matter of Michael Gleasure, a solicitor formerly practising as Michael Gleasure & Co, Solicitors, 7 Maine Street, Tralee, Co Kerry, and in the matter of the
Solicitors Acts 1954-2008 [6697/DT80/08 and High Court record no 2009 no 107 SA]Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Michael Gleasure (respondent solicitor)
On 8 October 2009, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:
a) Misappropriated client funds by improperly transferring monies from the client account to the office account and, in particular, improperly transferred monies from the client account to the office account in circumstances where he had failed to furnish fee notes and where there was no evidence of work done to justify the transfer of funds in respect of fees,
b) Misappropriated monies totalling in or about €18,150 from the client ledger account of a named client by improperly transferring monies in or about that amount to the office account,
c) Misappropriated monies totalling in or about €42,670 from the client account of named clients by improperly transferring monies in or about that amount to the office account,
d) Misappropriated monies totalling in or about €50,820 from the client deposit account of a named client by improperly withdrawing monies in or about that amount from the client deposit account,
e) Improperly withdrew monies totalling in or about €11,154 (or a part thereof) from the client account of a named client,
f) Failed to apply monies received to the credit of named clients for the purpose for which they were received, namely, failed to discharge the balance due to redeem capital on an outstanding loan and misapplied the said monies, or a part thereof, by improperly transferring the sum of in or about €7,865 from the client account to the office account,
g) Misappropriated the sum of in or about €8,470 from the client account of named clients by improperly transferring monies in or about that amount to the office account,
h) Misappropriated monies from the client account of named clients by converting monies received for payment of stamp duty and land registry fees to his own use by transferring monies totalling in or about €3,628.79 from the client account to the office account,
i) Misappropriated funds of in or about €3,630 from the client ledger account of named clients by way of an allocation of a payment previously made out of the client account in the amount of €1,210 to the client ledger account of the above named clients, together with a further transfer from their client ledger account to the office account of €2,420,
j) Misappropriated monies from the client account of a named client by improperly transferring monies to the office account such that the sum of in or about €95,462 remained on the client ledger as at 29 August 2006, in circumstances where a balance of in or about €100,519 was due to the client,
k) Misappropriated monies totalling in or about €3,025 from the client account of a named client by improperly transferring monies in or about that amount to the office account,
l) By his acts, caused a deficit in funds payable to and/or on behalf of clients of his former practice, by the compensation fund of the Society, as at 28 August 2008, of in or about €116,112.66,
m) Improperly transferred monies from deposits received in conveyancing matters from the client account to the office account,
n) Breached regulation 7 of the Solicitors’ Accounts Regulations 2001 (SI no 421 of 2001) by withdrawing monies from the client account that were not properly available to be so withdrawn in accordance with the provisions of that regulation,
o) Breached regulation 11 of the Solicitors’ Accounts Regulations 2001 by failing to furnish bills of costs in accordance with the provisions of that regulation.
The tribunal directed that:
i) The respondent solicitor is not a fit person to be a member of the solicitors’ 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 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 14 December 2009, the President of the High Court ordered that:
1) The respondent solicitor is not a fit person to be a member of the solicitors’ profession,
2) The name of the respondent solicitor shall be struck from the Roll of Solicitors,
3) The Law Society do recover the costs of the proceedings herein and the costs of the proceedings before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal as against the respondent when taxed or ascertained.
Joan Quinn
Quinn & Co, Solicitors, at 23A The Village Green, Tallaght, Dublin 24
In the matter of Joan Quinn, a solicitor formerly practising as Quinn & Co, Solicitors, at 23A The Village Green, Tallaght, Dublin 24, and in the matter of the
Solicitors Acts 1954-2008 [6646/DT25/09 and High Court Record 2009 no 82 SA]Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Joan Quinn (respondent solicitor)
On 9 June 2009, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in her practice as a solicitor in that she:
a) Caused and allowed a deficit on the client account to arise in the sum of €918,060 as at 4 February 2008,
b) Permitted a deficit on the client account to arise due to unallocated transfers to office account of €722,263 and caused and allowed a debit balance in the sum of €195,797,
c) Caused claims in the sum of €937,576.33 to be paid from the compensation fund,
d) Caused a net sum of €303,076, after taking account of recoveries of €634,500, to be paid from the compensation fund,
e) Caused and permitted transfers from client account to office account without there being any valid reason or invoice to transfer the said money, and in doing so breached regulation 7(i)(ii) and regulation 7(i)(iii),
f) Permitted a debit balance to arise on the estate of a deceased named client of €195,797, in breach of regulation 7(2),
g) Caused a debit balance to appear on the estate of a deceased named client by paying out two cheques in the sum of €225,000 each to an executor,
h) Caused and permitted fees, not invoiced, to be held in the client account amounting to the sum of €255,038, which were originally not invoiced and posted to the books of account, in breach of regulation 5(2)(c).
The tribunal directed:
i) That the respondent solicitor is not a fit person to be a member of the solicitors’ profession,
ii) That the name of the respondent solicitor be struck off the Roll of Solicitors.
The tribunal directed that the matter be referred forward to the High Court and, on 12 October 2009, the President of the High Court ordered:
1) That the name of the respondent solicitor shall be struck from the Roll of Solicitors,
2) The court made no order as to the costs of the proceedings herein.
John Duffy
John Duffy & Co, Solicitors, Main Street, Monasterevin, Co Kildare
In the matter of John Duffy, a solicitor formerly practising as John Duffy & Co, Solicitors, at Main Street, Monasterevin, Co Kildare, and in the matter of the
Solicitors Acts 1954-2008 [7660/DT01/09 and High Court record 2009 no 87 SA]Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
John Duffy (respondent solicitor)
On 17 June 2009, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:
a) Falsely represented by letter dated 19 February 2007 that a deposit of €7 million had been paid on behalf of a named client to the respondent solicitor to act as a deposit for the sale of the shares in a named limited liability company to the above-mentioned named client in circumstances where no such sum was in fact paid by the named client,
b) Falsely represented by letter dated 19 February 2007 that a deposit of €7 million had been paid on behalf of a named client to the respondent solicitor to act as a deposit for the sale of the shares in a named limited liability company to the above-mentioned named client in circumstances where no such sum was in fact paid by the named client and in circumstances where that letter was furnished as security to a named third-party financial institution in order to secure a loan for a named limited liability company in the sum of €8.825 million,
c) Falsely represented to a named third-party financial institution by email dated 19 July 2007 that he had served a notice on a named client threatening to forfeit the deposit if the sale was not closed by return in circumstances where he had not served such a notice,
d) Falsely represented, by implication, to a named third-party financial institution by email dated 19 July 2007 that he continued to hold a deposit in the sum of €7 million that had been paid on behalf of a named client to the respondent solicitor to act as a deposit for the sale of the shares in a named limited liability company to the above-mentioned named client in circumstances where no such sum was in fact paid by the named client,
e) Falsely represented, by implication, to a named third-party financial institution by email dated 7 November 2007 that he continued to hold a deposit in the sum of €7 million that had been paid on behalf of a named client to the respondent solicitor to act as a deposit for the sale of the shares in a named limited liability company to the above-mentioned named client in circumstances where no such sum was in fact paid by the named client,
f) Falsely represented to a named firm of solicitors, solicitors for a named third-party financial institution, by letter dated 13 November 2007, that he continued to hold a deposit in the sum of €7 million that had been paid on behalf of a named client to the respondent solicitor to act as a deposit for the sale of the shares in a named limited liability company to the above-mentioned named client in circumstances where no such sum was in fact paid by the named client,
g) Falsely represented to another named firm of solicitors, solicitors for the receiver, by telephone conversation dated 31 January 2008, that he continued to hold a deposit in the sum of €7 million in his client account, which had been paid on behalf of the same named client to the respondent solicitor to act as a deposit for the sale of the shares in a named limited liability company to the above-mentioned named client in circumstances where he did not hold such funds.
The tribunal directed that:
i) The respondent solicitor is not a fit person to be a member of the solicitors’ 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, including witnesses’ expenses, to be taxed in default of agreement.
The tribunal directed that the matter be referred forward to the High Court and, on 12 October 2009, the President of the High Court ordered:
1) That the respondent solicitor is not a fit person to be a member of the solicitors’ profession,
2) That the name of the respondent solicitor shall be struck from the Roll of Solicitors,
3) That the Law Society do recover the costs of the proceedings herein and the costs of the proceedings before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal to include witness expenses as against the respondent when taxed or ascertained.
Ciaran R Callan
Callan & Company, Solicitors, River Bank House, Dodder Park Drive, Dublin 14
In the matter of Ciaran R Callan, a solicitor formerly practising as Callan & Company, Solicitors, River Bank House, Dodder Park Drive, Dublin 14, and in the matter of the
Solicitors Acts 1954-2008 [4316/DT09/08 and High Court record no 2009 no 73 SA]Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Ciaran R Callan (respondent solicitor)
On 25 June 2008, 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 contained in a letter dated 13 June 2002, whereby he undertook to furnish a certificate of title and title documents to a named property formerly belonging to a named client, deceased, to the complainant’s client, a named financial institution,
b) Failed to honour an undertaking given to the Complaints and Client Relations Committee on 12 September 2007, whereby he undertook to send a written report by 5 October 2007 to the Society regarding the current position as to his compliance with the undertaking given to the complainant.
The tribunal directed 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 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 13 July 2009, 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 Law Society do recover the costs of the proceedings herein and the costs of the proceedings before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal as against the respondent when taxed or ascertained.
Ciaran R Callan
Callan & Company, Solicitors, River Bank House, Dodder Park Drive, Dublin 14
In the matter of Ciaran R Callan, a solicitor formerly practising as Callan & Company, Solicitors, River Bank House, Dodder Park Drive, Dublin 14, and in the matter of the
Solicitors Acts 1954-2008 [4316/DT07/08 and High Court record no 2009 no 72 SA]Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Ciaran R Callan (respondent solicitor)
On 25 June 2008, 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 in letter dated 11 January 2000, whereby he undertook to deal with all reasonable Land Registry queries in relation to a transaction involving a named property for a named client,
b) Failed to honour an undertaking given to the Complaints and Client Relations Committee on 12 September 2007, whereby he undertook to send a written report by 5 October 2007 to the Society regarding the current position as to his compliance with the undertaking given by him to the complainant,
c) Misled the Society in a telephone conversation on 12 July 2007, informing the Society that the matter was resolved, when it was not,
d) Misled the Society in a letter dated 19 July 2007, stating that the deed was re-executed, whereas it still required a second signature.
The tribunal recommended that:
a) The respondent solicitor is not a fit and proper 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 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 13 July 2009, 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 Law Society do recover the costs of the proceedings herein and the costs of the proceedings before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal as against the respondent when taxed or ascertained.
Ciaran R Callan
Callan & Company, Solicitors, River Bank House, Dodder Park Drive, Dublin 14
In the matter of Ciaran R Callan, a solicitor formerly practising as Callan & Company, Solicitors, River Bank House, Dodder Park Drive, Dublin 14, and in the matter of the
Solicitors Acts 1954-2008 [4316/DT79/08 and High Court record no 2009 no 78 SA]Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Ciaran R Callan (respondent solicitor)
On 12 March 2009, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:
a) Admitted an estimated deficit of €1,900,000 to exist on the client account as at 12 November 2007,
b) Failed to keep proper books of accounts in compliance with regulation 12(1) of the Solicitors’ Accounts Regulations 2001,
c) Failed to kept such proper books of account, in compliance with regulation 12(2) of the Solicitors’ Accounts Regulations 2001, that would show the true financial position in relation to each client and the monetary transactions of the client,
d) Failed to keep the minimum books of accounts, in breach of regulation 20 of the Solicitors’ Accounts Regulations 2001, including failing to keep cash books showing all monies received and paid on behalf of each client, failing to keep proper office and client ledgers, failing to keep a proper record of all monies as lodged, failing to keep a record of all monies transferred between ledger accounts, failing to keep copies of each draft obtained in connection with any client matters, failing to keep copies of each bill of costs furnished to clients,
e) Failed to keep the books of account written up to date in breach of the regulations,
f) Transferred monies between the ledger accounts of different clients, in breach of regulation 9 of the Solicitors’ Accounts Regulations 2001, so as to conceal the underlying deficit he created in the client accounts,
g) Caused a deficit to arise on client accounts by paying monies to clients where funds were not held for those clients, in breach of regulation 7(2)(b), and caused debit balances to arise,
h) Failed to prepare balancing statements on client accounts within two months of the balancing date, in breach of regulation 12(7),
i) Failed to prepare balancing statement on office account within two months of the end of the accounting year,
j) Transferred monies for outlays not yet disbursed to office account, in breach of regulation 7(1)(a)(ii),
k) Failed to maintain proper books of account and caused fundamental errors to arise on the books of accounts, thus discrediting the reliability of the accounting records as at 30 April 2006 and earlier dates due to errors found on ledger cards as detailed in appendix 1 to the interim investigation report dated 15 March 2007,
l) Overstatement of client balances in Leixlip office of €288,000 and overstatement of client balances in Ennis office of €11,000,
m) Failed to stamp and register deeds on certain client files, despite being put in funds to carry out stamping and registration of deeds. The respondent solicitor failed to stamp and register deeds on the following files: i) File C/16/04 for the sum of €8,400, (ii) File M/13/05 stamp duty due €43,410, (iii) File B/11/05 stamp duty due €31,125, (iv) File P/4/05 stamp duty due €223,200, (v) File Leixlip T/1/06 stamp duty due €39,600.
The tribunal directed:
a) That the respondent solicitor is not a fit and proper 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, 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 13 July 2009, the President of the High Court ordered:
1) That the name of the respondent solicitor shall be struck from the Roll of Solicitors,
2) That the Law Society do recover the costs of the proceedings herein and the costs of the proceedings before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal as against the respondent when taxed or ascertained.
