In the matter of Michael T Petty, a solicitor formerly of M Petty & Company, Solicitors, Parliament Street, Ennistymon, Co Clare, and in the matter of the

Solicitors Acts 1954-2002 [3387/DT21/07 and High Court record no 3SA 2008]

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Michael T Petty (respondent solicitor)

On 27 November 2007, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:
a) Failed to comply with an undertaking given to the complainant that he would deal with outstanding Land Registry queries, which undertaking was given at the time of closing of the sale in 1994, in a timely manner or at all,
b) Failed to respond to the Society’s correspondence, and in particular the Society’s letters of 19 July 2006, 1 August 2006, 10 August 2006, 13 September 2006, 20 October 2006, 13 November 2006 and 11 December 2006 in a timely manner or at all,
c) Failed to respond to correspondence from the complainant to him in connection with the outstanding undertaking,
which correspondence spanned a number of years.

The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal ordered that the Law Society of Ireland do bring such findings of the tribunal in respect of the respondent solicitor before the High Court, together with the report of the tribunal to the High Court, which report includes the opinion of the tribunal as to the fitness or otherwise of the respondent solicitor to be a member of the solicitors’ profession, having regard to their findings and the recommendations of the tribunal as to the sanction that should be imposed, having regard to their findings in respect of the respondent solicitor.

On 10 March 2008, the President of the High Court ordered, pursuant to section 8 of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act 1960 (as substituted by section 18 of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act 1994 and amended by section 9 of the Solicitors(Amendment) Act 2002), that:
1) The respondent solicitor shall 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,
2) The respondent solicitor do deliver to Marian Petty, solicitor, all or any documents, files and papers in his possession or within his procurement arising from his practice as a solicitor, including all ledger cards and funds held for or on behalf of clients’ files,
3) The Law Society do recover the cost of the proceedings herein and the cost of the proceedings before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal.

THE HIGH COURT 2006

No 7 SA

In the matter of Thomas Flood, solicitor, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954 to 2002

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Thomas Flood (respondent solicitor)

On 6 March 2006, the president of the High Court, having considered and noted the solicitor’s previous disciplinary findings, ordered:
1) That the name of the respondent solicitor be struck off the Roll of Solicitors;
2) That the ICS Bank and Ulster Bank shall furnish any information in its possession that the Society may
require relating to any aspect of the financial affairs of the practice of the solicitor, with liberty to the Society to apply to the court for further orders relating to specified banks if necessary;
3) That the respondent solicitor swear an affidavit disclosing all information as to his assets, either in his possession or control or within his procurement, that have been, but are no longer, in his possession, control or within his procurement, and if no longer in his possession or control or within his procurement, his belief as to the present whereabouts of those assets, such affidavit to be sworn within four weeks of the date of this order;
4) That the respondent solicitor do pay to the applicant the costs of this application and the costs of the proceedings before the Disciplinary Tribunal, such costs to be taxed in default of agreement.

The president had before him the report of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal dated 27 September 2005. The tribunal had found that there had been misconduct on the part of the respondent solicitor in respect of the following complaints:
a) Up to the swearing of the Society’s affidavit, the respondent solicitor failed to register his clients as owners of their property, which was purchased in 1998, in a timely manner or at all;
b) Failed to respond to correspondence from his clients and to explain the failure to register the said property in a timely manner or at all;
c) In his letter of 5 November 2002 to his clients, inferred that their deed had been stamped when this was not in fact the position;
d) Misled the Registrar’s Committee on 17 December 2003 by telling them that duty had been paid on the deed when this was not in fact the position;
e) Failed to comply with an undertaking given to the Registrar’s Committee on 17 December 2003 to assist the clients’ new solicitor in rectifying the matter;
f) Failed to respond to correspondence from the Society, and in particular the Society’s letters dated 27 November 2003, 4 December 2003, 19 December 2003, 19 January 2004, 25 February 2004, 21 April 2004, 10 May 2004 and 30 July 2004;
g) Failed to comply with the direction made by the Registrar’s Committee at its meeting on 24 March 2004 that he make a contribution of €500 towards the complainant’s new solicitor’s costs.

Record no 2005 no 36 SA

In the matter of Sean Bourke, a solicitor practising as Sean Bourke, 29 Upper Fitzwilliam Street, Dublin 2, and in the matter of the

Solicitors Acts 1954-2002

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Sean Bourke (respondent solicitor)

On 11 July 2005, the president of the High Court ordered:
1) That the name of Sean Bourke, the respondent solicitor, be struck off the roll of solicitors;
2) That the respondent solicitor do pay to the applicant the costs of the proceedings before the Disciplinary Tribunal and also the costs of and incident to the society’s motion and order, to be taxed in default of agreement, and that execution on foot of said order be stayed for a period of six months from the date of the order;
3) That the respondent solicitor do pay to the complainants named in the application to the High Court the costs of rectifying their title to the premises named in the application – said costs to be taxed in default of agreement
4) Liberty to apply.

The president had before him the report of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal dated 4 May 2005. The tribunal had found that there had been misconduct on the part of the respondent solicitor in respect of the following complaints for the following reasons:
a) Failed to stamp and register the purchase document of his clients in a timely fashion;
b) Retained and did not submit to the Revenue a ‘particulars delivered’ form completed by the vendor’s solicitor and showing that the date of the conveyance was 6 October 2000;
c) Incorrectly dated the deed 16 October 2002 to avoid the imposition of interest and penalties by the Revenue Commissioners;
d) Misled the society in a letter dated 24 April 2003, in which he represented that the deed of conveyance had been “fully stamped” when it had not;
e) Failed to make full disclosure to his former clients in relation to his failure to properly stamp and register their title deed;
f) Engaged in correspondence with the society which was disingenuous and calculated to conceal his own default in relation to the stamping and registration of his clients’ deed;
g) Failed to take steps to remedy the situation up to the date of the swearing of the affidavit of the society, sworn the 7 October 2003.

In the matter of Raymond Jameson, solicitor, practising as Jameson & Company, Fitzwilliam Square, Wicklow, and in the matter of the

Solicitors Acts, 1954-2002 [6806/DT436]

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Raymond Jameson (respondent solicitor)

On 24 September 2004, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found that the respondent solicitor was guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that had:
a) Failed to file an accountant’s report with the Law Society of Ireland within six months of his accounting date of 30 April 2002, in breach of regulation 21(1) of the Solicitors’ Accounts Regulations no 2 of 1984
b) Created multiple debit balances, in breach of regulation 7(2)(a) of the Solicitors’ Accounts Regulations 2001
c) Maintained books of accounts that were six months in arrears, in breach of regulation 12(2)(a) of the Solicitors’ Accounts Regulations 2001
d) Failed to comply with one of the conditions laid down by the Compensation Fund Committee on 10 July 2003, which was a prerequisite for the granting of an adjournment in that he failed to clear the deficit on his client account within seven days
e) Allowed a representation to be made in a letter to the society dated 2 September 2003 that the deficit identified by his reporting accountant had been cleared when it had not
f) Failed to discharge a further deficit of €238,739 by close of business on 2 September 2003, notwithstanding the representation made to the society to this effect in a letter to the society dated 2 September 2003
g) Failed to retain a deposit of £6,000 received in March 2000 until October 2001 when the sale closed
h) Used other client monies to pay expenses and the beneficiaries of an estate
i) Created a debit balance in relation to the client account of the estate in the amount of £60,000 or €76,184.24, in breach of regulation 7(2)(a) of the Solicitors’ Accounts Regulations no 2 of 1984
j) Lodged sale proceeds of €76,184.28 relating to a named estate (being the euro equivalent of £60,000), being client monies, to the office account in February 2002, in breach of regulation 4(1) and regulation 6(4)(a) of the Solicitors’ Accounts Regulations 2001
k) Failed to hold the deposit received in respect of the above sale until the transaction was closed
l) Used other client monies totalling €108,014.69 to make a distribution in a named estate on 6 December 2002
m) Advanced other client monies totalling €333,000 to a client builder on 14 April 2003
n) Failed to create and maintain a ledger account for his client builder, in breach of regulation 12(1) and (2)of the Solicitors’ Accounts Regulations 2001
o) Advanced other client monies of €146,027 to the vendor of a property on behalf of his client purchaser
p) Was six months in arrears with the writing-up of the client account, in breach of regulation 12(2)(a) of the Solicitors’ Accounts Regulations 2001
q) Retained a number of old balances on the client ledger account, which included fees, in breach of regulation 5(2) and 5(4) of the Solicitors’ Accounts Regulations 2001
r) Failed to maintain separate ledger accounts for each client matter, in breach of regulation 12(3)(a) of the Solicitors’ Accounts Regulations 2001
s) Failed to procure from his bank the return of paid cheques drawn on the client account, in breach of regulation 20(1)(f) of the Solicitors’ Accounts Regulations 2001.

The tribunal reported to the High Court, and on 29 November 2004 the president of the High Court ordered that:
i) The name of the respondent solicitor be struck off the roll of solicitors
ii) The respondent solicitor do make delivery to any person appointed by the applicant of all or any of the documents in the possession, control or within the procurement of the solicitor arising from his practice as a solicitor
iii)The respondent solicitor do pay to the applicant the costs of the application and the costs of the proceedings before the Disciplinary Tribunal, such costs to be taxed in default of agreement.

In the matter of Damian P Moynihan and Sean A Mulvihill, solicitors, formerly carrying on practice under the style and title of Moynihan Mulvihill & Co at 6 Cornmarket Street, Cork, and in the matter of the

Solicitors Acts, 1954 to 2002 [S8171/S8208/DT]

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Damian P Moynihan (first respondent solicitor)
Sean A Mulvihill (second respondent solicitor)

Reference to ‘regulation’ is a reference to the Solicitors’ Accounts Regulations (no 2) of 1984, statutory instrument no 304 of 1984.

On 12 July 2004, the president of the High Court made an order that the name of the first respondent solicitor, Damian P Moynihan, be struck off the roll of solicitors.

The president had before him the report of the Disciplinary Tribunal dated 18 May 2004 in which the tribunal found that the first-named respondent had been guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he had:
i) Failed to maintain proper books of account in breach of regulation 10 so that there was uncertainty as to the true position in respect of client funds
ii) Failed to enter full details, and in some cases failed to enter any details at all, on cheque stubs and lodgment stubs in breach of regulation 19(1)(c)
iii) Failed to enter virtually any information in the books of account as to the sources of money received and details of cheque payees in breach of regulation 19(1)(c)
iv) Created debit balances on the client account in breach of regulation 7
v) Allowed a deficit to arise in client monies which stood at £31,805 as at 8 October 2001 and which subsequently rose to £56,662 in breach of regulation 7
vi) Failed to disclose the misappropriation of client monies of £7,500
vii) Misled the reporting accountant by leading him to believe that a sum of £7,500 introduced into the client account in 2001 was to clear a deficit arising in the financial practice year end 31 December 2000 when in fact it related to the misappropriation of monies by Mr Moynihan in July 2001 to purchase a car
viii) Misled the Compensation Fund Committee on 6 December 2001, representing to the committee that the sum of £7,500 had been introduced into the client account to clear a deficit arising in the financial practice year end 31 December 2000 when in fact it related to the misappropriation of monies by Mr Moynihan in July 2001 to purchase a car
ix) Advanced approximately £10,000 of clients’ monies to a client when these monies did not stand to the credit of that client and therefore advanced to him other client monies in breach of regulation 7
x) Concealed from the society and the reporting accountant the misappropriation of £7,500 by Mr Moynihan
xi) Failed to file the accountant’s report covering the firm’s financial year ended 31 December 2000 within six months of the accounting date in breach of regulation 21(1).

The tribunal further found that there had been misconduct on the part of the first-named respondent solicitor, Damian P Moynihan, in that he:
a) Misappropriated £7,500, being stamp duty and outlay received from a client
b) Falsified the books of account to conceal his misappropriation of client monies
c) When questioned about the matter, untruthfully stated that the deed had been stamped
d) Falsely stated to the Compensation Fund Committee at its meeting on 4 October 2001 that £15,000 had been introduced into the client account to clear the deficit when no such monies, or any monies, had been paid into the client account
e) Untruthfully advised the society’s accountant that an army deafness case had been settled for £47,500 and that the settlement cheque was awaited when the case had not in fact been settled
f) Advanced £10,615 and £15,357, totalling £25,972, to the client, the claimant in the army deafness case referred to at (e), when there were no monies to the credit of the client and thereby advanced other clients’ monies to him
g) Forged his partner’s name on the cheque for £15,357 advanced to the client in the army deafness case referred to at (f) above
h) Falsely represented to the credit union of the client referred to at (e) and (f) above in a letter of undertaking that the client’s case had been settled for £47,500
i) Caused his client’s credit union to advance £20,000 on foot of the false representation referred to at (g) above
j) Allowed a further undertaking to be given to the said credit union by Mr Mulvihill causing the said credit union to advance a further £12,000
k) Falsely represented to the practice’s reporting accountant that a loan of £7,500 was lodged to the client account to clear a deficit identified by the reporting accountant for the practice year ended 31 December 2000
l) Falsely represented to the society that he had obtained a loan of £7,500 which was to be paid into the client account to rectify the deficit in this amount caused by his own misappropriation
m) Forged and uttered a document purporting to be an order of the District Court contrary to sections 3 and 6 of the Forgery Act 1913.

On 22 April 2004, the Disciplinary Tribunal found the second-named respondent solicitor, Sean A Mulvihill, guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:
a) Failed to maintain proper books of account in breach of regulation 10, so that there was uncertainty as to the true position in respect of client funds
b) Failed to enter full details, and in some cases failed to enter any details at all, on cheque stubs and lodgment stubs in breach of regulation 19(1)(c)
c) Failed to enter virtually any information in the books of account as to the sources of money received and details of cheque payees in breach of regulation 19(1)(c)
d) Created debit balances in breach of regulation 7
e) Allowed a deficit to arise in client monies which stood at £31,805 as at 8 October 2001 and which subsequently rose to £56,662 in breach of regulation 7
f) Failed to disclose the misappropriation of client monies by the first-named respondent solicitor of £7,500
g) Advanced approximately £10,000 of clients’ monies to a client when these monies did not stand to the credit of that client and therefore advanced to him other client monies in breach of regulation 7
h) Failed to file an accountant’s report covering the firm’s financial year ended 31 December 2000 within six months of the accounting date in breach of regulation 21(1).

The tribunal made an order in respect of the second-named solicitor as follows:
a) Censuring the respondent solicitor
b) Directing the respondent solicitor to pay a sum of €5,000 to the compensation fund
c) Pay the whole of the costs of the Law Society of Ireland as taxed by a taxing master.

Before the president the High Court: in the matter of Peter Fortune, solicitor, formerly practising under the style and title of Peter M Fortune & Co, Solicitors, at 38 Molesworth Street, Dublin 2, and in the matter of the

Solicitors Acts, 1954-2002 [2003 no 33 SA]

On 26 April 2004, the president of the High Court ordered:
1) That the name of Peter Fortune be struck off the roll of solicitors
2) That the said Peter Fortune do pay to the society its costs of the proceedings before the Disciplinary Tribunal and also the costs of and incident to the application to the High Court, to be taxed in default of agreement, and that execution on foot thereof be stayed for a period of four months from the date of the order
3) That the Law Society be at liberty to re-enter the matter in relation to the question of restitution by the said Peter Fortune.

The president had before him the report of the Disciplinary Tribunal to the High Court, dated 12 December 2002.

Reference to ‘society’ refers to the Law Society of Ireland. Reference to ‘regulations’ refers to the Solicitors’ Accounts Regulations No 2 of 1984 (SI no 304 of 1984).

The said report recorded the following findings of misconduct against the said Peter Fortune in his practice as a solicitor, in that he had:
a) Failed to disclose the existence of a judgment against him in his application for a practising certificate for the period 6 January 1993 to 5 January 1994
b) Breached regulation 21(1) in failing to file an accountant’s report covering his financial year ended 30 April 1992 within the period prescribed by the said regulation
c) Failed to keep proper books of account in breach of regulation 10
d) Misrepresented to the Compensation Fund Committee at its meeting on 17 June 1993 that there would be no shortfall in client funds when his books of account were written up
e) Failed to lodge clients’ funds to the client account, as evidenced by the qualifications attaching to his reporting accountant’s report dated 24 March 1993, in breach of regulation 3
f) Drew monies from the client account in excess of funds held for the time being in such account, causing the client bank account to go into overdraft as set out at paragraph 2.4 of the society’s investigation report, dated 7 May 1993, in breach of regulation 7
g) Failed to comply with a direction of the Compensation Fund Committee of 13 May 1993 that his books of account were to be written up to date within two weeks of the date of that meeting
h) Failed to reply to correspondence from the society’s investigating accountant and the registrar of solicitors in respect of the writing-up of his books of account
i) Breached the terms of a consent order of the High Court, made on 23 July 1993, in failing to discharge the amount of £39,890.88, necessitating the initiation of contempt proceedings against him by the society
j) By his own admission, utilised client monies to fund the day-to-day running of his solicitor’s practice
k) By his own admission, admitted the misappropriation of the monies of a client in the amount of £2,500
l) Breached a solicitor’s undertaking to the Bank of Ireland to discharge a sum of £2,500 to the bank on completion of a conveyancing transaction
m) Failed to account to the Bank of Ireland for the sum of £2,500 in respect of the said conveyancing transaction, causing the society to have to pay the sum of £2,500 to the bank out of its compensation fund
n) Understated in his books of account the amount received and held by him in respect of the said conveyancing transaction by the amount of £1,500
o) Failed to stamp and register a purchase deed in relation to the purchase of a property by a client, notwithstanding receipt of £3,990 for stamp duty and a further sum of £26 in respect of registration
p) Failed to account to the client in respect of the monies referred to at (o) above
q) Failed to account to the client referred to at (o) above or her estate for a further sum of £109.15
r) Caused the society, in respect of the transaction at (o) above, to have to pay out of its compensation fund the sum of £4,151.15 in respect of the estate of the client referred to at (o) above
s) Failed to account to two clients for the sum of £10,978 received on their behalf for the purpose of stamping and registration deeds of purchase and mortgage
t) Caused the society to have to pay out of its compensation fund to the clients referred to at (s) above the amount of £10,978
u) Failed to stamp and register a purchase deed and mortgage on behalf of a client, notwithstanding the receipt of a total of £11,002 in respect of such stamping and registration
v) Failed to account to his client for the sum of £11,094.05 received from them, causing the society to have to make a payment out of its compensation fund of £11,094.05.

In relation to the allegation that the respondent solicitor had caused a substantial deficit in client monies resulting in claims totalling £169,230 being admitted by the society on its compensation fund, the respondent solicitor was found guilty of professional misconduct in respect of the amount agreed at £39,890.88.