In the matter of Declan O’Callaghan, solicitor, formerly practising in the firm of Kilrane O’Callaghan & Co, Solicitors, Pound Street, Ballaghaderreen, Co Roscommon, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2015 [2019/DT22]

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)

Declan O’Callaghan (respondent solicitor)

On 5 November 2019, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in that he:

1) Unlawfully and without authority retained client moneys in his client account due to be paid to a firm of named solicitors on              behalf of litigation costs and expenses from the estate of a named client,

2) Failed to remit costs and outlays to a firm of named solicitors arising out of litigation between their named client against the              respondent solicitor’s named client, resulting in court proceedings being issued against the complainant’s client,

3) Failed to provide an explanation as to why client moneys had been retained by the respondent solicitor for a period of, in or              around, four years, and not properly remitted to a firm of named solicitors in discharge of their legal costs and outlays in the said      litigation.

The tribunal ordered that the respondent solicitor:

1) Stand censured,

2) Pay the sum of €10,000 to the compensation fund, to be paid within 12 months from the date of the order of the tribunal,

3) Pay the sum of €7,500 as a contribution towards the whole of the costs of the applicant, to be paid within 12 months from the          date of the order of the tribunal.

In the matter of Gary Matthews , a solicitor practising as Gary Matthews Solicitors, 27 Rosses Quay, Rostrevor, Co Down, BT34 3GL, and in the matter of an application by the Law Society of Ireland to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal [8178/DT164/14]

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)

Gary Matthews (respondent solicitor)

On 24 October 2019, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in the following matters:

1) On or around 26 July 2010, he failed to disclose to his client that he had compromised the matter with a named insurance                company for a sum of €23,000,

2) On or around 26 July 2010, he arranged for a cheque that was crossed and made payable to his client to be lodged to an account      under his control, contrary to section 66(17) of the Solicitors Act 1954 (as amended by section 76 of the Solicitors (Amendment)      Act 1994),

3) He misrepresented by way of an email dated 23 August 2010 to the complainant, that a named insurance company had made the      payment in respect of the settlement directly into the complainant’s bank account, when he knew or ought to have known that          this payment, in fact, originated from his firm, and

4) He misrepresented on one or more occasions to the complainant that the settlement of €23,000 made by the named insurance          company included a specific amount(s) to cover legal fees and outlays, when he was aware or ought to have been aware that no      part of the €23,000 was attributable to legal fees.

The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal made the following orders on 24 October 2019:

1)   That the respondent solicitor stand censured,

2)   That the respondent solicitor pay the sum of €5,000 to the compensation fund of the applicant,

3)   That the respondent solicitor pay the agreed costs of the applicant to be taxed by a taxing master of the High Court in default of        agreement.

In the matter of Peter Downey, a solicitor practising as Eagleton Downey Solicitors at Triton Road, Bettystown, Co Meath, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2015 [2019/DT20 and High Court reference 2019 no 59 SA]

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)

Peter Downey (respondent solicitor)

On 11 July 2019, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of professional misconduct in that he failed to ensure there was furnished to the Society an accountant’s report for the year ended 31 January 2018 within six months of that date, in breach of regulation 26(1) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations 2014.

The tribunal sent the matter forward to the High Court and, on Monday 21 October 2019, the High Court (noting that the accountant’s report had been filed) ordered that, within six months from that date, the respondent solicitor:

1)   Pay a sum of €500 to the compensation fund,

2)   Pay the costs of the Society in the disciplinary and High Court proceedings.

In the matter of David Doyle, a solicitor previously practising as a partner in Doyle Associates, 56 Main Street, Rathfarnham, Dublin 14, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2015 [2019/DT09 and High Court reference 2019 no 57 SA]

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)

David Doyle (respondent solicitor)

On 27 June 2019, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of professional misconduct in that he:

1)   Caused a minimum deficit of €258,969 in the client account as at 31 October 2017,

2)   Failed to maintain proper books of accounts, in breach of regulation 13(1) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations 2014,

3)   Failed to maintain books of account that showed the true position in relation to his dealings with clients’ moneys, in breach of regulation 13(2) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations 2014,

4)   Engaged in a practice of teeming and lading, thereby concealing the existence of a deficit in client funds,

5)   Caused nine debit balances to arise on the client ledger in the sum of €258,969, in breach of regulation 7(2)(a) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations 2014,

6)   Took client moneys of €113,356 due to the estate of KD (deceased) on 28 July 2017 and lodged them to his own personal account, in breach of regulation 14 of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations 2014,

7)   Caused a shortfall of €13,324 in the estate of DA (deceased) by paying the inheritance tax of €13,324 of a named beneficiary from the unrelated client ledger account of S & ER, which shortfall was concealed by teeming and lading,

8)   On 14 September 2015, wrongly paid the sum of €46,623 from the sale of proceeds of a property sold for clients S & ER to the Revenue Commissioners in respect of an inheritance tax liability for a named beneficiary in a completely unrelated matter,

9)   In or around 31 July 2017, paid a sum of €48,371.74 from his own bank account in part discharge of two mortgage accounts in the name of his clients S & ER, having misapplied the funds originally received on 26 September 2013,

10) In or around 3 August 2017, paid a sum of €7,003.50 to a bank to part discharge a mortgage account in the name of his clients S & ER, having wrongfully misapplied the funds originally received on 26 September 2013. This payment was taken from the unrelated client ledger account dealing with the estate of SO (deceased),

11) Caused a debit balance to arise of €59, 185 on the client ledger account dealing with an estate by:

·    Wrongfully paying an inheritance tax liability of MM in the sum of €46,623 on 14 September 2015 from the client ledger account of S & ER, a completely unrelated matter,

·    Wrongfully paid the inheritance tax liability of named individuals on 11 August 2015 from the client ledger account dealing with the estate of AB (deceased). Those named individuals each had an inheritance tax liability of €6,281, and two of the aforementioned payments were posted to the client ledger account dealing with the estate of AB (deceased),

·    Wrongfully paid €17,300 to NC for his personal injuries settlement from the sale of an unrelated property on 10 December 2008,

·     Made a payment to his brother of €5,000 and a payment to a utility company of €6,000 and posted them to the client ledger account of NC a completely unrelated matter,

·     Caused a debit balance to arise on the client side of the client ledger account of NC in the sum of €11,300,

·     Wrongfully took the proceeds of two cheques for €3,500 and €3,000 which were due to a client,

·     Admitted causing a debit balance of €99,600 in the client ledger account relating to a sale file,

·     Took a cheque made payable to a client for €2,500 from a sale file client ledger account on 6 February 2009 and cashed it for his own use,

·     Admitted causing a shortfall of €894.75 on 30 January 2009 in a named file,

12)  In an estate he:

·    Took €65, 125 on 5 November 2015 to cover an inheritance tax liability of KK in a completely unrelated matter,

·    Took €4,500 on 12 November 2015 and paid same to JC in relation to the estate of NC (deceased) an unrelated matter,

·    On 3 November 2016, he withdrew €22, 102.50 by bank draft payable to a finance company in an unrelated matter,

·    On 3 August 2017, he purchased a bank draft for €7,000 and used same to pay part of a mortgage redemption in an unrelated file,

13)  In relation to an estate ledger he:

·     Caused a debit balance of €9,633.50 on the client ledger account by paying (a beneficiary in this estate) KK’s inheritance tax of €65, 125 from another client ledger account,

·     Took €55,491.50 from this client ledger account on 24 October 2014 and paid it to PO a beneficiary in an unrelated matter,

·     In relation to the estate ledger of NC (deceased), he caused a debit balance of €4,500 by paying €4,500 to JC from the ledger account of SO (deceased) an unrelated file,

·     In relation to a company file, he caused a debit balance on this client ledger account of €22, 102 by taking €22, 102 from the ledger account of SO (deceased), an unrelated file, to make a payment to a finance company,

·     In relation to the estate of SB (deceased), he caused a deficit of €85,000 by wrongfully transferring €85,000 to JS, a beneficiary in an unrelated matter, on 15 May 2017,

14)  In relation to the file of PO and the estate of BH (deceased) he:

·     Wrongfully credited the balance of a settlement of €58,500 received on 6 March 2014 to an unrelated client ledger account in the name of OS (deceased),

·     Wrongfully took €55,491.50 from an unrelated client ledger account (MC deceased) on 24 October 2014 to pay the client the balance of his settlement,

15)  In relation to the estate of OS (deceased) he:

·    Caused a debit balance of €50,287 on the client ledger account,

·    Wrongfully lodged €58,500 belonging to another client matter to this client ledger account on 14 March 2014,

·    Wrongfully made a payment from this client ledger account of €8,213.12 on 21 October 2014 to PO/JK in an unrelated estate matter,

16)  In relation to the estate of AO (deceased), he caused a debit balance of €8,213.12 on this client ledger account by wrongfully     paying this sum from another estate account on 21 October 2014 to conceal a deficit on this client ledger account,

17)  He created a shortfall of €21,500 on the client ledger account of DD in July 2015 to part pay a settlement he (the solicitor) had   entered into in respect of a Circuit Court proceedings against him,

18)  In relation to an estate, he wrongfully took €16,500 from this estate and used same to pay a settlement he (the solicitor) had    entered into in respect of Circuit Court proceedings against him.

The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal sent the matter forward to the High Court and, in High Court proceedings 2019 no 57 SA, the High Court on 21 October 2019 ordered that:

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

2)   He pay a sum of €3,012 towards the disciplinary costs,

3)   He pay the taxed or agreed costs of the Society.

In the matter of James (Seamus) Doody, solicitor, practising in Doody Solicitors, 21 South Mall, Cork, and in the matter of an application by the Law Society of Ireland to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal [6285/DT172/15, 6285/DT173/15, 6285/DT174/15, 6285/DT175/15, 6285/DT176/15 and 6285/DT177/15; High Court record 2019/13SA]

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)

James (Seamus) Doody (respondent solicitor)

On 31 July 2018, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in the following matters.

6285/DT172/15

In respect of complaint one:

1) Failed to comply, up to the date of expiry of the stay on referral to the tribunal, with part or all of an undertaking dated 12 March 2001 in respect of a named property in a timely manner or at all,

2) Failed to respond adequately or at all to some or all of the correspondence sent to him by the complainant, including a letter dated 3 October 2011,

3) Repeatedly failed to respond adequately or at all to some or all of the correspondence sent to him by the Society, including letters dated 27 September 2012, 15 October 2012, 7 January 2013, 21 January 2013, 20 February 2013, 13 March 2013, 3 May 2013, 24 June 2013, 10 July 2013, 17 September 2013, 20 November 2013 and 6 December 2013,

4) Failed to comply with a direction of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee dated 28 January 2014 to provide detailed information in relation to the file and to provide the Society with an update no later than 25 February 2014.

In respect of complaint two:

1) Failed to comply, up to the date of expiry of the stay on referral to the tribunal, with part or all of an undertaking to the complainant dated 31 May 2004 in respect of a named property in a timely manner or at all,

2) Repeatedly failed to respond adequately or at all to some or all of the correspondence sent to him by the complainant, including letters dated 22 June 2011 and 11 April 2012,

3) Repeatedly failed to respond adequately or at all to some or all of the correspondence sent to him by the Society, including letters dated 15 October 2012, 7 January 2013, 21 February 2013, 28 March 2013, 19 April 2013, 8 May 2013, 9 August 2013, 19 September 2013, 20 November 2013 and 6 December 2013,

4) Failed to comply with a direction of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee dated 28 January 2014 to provide detailed information in relation to the file and to provide the Society with an update no later than 25 February 2014.

In respect of complaint three:

1) Failed to comply, up to the date of expiry of the stay on referral to the tribunal, with part or all of an undertaking to the complainant dated 7 November 2007 in respect of a named property in a timely manner or at all,

2) Failed to respond adequately or at all to some or all of the correspondence sent to him by the complainant, including a letter dated 8 August 2011,

3) Repeatedly failed to respond adequately or at all to some or all of the correspondence sent to him by the Society, including letters dated 15 October 2012, 26 February 2013, 25 March 2013, 17 May 2013, 16 August 2013, and 18 September 2013,

4) Failed to comply with a direction of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee dated 28 January 2014 to provide detailed information in relation to the file and to provide the Society with an update no later than 25 February 2014.

In respect of complaint four:

1) Failed to comply, up to the date of expiry of the stay on referral to the tribunal, with part or all of an undertaking to the complainant dated 23 March 2009 in respect of a named property in a timely manner or at all,

2) Failed to respond adequately or at all to some or all of the correspondence sent to him by the complainant, including a letter dated 16 June 2011,

3) Repeatedly failed to respond adequately or at all to some or all of the correspondence sent to him by the Society, including letters dated 15 October 2012, 7 January 2013, 21 January 2013, 20 February 2013, 13 March 2013, 3 May 2013, 25 June 2013, 9 August 2013, 26 September 2013, 17 October 2013, 21 November 2013, 19 December 2013 and 24 February 2014,

4) Failed to comply with a direction of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee dated 28 January 2014 to provide detailed information in relation to the file and to provide the Society with an update no later than 25 February 2014.

In respect of complaint five:

1) Failed to comply, up to the date of expiry of the stay on referral to the tribunal, with part or all of an undertaking to the complainant dated 20 October 2006 in respect of a named property in a timely manner or at all,

2) Failed to respond adequately or at all to some or all of the correspondence sent to him by the complainant, including a letter dated 16 June 2011,

3) Repeatedly failed to respond adequately or at all to some or all of the correspondence sent to him by the Society, including letters dated 20 February 2013, 25 March 2013, 17 May 2013, 16 August 2013, 18 September 2013, 21 October 2013, 3 January 2014, 13 January 2014, and 14 February 2014.

In respect of complaint six:

1) Failed to comply, up to the date of expiry of the stay on referral to the tribunal, with part or all of an undertaking to the complainant dated 8 December 2004 in respect of a named property in a timely manner or at all,

2) Failed to respond adequately or at all to some or all of the correspondence sent to him by the complainant, including a letter dated 8 August 2011,

3) Repeatedly failed to respond adequately or at all to some or all of the correspondence sent to him by the Society, including letters dated 20 February 2013, 28 March 2013, 16 April 2013, 9 August 2013, 18 September 2013, 21 October 2013, 22 November 2013 and 11 February 2013,

4) Failed to comply with a direction of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee dated 28 January 2014 to provide detailed information in relation to the file and to provide the Society with an update no later than 25 February 2014.

In respect of complaint seven:

1) Failed to comply, up to the date of expiry of the stay on referral to the tribunal, with part or all of an undertaking to the complainant dated 17 February 2006 in respect of a named property in a timely manner or at all,

2) Failed to respond adequately or at all to some or all of the correspondence sent to him by the complainant, including a letter dated 22 June 2011,

3) Repeatedly failed to respond adequately or at all to some or all of the correspondence sent to him by the Society, including letters dated 21 February 2013, 28 March 2013, 19 April 2013, 17 September 2013, 20 November 2013, 6 December 2013 and 11 February 2014,

4) Failed to comply with a direction of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee dated 28 January 2014 to provide detailed information in relation to the file and to provide the Society with an update no later than 25 February 2014.

In respect of complaint eight:

1) Failed to comply, up to the date of expiry of the stay on referral to the tribunal, with part or all of an undertaking to the complainant dated 21 March 2008 in respect of a named property in a timely manner or at all,

2) Failed to respond adequately or at all to some or all of the correspondence sent to him by the complainant, including letters dated 9 January 2012 and 12 April 2012,

3) Repeatedly failed to respond adequately or at all to some or all of the correspondence sent to him by the Society, including letters dated 21 February 2013, 28 March 2013, 19 April 2013, 17 July 2013, 17 September 2013, 17 August 2014, 29 August 2014 and 18 September 2014,

4) Failed to comply with a direction of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee dated 16 September 2014 to provide detailed information in relation to the file and to attend at the committee meeting dated 28 October 2014.

In respect of complaint nine:

1) Failed to comply, up to the date of expiry of the stay on referral to the tribunal, with part or all of an undertaking to the complainant dated 1 March 2007 in respect of named properties in a timely manner or at all,

2) Failed to respond adequately or at all to some or all of the correspondence sent to him by the complainant, including letters dated 11 February 2009 and 10 June 2009,

3) Repeatedly failed to respond adequately or at all to some or all of the correspondence sent to him by the Society, including letters dated 24 February 2010, 7 April 2010, 20 May 2010, 8 June 2010, 23 July 2010, 7 September 2010, 4 October 2010,8 November 2010, 16 October 2012, 9 November 2012, 7 December 2012, 7 August 2014, 28 August 2014 and 18 September 2014,

4) Failed to comply with a direction of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee dated 16 September 2014 to provide detailed information in relation to the file and to attend at the committee meeting dated 28 October 2014.

6285/DT173/15

1) Failed to comply with an undertaking given to the bank in respect of a named property in a timely manner or at all,

2) Failed to respond adequately or at all to some or all of the correspondence sent to him by the complainant/the bank, including letters dated 29 May 2012, 2 May 2012, 13 October 2011 and/or 20 July 2011,

3) Failed to respond adequately or at all to some or all of the correspondence sent to him by the Society, including letters dated 22 August 2012, 6 December 2012, 28 January 2013, 21 March 2013, 4 June 2013, 17 October 2013, and 22 November 2013,

4) Failed to comply with the Complaints and Client Relations Committee’s direction of 28 January 2014.

6285/DT174/15

1) Failed to complete, and/or to take all reasonable steps to complete, title registration in respect of a named property,

2) Failed to disclose to the complainant that, over a period of seven years, he had not completed the registration of her title,

3) Failed to respond to enquiries made by the complainant’s new solicitor in July 2013,

4) Failed to comply with assurances given by him to the complainant and the Law Society that documents would be lodged in the Land Registry,

5) Failed to respond adequately or at all to one or more letters sent to him by the Society, including letters dated 11 September 2013, 1 October 2013, 17 October 2013, 2 January 2014, 11 February 2014, and 7 March 2014.

6285/DT175/15

In respect of complaint one:

1) Failed to comply, up to the date of the expiration of the stay on the referral of this matter to the tribunal, with an undertaking to the complainant dated 25 April 2005, pertaining to a named property in a timely manner or at all,

2) Failed to respond adequately or at all to some or all of the correspondence sent to him by the complainant dated 3 July 2007, 16 October 2009, 23 January 2010, 1 June 2010, 7 December 2010, 16 March 2011, 24 June 2011, 6 October 2011, 27 January 2012, 16 April 2012, 12 October 2012, 26 November 2012, 30 November 2012 and/or 11 February 2013,

3) Failed to respond adequately or at all to some or all of the correspondence sent to him by the Society dated 13 May 2013, 17 September 2013, 21 October 2013, 26 November 2013 and/or 3 January 2014,

4) Failed to comply with the directions of the committee dated 28 January 2014 to furnish certain documentation.

In respect of complaint two:

1) Failed to comply, up to the date of the expiration of the stay on the referral of this matter to the tribunal, with an undertaking to the complainant dated 13 December 2005, pertaining to a named property in a timely manner or at all,

2) Failed to respond adequately or at all to some or all of the correspondence sent to him by the complainant dated 16 October 2009, 23 January 2010, 2 February 2010, 28 June 2010, 30 November 2010, 9 March 2011, 21 June 2011, 27 September 2011, 18 January 2012, 18 July 2012, 26 November 2012, 1 February 2013, and/or 11 February 2013,

3) Failed to respond adequately or at all to some or all of the correspondence sent to him by the Society dated 6 June 2013, 28 June 2013, 16 August 2013, 13 September 2013, 30 September 2013, 21 October 2013, 2 January 2014, 3 February 2014 and/or 12 March 2014,

4) Failed to comply with the committee’s directions dated 25 July 2013 to make a contribution of €500 towards the Society’s costs,

5) Failed to comply with the committee’s directions dated 25 July 2013 to furnish certain documentation,

6) Failed to comply with the directions of the committee dated 28 January to furnish certain documentation.

6285/DT176/15

1) Failed to comply with his undertaking dated 24 September 2007 to the complainant to deal with Land Registry queries in relation to a named property in a timely manner or at all,

2) Failed to respond adequately or at all to some or all of the correspondence sent to him by the complainant, including letters dated 21 January 2008, 9 June 2008, 20 June 2012, 9 November 2012, 8 April 2013, 12 August 2013, 16 September 2013, 10 January 2014, 11 February 2014, 7 March 2014, 19 March 2014 and/or 13 August 2014,

3) Failed to respond adequately or at all to some or all of the correspondence sent to him by the Society, including letters dated 11 September 2014, 29 September 2014, 5 November 2014, and 26 November 2014,

4) Failed to comply with the Complaints and Client Relations Committee’s direction of 28 October 2014 to make a contribution towards the Society’s costs.

6285/DT177/15

1) Failed to comply, up to the date of the expiry of the stay on the referral of this matter to the tribunal, with part or all of his undertaking dated 10 May 2001 given to the complainant in relation to a named property in a timely manner or at all,

2) Failed to respond adequately or at all to some or all of the correspondence sent to him by the complainant and/or solicitors for the complainant, including letters dated 22 August 2006, 22 August 2007, 20 February 2008, 6 July 2009 10 March 2010, 9 June 2010, 9 August 2010, 19 October 2010, 14 June 2011 and/or 9 November 2012,

3) Failed to respond adequately or at all to some or all of the correspondence sent to him by the Society, including letters dated 26 February 2013, 25 March 2013, 27 May 2013, 17 July 2013, 16 October 2013, 22 November 2013, 11 February 2014 and/or 12 March 2014,

4) Failed to comply with the Complaints and Client Relations Committee’s direction dated 28 January 2014 to furnish the Society with documentation relating to the undertaking detailed above.

The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal referred the matter forward to the High Court and, in record number 2019/13SA, the High Court made the following orders on 18 October 2019:

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.

In the matter of James (Seamus) Doody, solicitor, practising in Doody Solicitors, 21 South Mall, Cork, and in the matter of an application by the Law Society of Ireland to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal [2017/DT84, 2017/DT87 and 2017/DT88; High Court record 2019/12SA]

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)

James (Seamus) Doody (respondent solicitor)

On 10 July 2018, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in the following matters.

2017/DT84

1) Failed to comply adequately or at all with part of one or more of the following undertakings to the complainant:

a) Undertaking dated 11 March 2007 in respect of his named clients in relation to a named property,

b) Undertaking dated 1 April 2010 in respect of his named clients in relation to a named property,

c) Undertaking dated 29 September 2005 in respect of his named clients in relation to a named property,

d) Undertaking dated 12 October 2006 in respect of his named in relation to a named property,

e) Undertaking dated 30 May 2008 in respect of his named client in relation to a named property,

f) Undertaking dated 19 June 2008 in respect of his named clients in relation to a named property,

g) Undertaking dated 3 March 2014 in respect of his named clients in relation to a named property,

2) Failed to comply with the directions of the committee dated 1 September 2015, 3 November 2015 and/or 11 February 2016,

3) Failed to respond adequately or at all to a letter from the Society dated 14 April 2015.

2017/DT87

1) Failed to comply adequately or at all with all or part of an undertaking to the complainant dated 14 September 2007 in respect of named clients in relation to a named property,

2) Failed to comply with the directions of the committee dated 3 November 2015, 11 February 2016 and 16 June 2016,

3) Failed to respond adequately or at all to letters from the Society dated 8 July 2015, 5 August 2015 and 25 August 2015.

2017/DT88

1) Failed to comply adequately or at all with an undertaking dated 28 March 2005 to the complainant in respect of his named client in relation to a named property,

2) Failed to respond adequately or at all to a letter dated 20 November 2015 sent to him by the Society,

3) Failed to respond adequately or at all to correspondence from the bank and, in particular, letters dated 21 June 2010, 2 December 2010, 3 November 2011, 2 May 2012, 23 May 2014, 24 June 2014, 16 January 2015, 12 February 2015, and an email thread concluding with an email dated 23 April 2015.

The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal referred the matter forward to the High Court and, in record number 2019/12SA, the High Court made the following orders on 18 October 2019:

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.

In the matter of Maurice B O’Sullivan, a solicitor practising as Maurice O’Sullivan & Company Solicitors, at 9 Colbert Street, Listowel, Co Kerry, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2015 [2017/DT24, 2017/DT38, 2017/DT39, 2017/DT40, 2017/DT41, 2017/DT42, 2017/DT51, 2017/DT73, 2017/DT78, and 2017/DT115; and High Court reference 2019 no 23 SA]

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)

Maurice B O’Sullivan (respondent solicitor)

2017/DT24

On 11 January 2018, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of professional misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:

1) Failed to comply with an undertaking furnished to First Active PLC on 1 May 2002 in respect of his named client and borrower and      property in Co Limerick in a timely manner or at all,

2) Failed to comply with an undertaking furnished to First Active PLC on 6 March 2002 in respect of his named clients and borrowers      and property in Co Limerick in a timely manner or at all,

3) Failed to comply with an undertaking furnished to First Active PLC on 1 June 2005 in respect of his named client and the borrower      and property in Co Limerick in a timely manner,

4) Failed to comply with an undertaking furnished to Ulster Bank Ireland Limited on 26 April 2006 in respect of a named borrower          and property in Co Kerry in a timely manner or at all,

5) Failed to comply with an undertaking furnished to First Active PLC on 1 June 2007 in respect of named borrowers and property in      Co Kerry in a timely manner or at all,

6) Failed to comply with an undertaking furnished to First Active PLC on 2 October 2007 in respect of the named borrowers and            property in Co Kerry in a timely manner or at all,

7) Failed to comply with an undertaking furnished to Ulster Bank on 6 October 2008 in respect of the named borrowers and property      in Co Kerry in a timely manner or at all,

8) Failed to comply with an undertaking furnished to Ulster Bank on 14 July 2009 in respect of the named borrowers and property in      Co Kerry in a timely manner or at all,

9) Failed to respond to the Society’s correspondence and, in particular, the Society’s letters of 23 October 2015 and 6 November          2015 in a timely manner, within the time provided, or at all.

2017/DT38

On 11 January 2018, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of professional misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:

1) Failed to comply with his client’s instructions to register her entitlement to her property in Co Kerry in a timely manner or at all,        having been instructed to do so in 1999/2000,

2) Failed to respond to the complainant’s queries in relation to her instructions,

3) Failed to respond to the Society’s correspondence of 29 February 2016, 22 March 2016, 22 April 2016, 14 July 2016, 18 July            2016 in a timely manner, within the time provided, or at all,

4) Failed to comply with the direction made by the Complaints and Client Relations Committee at its meeting on 28 June 2016 that        he furnish an update to the committee on or before 20 August 2016.

2017/DT39

On 11 January 2018, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of professional misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:

1) Failed to respond satisfactorily to correspondence from one of the joint executors of an estate and, in particular, the co-       executor’s letter of 8 July 2015 in a timely manner,

2) Failed to respond to the Society’s correspondence and, in particular, the Society’s letters of 14 January 2015, 2 February 2015,     20 February 2015, 3 March 2015, 10 September 2015, 6 October 2015, 22 December 2015, 2 February 2016 and 23 February 2016 in a timely manner, within the time provided, or at all.

2017/DT40

On 11 January 2018, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of professional misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:

1) Failed to comply with an undertaking dated 9 July 2004 furnished to the complainants in respect of his named client and property      in Dublin 8 in a timely manner,

2) Failed to comply with an undertaking furnished to the complainants on 7 March 2006 in respect of his clients and the borrowers        and property in Co Kerry in a timely manner or at all,

3) Failed to comply with two undertakings, one furnished on 7 September 2001 and the second furnished on 29 April 2004, to the          complainants in respect of his client and the borrower and property in Co Kerry in a timely manner or at all,

4) Failed to respond to the Society’s correspondence and, in particular, the Society’s letters of 15 February 2016, 24 March 2016 and 18 April 2016 within the time provided, in a timely manner, or at all,

5) Failed to comply with a direction made by the Complaints and Client Relations Committee at its meeting on 26 April 2016 that he      furnish a response to the Society on or before 10 June 2016,

6) Failed to comply with a direction made by the Complaints and Client Relations Committee at its meeting on 28 June 2016 that he      furnish an update to the Society on or before 20 August 2016.

2017/DT41

On 11 January 2018, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of professional misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:

1) Failed to protect his former clients’ interests and failed to ensure that they had title to their properties in Co Kerry in a timely            manner or at all,

2) Failed to respond to the Society’s correspondence and, in particular, the Society’s letters to him of 12 November 2014, 1                  December 2014, 7 January 2015, 5 February 2015, 9 March 2015, 23 March 2015, 14 April 2015, 9 June 2015, 20 July 2015, 10      September 2015, 6 October 2015, 29 October 2015, 26 January 2016 and 25 February 2016 within the time provided, in a timely      manner, or at all,

3) Failed to comply with a direction made by the Complaints and Client Relations Committee at its meeting of 3 June 2015 and              communicated to him by letter dated 9 June 2015 that he furnish updates to the Society every six weeks.

2017/DT42

On 11 January 2018, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of professional misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:

1) Failed to comply with an undertaking furnished to the complainants on 28 January 2004 in respect of his named client and                borrower and property in Co Kerry in a timely manner or at all,

2) Failed to comply with an undertaking furnished to the complainants on 20 January 2009 in respect of his named clients and the        borrowers and property in Co Kerry in a timely manner or at all,

3) Failed to comply with an undertaking furnished to the complainants on 17 October 2007 in respect of his named clients and              borrowers and property in Co Limerick in a timely manner or at all,

4) Failed to comply with an undertaking furnished to the complainants on 11 October 2007 in respect of his named clients and the        borrowers and property in Co Limerick in a timely manner or at all,

5) Failed to comply with an undertaking furnished to the complainants on 11 October 2007 in respect of his named client and the          borrower and property in Co Limerick in a timely manner or at all,

6) Failed to comply with an undertaking furnished to the complainants on 2 October 2006 in respect of his named client and the            borrower and property in Co Kerry in a timely manner or at all,

7) Failed to comply with an undertaking furnished to the complainants on 3 July 2006 in respect of his named client and the                  borrower and property in Co Kerry in a timely manner or at all,

8) Failed to comply with an undertaking furnished to the complainants on 14 March 2005 in respect of his named clients and the            borrowers and property in Co Kerry in a timely manner or at all,

9) Failed to comply with an undertaking furnished to the complainants on 21 June 2006 in respect of his named client and the              borrower and property in Co Kerry in a timely manner or at all,

10) Failed to comply with an undertaking furnished to the complainants on 9 April 2001 in respect of his named client and the                borrower and property in Co Kerry in a timely manner or at all,

11) Failed to comply with an undertaking furnished to the complainants on 28 October 2004 in respect of his named clients and the        borrowers and property in Co Kerry in a timely manner or at all,

12) Failed to comply with an undertaking furnished to the complainants on 29 October 2004 in respect of his named clients and the        borrowers and property in Co Kerry in a timely manner,

13) Failed to comply with an undertaking furnished to the complainants on 30 July 2007 in respect of his named client and the                borrower and property in Co Kerry in a timely manner or at all,

14) Failed to comply with an undertaking furnished to the complainants on 28 November 2006 in respect of his named client and            the borrower and property in Co Kerry in a timely manner or at all.

2017/DT51

On 11 January 2018, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of professional misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:

1) Failed to comply with an undertaking dated 30 September 2014 furnished to the complainant in respect of his named clients and      the borrowers and property in Co Kerry in a timely manner or at all,

2) Failed to respond to the Society’s correspondence and, in particular, to the Society’s letters of 4 October 2016, 20 October 2016,      3 November 2016, 18 November 2016, 30 November 2016 and 15 December 2016 within the time provided, in a timely manner,      or at all,

3) Failed to attend the meeting of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee on 24 January 2017, despite being required to do      so by letter dated 17 January 2017.

2017/DT73

On 19 April 2018, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of professional misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:

1) Failed to comply with an undertaking furnished to the complainants on 27 June 2007 in respect of his named clients and the              borrowers and property in Co Kerry in a timely manner,

2) Failed to comply with an undertaking furnished to the complainants on 4 May 2007 in respect of his named clients and the                borrowers and property in Co Limerick in a timely manner or at all,

3) Failed to comply with an undertaking dated 29 May 2006 furnished to the complainant in respect of his named clients and the            borrowers and property in Co Kerry in a timely manner or at all,

4) Failed to comply with an undertaking dated 13 September 2001 furnished to the complainant in respect of his named clients and      the borrowers and property in Co Kerry in a timely manner,

5) Failed to comply with an undertaking dated 21 November 2003 furnished to the complainants in respect of his named clients and      the borrowers and the property in Co Kerry in a timely manner,

6) Failed to comply with an undertaking furnished to the complainants on 30 June 1997 in respect of his named clients and the              borrowers and property in Co Kerry in a timely manner,

7) Failed to comply with an undertaking furnished to the complainant on 2 October 2002 in respect of his named clients and the            borrowers and property in Co Kerry in a timely manner,

8) Failed to comply with an undertaking dated 23 April 2009 furnished to the complainant in respect of his named clients and the          borrowers and property in Co Kerry in a timely manner,

9) Failed to comply with an undertaking dated 23 March 2007 furnished to the complainant in respect of his named client and the          borrowers and property in Co Kerry in a timely manner,

10) Failed to comply with an undertaking dated 13 November 2012 furnished to the complainant in respect of his named clients and        the borrowers and property in Co Kerry in a timely manner,

11) Failed to comply with an undertaking dated 20 June 2001 furnished to the complainant in respect of his named clients and                borrowers and property in Co Kerry in a timely manner.

2017/DT78

On 19 April 2018, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of professional misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:

1) Failed to protect his client’s interest and failed to ensure that his client had title to his property in Co Kerry in a timely manner,

2) Caused unnecessary stress to an elderly client by failing to return the complainant’s birth certificate to him in a timely manner,

3) Failed to respond to his client’s enquiries,

4) Failed to respond in a timely manner or at all to the Society’s correspondence and, in particular, the Society’s letters of 21                November 2016, 7 December 2016, 5 January 2017, 3 March 2017, 5 April 2017, 20 April 2017, 4 May 2017 and 24 May 2017 in      a timely manner, within the time provided, or at all,

5) Failed to comply with the direction made by the Complaints and Client Relations Committee at its meeting on 28 February 2017        that he pay a sum of €550 towards the costs incurred by the Society as a result of his failure to respond to the Society’s                  correspondence and to attend the meeting,

6) Failed to comply with the direction made by the Complaints and Client Relations Committee at its meeting on 6 June 2017 and          that he make a further contribution of €350 towards the cost incurred by the Society,

7) Failed to comply with the direction made by the Complaints and Client Relations Committee at his meeting on 18 July 2017 that        he return the birth certificate to his client forthwith,

8) Failed to attend the Complaints and Client Relations Committee meeting on 28 February 2017, 4 April 2017 and 18 July 2017,          despite being required to do so.

2017/DT115

On 19 April 2018, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of professional misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:

1) Failed to register the interests of his clients in relation to the registration of their title to their home, having been instructed and        paid to do so in 2006, in a timely manner,

2) Failed to respond satisfactorily to his clients’ enquiries in relation to their instructions to him in a timely manner,

3) Failed to respond in a timely manner or at all to the Society’s correspondence and, in particular, the Society’s letters of 14 July          2015, 23 October 2015, 25 November 2015, 9 June 2017 and 28 June 2017.

The tribunal ordered that all matters should go forward to the High Court and, on 14 October 2019, in proceedings 2019 no 23 SA, the High Court ordered that:

1) The respondent solicitor’s name be struck off the Roll of Solicitors, with a stay on the said order until 31 December 2019,

2) The respondent solicitor pay a sum of €13,000 as a contribution towards the cost of the disciplinary proceedings,

3) The respondent solicitor pay the whole of the costs of the applicant’s High Court application, such costs to be taxed in default of        agreement.

In the matter of Michael Doody, solicitor, principal at Doody Solicitors, 21 South Mall, Cork, and in the matter of an application by the Law Society of Ireland to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal [2017/DT85 and 2017/DT86; High Court record 2019/11SA]

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)

Michael Doody (respondent solicitor)

On 10 July 2018, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in the following matters.

2017/DT85

1)  Failed to comply adequately or at all with an undertaking dated 12 October in respect of his named client in relation to a named property,

2) Failed to respond adequately or at all to letters dated 20 November and 2 December  2015 sent to him by the Society,

3) Failed to respond adequately or at all to correspondence from the complainant and, in particular, letters dated 12 October 2011, 30 January 2012, 13 March 2014, 15 April  2014, 16 January 2015, 12 February 2015, and an email thread concluding with an email dated 23 April 2015.

2017/DT86

1) Failed to comply adequately or at all with an undertaking dated 15 May 2006 in respect of his named clients in relation to a named property,

2) Failed to comply adequately or at all with an undertaking dated 15 November 2006 in respect of his named client in relation to named properties,

3)  Failed to comply adequately or at all with an undertaking dated 12 August 2008 in respect of his named client in relation to a named property,

4) Failed to comply adequately or at all with the directions of the committee, in particular, the directions dated 1 September 2015, 3 November 2015 and 1 February 2016,

5) Failed to respond adequately or at all to correspondence sent to him from the Society, in particular, letters dated 14 April 2015.

The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal referred the matter forward to the High Court and, in record number 2019/11SA, the High Court made the following orders on 10 October 2019:

1)  That the respondent solicitor only be permitted to practise under the direct control and  supervision of another solicitor of at least ten years’ standing, to be approved in advance by the Law Society, with a stay on the order for a period of four weeks, the respondent solicitor undertaking that, within the aforementioned four-week period, no undertakings will be given by him unless previously approved by the Law Society,

2)  That the Law Society recover the whole of the costs of the proceedings before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal and the High Court, to be taxed in default of agreement.

In the matter of Paul Cagney, a solicitor previously practising as Paul Cagney & Co, Solicitors, at Main Street, Charleville, Co Cork, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2015 [2019/DT28]

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)

Paul Cagney (respondent solicitor)

On 1 October 2019, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of professional misconduct in that he failed to ensure there was furnished to the Society a closing accountant’s report, as required by regulation 33(2) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations 2014 (SI 516 of 2014) in a timely manner or at all, having ceased practice on 30 November 2016.

The tribunal ordered that the respondent solicitor:

1)   Stand advised and admonished,

2)   Pay a sum a €812 as a contribution towards the whole of the costs of the applicant.

In the matter of Noel J Gargan, a solicitor practising as a partner in the firm of Christie & Gargan, Solicitors, Unit 2 Stewart Hall, Parnell Street, Dublin 1, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2015 [2018/DT93]

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)

Noel J Gargan (respondent solicitor)

On 30 September 2019, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of professional misconduct in that he:

1) Failed to comply with an undertaking dated 12 September 2005 furnished to the complainants in respect of his named client and      the borrower and property in Co Louth in a timely manner,

2) Failed to respond to the Society’s correspondence in a timely manner or at all and, in particular, the Society’s letters of 25                November 2015, 12 January 2016, 26 January 2016, 2 November 2016, 19 December 2016, 20 March 2017, 25 April 2017, 3          November 2017, and 28 November 2017.

The tribunal ordered that the respondent solicitor:

1)   Stand censured,

2)   Pay a sum a €750 to the compensation fund,

3)   Pay the sum of €1,512 as a contribution towards the whole of the costs of the applicant.