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/DT92]

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 25 May 2007 furnished to the complainants in respect of his named clients and the borrowers and the property at Tallaght, Dublin 24 in a timely manner or at all,

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 and 3 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.

In the matter of James Dorney, solicitor, practising as Dorney Solicitors, Phoenix House, Monahan Road, Cork, and in the matter of an application by the Law Society of Ireland to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2015 [2018/DT80; 2018/DT106; High Court record 2019/49 SA]

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)

James Dorney (respondent solicitor)

2018/DT80

On 11 April 2019, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he failed to ensure that there was furnished to the Society an accountant’s report for the year ended 28 February 2018 within six months of that date, in breach of regulation 26(1) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations 2014.

2018/DT106

On 11 April 2019, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:

1)   Failed to maintain proper records by withdrawing funds from the client account to the office account without supporting documentation, contrary to regulation 7 of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations 2014,

2)   Failed to maintain proper books of account and such relevant supporting documents as would enable clients’ moneys handled and dealt with by the solicitor to be duly recorded and the entries relevant thereto in the books of account to be appropriately vouched, contrary to regulation 13(1) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations,

3)   Failed to comply with the direction of the Regulation of Practice Committee meeting, made on 25 January 2018, directing the respondent solicitor be given two alternative dates for inspection of his practice, by not responding to the Society to confirm agreement to inspection on either Thursday 15 February 2018 or Friday 2 March 2018,

4)   Failed to comply with the directions of the Regulation of Practice Committee, thus causing the Law Society of Ireland to make an application to the High Court for an order pursuant to section 18 of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act 2002 prohibiting him from practising as a solicitor until such time as he was fully compliant with the provisions of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations,

5)   Failed to comply with High Court orders made on 9 April 2018, 9 May 2018, 11 June 2018, 30 July 2018 and 5 November 2018,

6)   Failed to submit a closing or final reporting accountant’s report following the cessation of his practice, contrary to regulation 33(2) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations.

The tribunal ordered that the matter should go forward to the High Court and, on 1 July 2019, in proceedings 2019/49 SA, the High Court ordered that:

1)   The respondent solicitor continue to be suspended and prohibited from practising as a solicitor until such time as he has fully complied with the provisions of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations, as originally ordered by the High Court on 9 April 2018, and affirmed in subsequent orders of the High Court on 8 May 2018, 11 June 2018 and 5 November 2018,

2)   In the event that the respondent solicitor does become compliant with the provisions of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations to the satisfaction of the Law Society of Ireland, the respondent solicitor is to apply to the High Court to lift the suspension order if he intends to resume practice and, in that event, that he not be permitted to practise as a sole practitioner or in a partnership, but only to practise as an assistant solicitor 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,

3)   The respondent solicitor pay the measured and agreed costs of the within application,

4)   The respondent solicitor pay the costs of the application in the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal proceedings 2018/DT80 in the measured sum advocated by the Law Society,

5)   The respondent solicitor pay the costs of the applicant in Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal proceedings 2018/DT106 as measured by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal.

In the matter of David Doyle, a solicitor previously practising as a partner in Doyle Associates at 56 Main Street, Rathfarnham, Dublin 14, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2015 [2018/DT91]

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)   Failed to comply with an undertaking dated 18 May 2004 furnished to Bank of Ireland Mortgages in respect of his named clients and borrowers and property at Mountbellew, Co Galway, in respect of a named mortgage account in a timely manner or at all,

2)   Failed to comply with an undertaking dated 29 January 2008 furnished to Bank of Ireland Mortgages in respect of his named clients and borrowers and property at Mountbellew, Co Galway, in respect of a named mortgage account in a timely manner or at all.

The tribunal ordered that the respondent solicitor:

1)   Stand censured,

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

In the matter of Alan Lloyd, a solicitor formerly practising in the firm of AM Maloney & Co, Solicitors, Harbour Street, Tullamore, Co Offaly, and in the matter of an application by the Law Society of Ireland to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2015 [2018/DT38 and High Court record 2019/6 SA]

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)

Alan Lloyd (respondent solicitor)

On 20 November 2018, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:

1)   Practised as a solicitor/provided legal services while there was not a practising certificate for the practice year 2016 in respect of him in force, contrary to section 55 of the principal act and/or section 56(1) and/or (2) of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act 1994,

2)   Held himself out as a person entitled to practise/provide legal services during the practice year 2016 while there was not a practising certificate in respect of him in force,

3)   Attended at Tullamore Garda Station on 12 August 2016 and provided legal services and/or held himself out as a person entitled to provide legal services in respect of a person detained under section 2 of the Criminal Justice (Drug Trafficking) Act 1996 while not qualified to do so, by reason of there not being a practising certificate in respect of him in force,

4)   Attended at Tullamore Garda Station on 15 September 2016 and provided legal services and/or held himself out as a person entitled to provide legal services in respect of a person detained under section 4 of the Criminal Justice Act 1984 while not qualified to do so, by reason of there not being a practising certificate in respect of him in force,

5)   Practised as a solicitor/provided legal services while there was not a practising certificate for the practice year 2017 in respect of him in force, contrary to section 55 of the principal act and/or section 56(1) and/or (2) of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act 1994,

6)   Held himself out as a person entitled to practise/provide legal services during the practice year 2017 while there was not a practising certificate in respect of him in force,

7)   Attended at Birr Garda Station on 3 and/or 4 March 2017 and provided legal services and/or held himself out as a person entitled to provide legal services in respect of a person detained for alleged offence(s) of sexual assault while not qualified to do so, by reason of there not being a practising certificate in respect of him in force,

8)   On or around 4 March 2017, misrepresented to a garda sergeant that he was a solicitor entitled to practise and to represent a detainee in custody,

9)   Caused, permitted, or allowed fees to be paid in respect of his attendance(s), while an unqualified person, at Birr Garda Station on 3 and 4 March 2017,

10) By his actions in practising and/or providing legal services and/or holding himself out as a person entitled to provide legal services, while unqualified by reason of not holding a valid practising certificate, acted with reckless disregard for the interests of clients/prospective clients and/or for the administration of justice, thereby tending to bring the profession into disrepute.

The tribunal ordered that the matter should go forward to the High Court and, on 20 May 2019, the High Court ordered that:

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

2)   The respondent pay a sum of costs, measured by the tribunal, to the applicant,

3)   The respondent pay the applicant its costs of the High Court application, with taxation in default of agreement.

In the matter of Áine Kilfeather, a solicitor practising as a partner in Kilfeather Keys Solicitors at 12 Market Street, Sligo, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2015 [2018/DT84]

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)

Áine Kilfeather (respondent solicitor)

On 16 May 2019, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of professional misconduct in her practice as a solicitor in that she:

1)   Failed to comply with an undertaking furnished to KBC Bank on 26 August 2005 in respect of her named client and property in Co Leitrim in a timely manner or at all,

2)   Failed to respond to the bank’s correspondence in connection with the undertaking, dated 17 January 2016, 26 February 2013, 7 August 2013, 2 January 2014, 29 April 2014, 9 February 2016, 21 March 2016, 7 February 2017 and 11 September 2017 in a timely manner or at all,

3)   Failed to respond to the Society’s correspondence of 1 November 2017, 22 November 2017, 12 December 2017 and 22 June 2018 in a timely manner or at all,

4)   Failed to attend a meeting of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee on 10 July 2018, despite being required to do so,

5)   Failed to comply with the direction made by the Complaints and Client Relations Committee at its meeting of 27 February 2018 that she furnish to the Society a copy of a certificate of title and a copy of the architects certificate no later than 28 March 2018.

The tribunal ordered that the respondent solicitor:

1)   Stand advised and admonished,

2)   Pay a sum of €4,000 to the compensation fund,

3)   Pay a sum of €2,012 as a contribution towards the whole of the costs of the applicant.

In the matter of Thomas D’Alton, a solicitor practising as James J Kearns & Son, Solicitors, Portumna, Co Galway, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2015 [2017/DT114, 2018/DT03, and High Court record 2018 no 126 SA]

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)

Thomas D’Alton (respondent solicitor)

2017/DT114

On 25 October 2018, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in that he failed to ensure that there was furnished to the Society an accountant’s report for the year ended 31 January 2017 within six months of that date, in breach of regulation 26(1) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations 2014 (SI 516 of 2014).

2018/DT03

On 25 October 2018, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of professional misconduct in that he:

1)   Allowed a deficit of €54,860 on his client account as of 30 April 2016, which was subsequently reduced to €46,860 by the introduction of €8,000 in June 2016,

2)   Used €10,000 of clients’ moneys on 9 March 2015 to help discharge a personal revenue liability,

3)   Took client moneys of €10,000 in September 2014 and €7,800 in July 2006 from a named estate, which moneys were used to reduce the office account overdraft,

4)   Took client moneys of €8,000 from the estate of a named person in September 2015, which moneys were used to reduce the office account overdraft,

5)   Took client moneys of €15,813.57 from a named estate in June 2014, which moneys were used to reduce the office account overdraft,

6)   Took client moneys of €5,000 from the client account to the office account in July 2016,

7)   Created a debit balance on the account of a named client of €5,002,

8)   Failed to comply with anti-money-laundering legislation in the sample of clients’ files examined.

The tribunal directed that both matters be sent forward to the President of the High Court and, on 26 March 2019, in High Court proceedings entitled Law Society (Applicant) v Thomas D’Alton, the High Court made orders that the respondent solicitor be suspended from the Roll of Solicitors until 1 April 2020. Upon cessation of that suspension, the respondent solicitor may be issued with a practising certificate subject to the following conditions:

1)   He will not be permitted to practise as a sole practitioner or in a partnership, but only as an employed solicitor,

2)   He must act under the control and supervision of a solicitor who will be approved of in writing in advance by the Law Society,

3)   He will not be permitted to give undertakings of any sort save with the written consent obtained in advance from the supervising solicitor,

4)   He will not be permitted to have any drawing rights on the client or other accounts of the practice in which he may be employed.

The said conditions will apply to every practising certificate granted to him for a period of seven years following his restoration to the Roll of Solicitors in 2020.

In the matter of Moya O’Donnell, solicitor, practising as Moya O’Donnell & Co, Solicitors, Elm Wood Terrace, Main Street, Killybegs, Co Donegal, and Glen Road, Glenties, Co Donegal, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2015 [2018/DT34; High Court 2017/86 SA; High Court 2019/7 SA]

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)

Moya O’Donnell (respondent solicitor)

On 6 November 2018, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in her practice as a solicitor in that she:

1)  Caused or allowed an incorrect reporting accountant’s report for the financial year ending 31 March 2015 to be filed with the Society, which recorded a client deficit of €2,199, when there was a deficit in excess of €100,000 due to a large debit balance on a named client ledger,

2)   Dishonestly caused or permitted a distribution/cash account(s) to be created and provided to the Society in respect of the estate of a named client, knowing it to falsely represent that a named client was a beneficiary of the estate, in an attempt to conceal a deficit on the named client estate of €32,831, which arose from the use of moneys from the named client estate to pay the named client moneys due to her from the estate of a different named client,

3)   Dishonestly caused or permitted multiple deficits on her client account by payment of client moneys into her personal bank or credit card accounts and by payment of client moneys, held and/or due to particular clients, to other unrelated client matters, involving some 51 separate incidents of such activity,

4)   Attempted to conceal deficits on her client account by causing or allowing false entries in the books of account to conceal the true destination of the payment(s),

5)   Attempted to conceal deficits on her client account by engaging in a widespread practice of teeming and lading of client moneys,

6)   Attempted to avoid detection by the Law Society of deficits and of the practice of teeming and lading of client moneys by use of false documentation, including in particular:

           ·     A letter dated 29 August 2012 purporting to vouch a payment of €58,890 (at appendix 9.3 of the investigation report of              10 November 2017) from a named client estate, and/or

·     Letters dated 30 January 2014 and 17 February 2014 purporting to vouch a payment of €80,000 (at appendix 9.4 of the investigation report) from the same named client estate, and/or

·     A letter dated 2 September 2015 purporting to vouch a payment of €63,028 (at appendix 9.6 of the investigation report) from the same named client estate, and/or

·     A document purporting to vouch a payment of €86,000 (at appendix 9.7 of the investigation report) from the same named client estate, and/or

·     A document purporting to vouch instruction of a payment of €76,000 (at appendix 12.2 of the investigation report) from the file of a named client, and/or

·     A document purporting to record an electronic funds transfer of €5,000 (at appendix 13.3 of the investigation report) to another named client on 8 December 2016, and/or

·     A letter dated 14 July 2017 purporting to be from the Revenue Commissioners purporting to vouch a payment of €14,050 on a named client estate, and/or

·     A document (at appendix 14.5 of the investigation report) purporting to vouch an electronic funds transfer of a bequest of €4,361 to a named beneficiary.

7)   Dishonestly furnished or permitted to be furnished to the Society further documentation in an attempt to conceal deficits and/or teeming and lading on her client account, and in particular:

·     A copy questionnaire purportedly completed by a named client, falsely showing her to be a beneficiary to a named client estate, and/or

·     A copy cheque payable to a named client with annotation falsely vouching a payment from the same named client estate, and/or

·     A document of 25 August 2017 falsely vouching a payment of €5,000 to a named client, a beneficiary of the same named client estate, and/or

·     An affidavit in the name of a named client signed 18 November 2017 purporting to vouch payments on another named client estate, and/or

·     An affidavit in the name of a named client signed 18 November 2017 purporting to vouch payments on another named client estate, and/or

·     Copy identification documents of two named clients with the same name, purporting to support her false claim that there was a beneficiary to a named client estate by the name of this named client.

The tribunal, in its opinion as to the fitness of the respondent solicitor to be a member of the solicitors’ profession, expressed in its report the following recommendations:

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

2)   Her name should be struck off the Roll of Solicitors,

3)   She should pay the measured costs of the Law Society.

The tribunal ordered and directed the Law Society to bring its findings and the recommendations in its report to the High Court. The matter came before the High Court and, on 18 February 2019, the High Court ordered that the name of the respondent solicitor be struck off the Roll of Solicitors.

In the matter of Damien Cassidy, a solicitor practising as Walker & Co, Solicitors, 22 Sandymount Road, Dublin 4, and in the matter of an application by the Law Society of Ireland to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2015 [2466/DT111/14; High Court 2016/58 SA; Court of Appeal 2016/563 CA]

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)

Damien Cassidy (respondent solicitor)

On 20 January 2016, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:

1)   Failed to comply expeditiously, within a reasonable time, or at all with an undertaking given by him in respect of his named client over property at Co Dublin to the governor of the company of Bank of Ireland, by undertaking dated 12 February 2004,

2)   Failed to reply adequately or at all to the Society’s correspondence in respect of an undertaking given by him on behalf of the same named client over property at Co Dublin and, in particular letters dated 11 October 2013, 6 November 2013, and 14 February 2014 respectively,

3)   Failed to attend a meeting of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee on 25 March 2014 in respect of the complaint concerning his same named client over property at Co Dublin, despite being required to do so,

4)   Failed to reply adequately or at all to the Society’s correspondence in respect of an undertaking given by him on behalf of his named clients over property at Co Dublin and, in particular, letters dated 11 October 2013, 6 November 2013, and 14 February 2014 respectively,

5)   Failed to attend a meeting of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee on 25 March 2014 in respect of the complaint concerning his named clients over property at Co Dublin, despite being required to do so,

6)   Failed to reply expeditiously, within a reasonable time, or at all with an undertaking given by him to Bank of Ireland Mortgage Bank on behalf of his named clients over property at Dublin 4, dated 14 October 2008,

7)   Failed to reply adequately or at all to the Society’s correspondence in respect of an undertaking given by him on behalf of his clients named clients over property at Dublin 4 and, in particular, letters dated 11 October 2013, 6 November 2013, and 14 February 2014 respectively,

8)   Failed to attend a meeting of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee on 25 March 2014 in respect of the complaint concerning his named clients over property at Dublin 4, despite being required to do so.

The tribunal ordered that the matter should go forward to the High Court and, on 21 November 2016, the High Court ordered that:

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

2)  The respondent solicitor pay to the applicant the costs of the proceedings before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal,

3)  The respondent solicitor deliver up all files to the Society pursuant to provisions of section 19(1) of the Solicitors (Amendment)         Act 1960, as amended, by substitution, by section 27 of the Solicitors ( Amendment) Act 1994.

The respondent solicitor appealed the order and, on 11 January 2019, the Court of Appeal ordered that, unless the books of appeal were lodged by 21 January 2019, the said appeal should stand struck out with liberty to apply or re-enter the appeal, with costs of the appeal to the applicant as against the respondent, to be taxed in default of agreement

In the matter of Thomas O’Donoghue, a solicitor formerly practising as principal of O’Donoghue & Co, Solicitors, 2 Egan’s Lane, Tuam, Co Galway, and in the matter of an application by the Law Society of Ireland to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2015 [8824/DT40/15; 8824/DT41/15, and High Court record 2018 no 134 SA]

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)

Thomas O’Donoghue (respondent solicitor)

8824/DT40/15

On 21 May 2018, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that, up to the date of referral to the tribunal, he:

1)   Failed to comply with an undertaking dated 18 September 2007, provided to the complainant, 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.

8824/DT41/15

On 21 May 2018, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:

1)   Failed to comply with an undertaking dated 7 May 2010, provided to the complainant, in a timely manner or at all,

2)   Failed to respond to correspondence sent to him by the Society.

The tribunal ordered that the Law Society bring its findings and reports in both matters before the High Court.

On 3 December 2018, the High Court ordered that:

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

2)   The respondent solicitor pay the applicant’s costs before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal and the High Court.

In the matter of Paul Cunningham, solicitor, formerly practising as Cunningham Solicitors, 8 Emily Square, Athy, Co Kildare, and in the matter of an application by the Law Society of Ireland to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2015 [2017/DT01; 2017/DT02; 2017/DT47; and High Court record 2018/109 SA]

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)

Paul Cunningham (respondent solicitor)

On 19 July 2017, in an application bearing record no 2017/DT01, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:

1)   Borrowed money from a named client and did not advise the named client to get independent advice before borrowing the money, contrary to chapter 3.5 of A Guide to Good Professional Conduct for Solicitors,

2)   Borrowed money from a named client in breach of the fiduciary relationship of solicitor and client and, in so doing, brought the solicitors’ profession into disrepute,

3)   Failed to repay in full the loan of €27,000 to a named client, despite agreeing to do so, leaving an outstanding liability to the named client of €17,000 plus interest and costs,

4)   Failed to make a payment of €5,000 before Christmas 2015, despite telling the CCRC he would do so.

On 19 July 2017, in an application bearing record no 2017/DT02, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:

1)   Failed to comply expeditiously, within a reasonable time, or at all with an undertaking dated 21 April 2006 given by him on behalf of his named clients over property at Athy, Co Kildare, to Bank of Ireland on 21 April 2006,

2)   Failed to reply satisfactorily or at all to the complainant’s correspondence and, in particular, letters dated 14 December 2009, 8 February 2011, 24 April 2012, 31 August 2012, 3 April 2013 and 28 May 2013,

3)   Failed to reply adequately, in a timely fashion, or at all to the Society’s correspondence and, in particular, letters dated 6 May 2014, 9 July 2014, 21 November 2014, 9 December 2014, 20 January 2015, 24 June 2015 and 10 August 2015.

On 14 November 2017, in an application bearing record no 2017/DT47, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:

1)   Failed to transmit moneys, received by him for the complainant’s costs, to the complainant,

2)   Failed to reply adequately or at all to the complainant’s correspondence, in particular, letters dated 5 December 2014, 28 April 2015, 7 October 2015, 25 May 2016, 11 July 2016, 4 October 2016, 26 October 2016 and 4 November 2016 respectively,

3)   Failed to reply adequately or at all to the complainant’s telephone calls and, in particular, telephone calls made on 3 November 2016, 21 November 2016 and 22 November 2016 respectively,

4)   Failed to reply adequately or at all to the Society’s correspondence and, in particular, letters dated 29 November 2016, 25 January 2017 and 17 February 2017 respectively.

The tribunal ordered that the matters should go forward to the High Court and, on 19 November 2018, the High Court ordered that:

1)   The recommendation of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal be set aside and, in lieu thereof, the name of the respondent solicitor shall be struck from the Roll of Solicitors,

2)   The respondent solicitor make restitution to the named complainant in the sum of €5,559.50,

3)   The respondent solicitor pay the applicant its measured costs of the within proceedings.