Check a Solicitor's Record
The Law Society has a statutory duty to maintain a register of all orders containing findings of misconduct made against solicitors by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal and the High Court.
Any person can apply to the Law Society for a copy of entries on that register that relate to a particular solicitor by submitting a request in writing to the Regulation Department of the Law Society.
The Law Society also has a statutory obligation to publish disciplinary findings against solicitors. The Society has developed a publication policy for this website that is linked to the severity of sanction imposed. This policy provides for the ongoing publication of the most serious sanctions and the publication of less serious findings and related sanctions for specified periods of time.
-
Where the finding includes a sanction to strike the solicitor’s name off the roll of solicitors the order will remain published indefinitely.
-
Where a finding includes an order to suspend the solicitor’s practising certificate the finding will be published for the duration of the period of suspension or three years, whichever is the longer.
-
Where the finding includes a sanction to impose a condition upon a solicitor’s practising certificate that finding will be published for a period of 3 years, or the duration of time specified in the order, whichever is the longer.
-
All other findings of misconduct will be published for a period of three years.
By law, findings of misconduct are made against individual solicitors, not firms of solicitors. SCROLL DOWN to view the search results. To view more details, click on the 'Show Details' link.
Neil Corbett
Neil Corbett Solicitors, Davis Building, Lower Main Street, Mallow, Co Cork
In the matter of Neil Corbett, a solicitor formerly practising as principal of Neil Corbett Solicitors, Davis Building, Lower Main Street, Mallow, Co 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 [3429/DT62/15; 3429/DT63/15; High Court record 2018/105 SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Neil Corbett (respondent solicitor)
On 31 August 2018, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:
3429/DT62/15
Up to the date of expiry of the stay of referral of this matter to the tribunal, the respondent solicitor had:
1) Failed to comply with part or all of the undertaking dated 15 April 2005 to the complainant in a timely manner or at all, and/or
2) Failed to comply with the directions of the committee dated 11 December 2012 when required to do so, and/or
3) Failed to attend at a meeting of the committee on 11 December 2012 when required to do so, and/or
4) Failed to attend at a meeting of the committee on 19 February 2013 when required to do so, and/or
5) Failed to attend at a meeting of the committee on 16 July 2013 when required to do so, and/or
6) Failed to respond adequately or at all to letters dated 24 February 2012, 12 March 2012, 10 April 2012 and 30 May 2012 sent to him by the complainant, and/or
7) Failed to respond adequately or at all to letters dated 24 July 2012, 29 August 2012 and 10 May 2013 sent to him by the Society.
3429/DT63/15
Up to the date of expiry of the stay of referral of this matter to the tribunal, the respondent solicitor had
1) Failed to comply with one or more of the following undertakings in a timely manner or at all:
a) Undertakings dated 27 October 2005 and 24 April 2006 in respect of his named clients in respect of a named property, and/or
b) Undertaking dated 26 January 2004 in respect of his named clients in respect of a named property, and/or
c) Undertaking dated 26 September 2007 in respect of his named clients in respect of a named property, and/or
d) Undertaking dated 26 January 2004 in respect of his named clients in respect of a named property, and/or
e) Undertakings dated 10 December 2008 and 5 January 2009 in respect his named clients in respect of named properties, and/or
f) Undertaking dated 20 January 2004 in respect of his named clients in respect of a named property, and/or
g) Undertaking dated 16 November 2006 in respect of his named clients in respect of named properties,
2) Failed to respond adequately or at all to some or all of the correspondence sent to him by the complainant:
a) In respect of the first undertaking, particularly letters dated 22 November 2006, 27 April 2007, 23 May 2007, 26 October 2007, 21 November 2007, 12 December 2007, 25 April 2008, 16 May 2008, 4 January 2010, 26 April 2010, 2 July 2010, 29 November 2010, and 8 March 2011, and/or
b) In respect of the second undertaking, particularly letters dated 11 February 2005, 12 August 2005, 10 February 2006, 3 March 2006, and 5 February 2009, and/or
c) In respect of the third undertaking, particularly letters dated 8 March 2011, 30 March 2011, and 1 June 2011, and/or
d) In respect of the fourth undertaking, particularly letters dated 11 February 2005, 12 August 2005, 10 February 2006, 3 March 2006, and 28 January 2009, and/or
e) In respect of the sixth undertaking, particularly letters dated 11 February 2005, 12 August 2005, 10 February 2006, and 3 March 2006,
3) Failed to respond adequately or at all to some or all of the correspondence sent to him by the Society:
a) In respect of the first undertaking, particularly letters dated 5 August 2011, 6 September 2011, 27 September 2011, 22 November 2011, and 9 January 2012, and/or
b) In respect of the second undertaking, particularly letters dated 8 December 2011 and 10 January 2012, and/or
c) In respect of the third undertaking, particularly letters dated 25 October 2011 and 9 January 2012, and/or
d) In respect of the fifth undertaking, particularly letters dated 19 October 2011, 4 November 2011, and 10 January 2012, and/or
e) In respect of the sixth undertaking, particularly a letter dated 28 September 2011, and/or
f) In respect of the seventh undertaking, particularly letters dated 19 October 2011 and 9 January 2012, and/or
g) In respect of all undertakings, particularly letters dated 9 May 2012, 22 June 2012, 17 July 2012, 9 November 2012, and 1 March 2013,
4) Failed to attend at meetings of the committee on 4 September 2012, 11 December 2012, 14 May 2013 and 16 July 2013 when required to do so.
The tribunal ordered that the Law Society of Ireland bring its findings and reports in both matters before the High Court. On 22 October 2018, the High Court, in proceedings entitled 2018 no105 SA, ordered that:
1) The respondent solicitor not be permitted to practise as a sole practitioner or in partnership, and that he be permitted 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,
2) The respondent solicitor pay a sum of €5,000 to the compensation fund of the Law Society of Ireland,
3) The respondent solicitor pay the Law Society €22,734.43 costs (including VAT and outlay) of the proceedings before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal,
4) The respondent solicitor pay the Law Society €2,075 costs (including VAT and outlay) of the High Court proceedings.
Lyndsey Clarke
Keith Flynn & Company, 414 The Capel Building, Mary’s Street, Dublin 7
In the matter of Lyndsey Clarke, solicitor, practising as Keith Flynn & Company, 414 The Capel Building, Mary’s Street, Dublin 7, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2015 [2017/DT46 and High Court record 2018 no 99 SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Lyndsey Clarke (respondent solicitor)
On 12 July 2018, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in her practice as a solicitor in that she:
1) Improperly and/or dishonestly caused or allowed a minimum deficit of in or around €40,302.70 on the client account as at 16 November 2016,
2) Ceased practice on or around 21 November 2016 with a deficit on the client account in respect of a client matter of up to €80,000,
3) Failed to notify the client the subject of the deficit at (2) above of the deficit in a timely manner or at all and, further, that they were ceasing practice without rectifying a deficit in his funds,
4) Failed over an ongoing period of time, in 2015 and 2016, to maintain proper books of account, in breach of regulation 13 and, in particular, failed to maintain books of account that showed the true financial position in relation to transactions with clients’ moneys and with other moneys transacted through the client account, in breach of regulation 13(2)(a),
5) On or around 17 October 2016, improperly and/or dishonestly caused or allowed two transfers of clients’ moneys in the amounts of €10,085 and €16,370 respectively to reduce a deficit on the client account, which moneys were not properly available to reduce the deficit, in breach of regulation 10,
6) Improperly and/or dishonestly caused or allowed the transfer of €29,000 of clients’ funds to the office account, by way of transfers of €25,000 and €4,000 on 26 October 2016 and 15 November 2016 respectively, in breach of regulation 7,
7) Failed to complete stamping in a purchase matter in a timely manner or at all,
8) Caused or allowed fees of €1,150 to be transferred to the office account on 23 August 2016 before receipt of funds on 29 August 2016, creating a debit balance of €1,150, in breach of regulation 7(2)(a),
9) Ceased practice on or around 21 November 2016 without having made all appropriate arrangements for the wind-up of the practice, thereby showing disregard for the clients of the practice,
10) Failed to have any or any adequate regard for the safekeeping of client funds.
The tribunal ordered that the matter should go forward to the High Court and, on 22 October 2018, the High Court ordered that:
1) The name of the respondent solicitor be struck from the Roll of Solicitors,
2) The respondent solicitor pay the applicant’s measured costs.
Keith Flynn
Keith Flynn & Company, 414 The Capel Building, Mary’s Street, Dublin 7
In the matter of Keith Flynn, practising as Keith Flynn & Company, 414 The Capel Building, Mary’s Street, Dublin 7, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2015 [2017/DT46 and High Court record 2018 no 99 SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Keith Flynn (respondent solicitor)
On 12 July 2018, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:
1) Improperly and/or dishonestly caused or allowed a minimum deficit of in or around €40,302.70 on the client account as at 16 November 2016,
2) Ceased practice on or around 21 November 2016 with a deficit on the client account in respect of a client matter of up to €80,000,
3) Failed to notify the client the subject of the deficit at (2) above of the deficit in a timely manner or at all and, further, that they were ceasing practice without rectifying a deficit in his funds,
4) Failed over an ongoing period of time, in 2015 and 2016, to maintain proper books of account, in breach of regulation 13 and, in particular, failed to maintain books of account that showed the true financial position in relation to transactions with clients’ moneys and with other moneys transacted through the client account, in breach of regulation 13(2)(a),
5) On or around 17 October 2016, improperly and/or dishonestly caused or allowed two transfers of clients’ moneys in the amounts of €10,085 and €16,370 respectively to reduce a deficit on the client account, which moneys were not properly available to reduce the deficit, in breach of regulation 10,
6) Improperly and/or dishonestly caused or allowed the transfer of €29,000 of clients’ funds to the office account, by way of transfers of €25,000 and €4,000 on 26 October 2016 and 15 November 2016 respectively, in breach of regulation 7,
7) Failed to complete stamping in a purchase matter in a timely manner or at all,
8) Caused or allowed fees of €1,150 to be transferred to the office account on 23 August 2016 before receipt of funds on 29 August 2016, creating a debit balance of €1,150, in breach of regulation 7(2)(a),
9) Ceased practice on or around 21 November 2016 without having made all appropriate arrangements for the wind-up of the practice, thereby showing disregard for the clients of the practice,
10) Failed to have any or any adequate regard for the safekeeping of client funds.
The tribunal ordered that the matter should go forward to the High Court and, on 22 October 2018, the High Court ordered that:
1) The name of the respondent solicitor be struck from the Roll of Solicitors,
2) The respondent solicitor pay the applicant’s measured costs.
Liam M O’Brien
Liam O’Brien, 21 Quinsboro Road, Bray, Co Wicklow
In the matter of Liam M O’Brien, a solicitor formerly practising as Liam O’Brien, 21 Quinsboro Road, Bray, Co Wicklow, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2015 [3508/DT140/12; 3508/DT01/15; High Court record 2018 no 74 SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Liam M O’Brien (respondent solicitor)
On 9 November 2017, in an application bearing record no 3508/DT01/15, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:
1) Caused or allowed a deficit on the client account in the sum of €426,080 as at 5 July 2012,
2) Failed to maintain proper books of account and such relevant supporting documents as would enable client 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, in breach of regulation 12(1) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations 2001,
3) Caused or allowed a debit balance to arise on the client side of client ledger account due to unidentified transactions of €234,682 as at 5 July 2012, in breach of regulation 7(2)(a) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations,
4) Caused or allowed a debit balance to arise on the client side of the client ledger account of Liam M O’Brien in the sum of €151,041 as at 5 July 2012, in breach of regulation 7(2)(a) of regulations,
5) Caused or allowed a debit balance to arise on the client side of the client ledger account of a named client in the sum of €19,302 as at 5 July 2012, in breach of regulation 7(2)(a),
6) Caused or allowed a debit balance to arise on the client side of the client ledger account of a named client in the sum of €12,936 as at 5 July 2012, in breach of regulation 7(2)(a),
7) Through his conduct, obstructed and delayed the Society’s investigation into his books of account and the true financial status of his practice, in breach of regulation 12(2) of the regulations.
In a separate application bearing record no 3508/DT140/12, 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 31 December 2010 within six months of that date, in breach of regulation 21(1) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations 2001.
The tribunal ordered that the matters should go forward to the High Court and, on 15 October 2018, the High Court ordered that the name of the respondent solicitor be struck from the Roll of Solicitors.
Imelda Leahy
Imelda Leahy and Company, Solicitors, Kilree Street, Bagenalstown, Co Carlow
In the matter of Imelda Leahy, a solicitor formerly practising as Imelda Leahy and Company, Solicitors, Kilree Street, Bagenalstown, Co Carlow, 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 1954-2011 [8250/DT158/15 and High Court record 2018/66SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Imelda Leahy (respondent solicitor)
On 23 June 2018, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in her practice as a solicitor in that she:
1) Took €173,543 from the estate of a named person in circumstances where she was not entitled to do so,
2) Failed to pay a specific bequest from the estate in a timely manner,
3) Took two payments of €15,000 each on 18 November 2014, together with travel expenses of €1,300.20, which payments were not recorded in the office ledger account for that client,
4) Failed to keep proper books of account and records to show the amounts of settlement received and failed to provide evidence of same when requested in respect of certain cases,
5) Allowed a shortfall of €36,810 in relation to clients’ funds due to third parties because of the transfer of excess amounts for costs in respect of certain cases,
6) Failed to provide sufficient documentary evidence to ensure that clients were informed of the correct amount of their settlements,
7) In respect of a specific estate, failed to issue a section 68(1) letter to the client or the residuary legatees setting out the fees payable or the basis to be used to calculate those fees,
8) In relation to a specific estate, took costs of €47,150 before VAT on a piecemeal basis without instructions or authority of the client,
9) In respect of a specific case, failed to furnish a section 68(6) account to the client for costs deducted and failed to furnish a bill of costs to the client for fees taken,
10) Was in breach of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations as set out at paragraph 4.11 of the report and, in particular, in breach of:
a a) Regulation 12(1) of the 2001 regulations and 13(1) of the 2014 regulations by failing to keep proper books of account that showed the true financial affairs of the clients,
b) Regulations 10(2) and 10(5) of the 2001 regulations and 11(2) and 11(5) of the 2014 regulations by failing to lodge all costs received to the client account and reflect these properly in the client ledger account,
c) c) Regulation 7(1)(iii), taking moneys across to the office account in respect of fees when it had not been made known to such clients that moneys so held would be used in satisfaction of professional fees due to the respondent solicitor,
d) Regulation 7(1)(ii) by the creation of debit balances,
e) Regulation 11(1) of the 2001 regulations and regulation 12(1) of the 2014 regulations by failing to furnish clients with bills of costs dealing with professional fees and outlay,
f) Regulation 11(3) of the 2001 regulations and 12(3) of the 2014 regulations by taking moneys not properly payable to the respondent solicitor at the time of taking,
g)Regulation 13 of the 2001 regulations and regulation 14 of the 2014 regulations in instances where the solicitor was a controlling trustee and failed to lodge moneys received without delay to a controlled trust bank account.
The tribunal ordered that the Law Society of Ireland bring its findings and reports before the High Court. On 23 July 2018, the High Court ordered that:
1) The respondent solicitor is not a fit and proper person to be a member of the solicitors’ profession,
2) The name of the respondent solicitor be struck off the Roll of Solicitors,
3) The respondent solicitor pay the applicant’s costs before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal in proceedings bearing the record no 8250/DT158/15, to be taxed in default of agreement,
4) The respondent solicitor pay the applicant’s costs before the court, to be taxed in default of agreement,
5) The applicant furnish the papers lodged with the court, including the transcript of the hearings before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, to the National Bureau of Fraud Investigation.
Imelda Leahy
Imelda Leahy and Company, Solicitors, Kilree Street, Bagenalstown, Co Carlow
In the matter of Imelda Leahy, a solicitor formerly practising as Imelda Leahy and Company, Solicitors, Kilree Street, Bagenalstown, Co Carlow, 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 1954-2011 [8250/DT42/16; 8250/DT43/16; 8250/DT46/16; 2017/DT09; 2017/DT70; and High Court record 2018/69SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Imelda Leahy (respondent solicitor)
On 22 June 2018, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in her practice as a solicitor in that she:
8250/DT42/16
1) Acted in a manner unbecoming to a solicitor by sending texts and correspondence to her client that were unprofessional, offensive, and inappropriate, thereby bringing the solicitors’ profession into disrepute,
2) Failed to release the balance of funds due to the complainant in a timely manner,
3) Failed to comply with the direction of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee made on 28 July 2015 within the time specified,
4) Failed to notify the complainant in a timely manner or at all of the significant increase in the level of fees,
5) Misled the Society by indicating that the section 68 letter issued on 3 March 2015 was a forgery, notwithstanding the letter of 20 April 2015 to the client that referred to the fees sent out in the section 68 letter,
6) Misled her client by letters dated 20, 22 and 25 May 2015 and text dated 19 May 2015, which stated that she had requested the bank’s solicitor to send the surplus funds to the client and that it was the bank’s solicitor who had erroneously paid the money into the respondent solicitor’s account, when in fact it was the respondent solicitor who instructed that the surplus be sent to her account,
7) Expressly or by implication misled the Society by claiming that a named person drafted the quote for €1,500 and that she did not agree with this sum, notwithstanding her letter to the complainant of 20 April 2015,
8) Made threats to her client by suggesting that she would report him to the Revenue Commissioners.
8250/DT43/16
Acted in a manner unbecoming to a solicitor by sending persistent texts and correspondence to her trainee, to the Society, and to third parties, the content and tenor of which were unprofessional, offensive, intemperate and inappropriate, thereby bringing the solicitors’ profession into disrepute.
8250/DT46/16
Acted in a manner unbecoming to a solicitor by sending abusive texts, and corresponded with her clients in an unprofessional, offensive, intemperate and inappropriate manner, thereby bringing the solicitors’ profession into disrepute.
2017/DT09
Acted in a manner unbecoming to a solicitor by sending abusive texts, and corresponded with her client in an unprofessional, offensive, intemperate and inappropriate way, thereby bringing the solicitors’ profession into disrepute.
2017/DT70
Failed to comply with the direction of the committee made on 1 March 2016 to refund moneys to the complainant in the amount of €16,540 within seven days of the meeting, as specified by the committee, or at all.
The tribunal ordered that the Law Society of Ireland bring its findings and reports before the High Court.
On 30 July 2018, the High Court declared that the respondent solicitor was not a fit and proper person to be a member of the solicitors’ profession, the respondent solicitor having been previously struck from the Roll by order of the court dated 23 July 2018.
Helen Lucey
Marshall & MacAulay Solicitors, The Square, Listowel, Co Kerry
In the matter of Helen Lucey, a solicitor practising as principal of Marshall & MacAulay Solicitors, The Square, Listowel, Co Kerry, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2015 [3012/DT106/12; 3012/DT20/14; High Court record 2015 no 68 SA and 2015 no 180 SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Helen Lucey (respondent solicitor)
On 20 May 2015, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in her practice as a solicitor in matters bearing record numbers 3012/DT106/12 and 3012/DT20/14.
The tribunal ordered that the Law Society bring its findings and reports before the High Court.
The respondent solicitor appealed against the findings of the tribunal.
On 12 June 2018, the High Court found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in her practice as a solicitor in that she:
3012/DT106/12
1) Caused a substantial deficit in the amount of circa €257,960 to arise on a client account on or around 31 July 2011, which deficit was due or partly due to the withdrawal of client moneys from one or more client accounts, in breach of regulation 7(1) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations 2001-2006 (SI 421 of 2001 as amended),
2) Withdrew moneys in the amount of in or around €259,000 from a client account, in breach of regulation 8(4) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations (as amended),
3) Failed to distribute moneys in the amount of €21,128 to nominated charities on the probate file of a named former client in a timely manner,
4) Failed to pay charitable bequests of a named client totalling €389,000 in a timely manner,
5) Failed to send the following deeds to be stamped in a timely manner: deed of a named client in the amount of €4,800 dating from 2007; deed of a named client in the amount of €6,030 dating from 2006; deed of a named client in the amount of €11,145 dating from 2006; deed of a named client in the amount of €5,430 dating from 2005,
6) Failed to pay over moneys in the amount of €20,546 retained on an account in respect of a named former client, deceased, even though the file was transferred to another solicitor in December 2007.
3012/DT20/14
1) In withdrawing moneys in the amount of in or around €259,000 from a named client account on or around 30 March 2007, acted improperly and/or in a manner tending to bring the solicitors’ profession into disregard, having regard to:
a) a) The conflict of interest that arose,
b) b) The duty owed to a named person in view of both her position as client (pursuant to section 2 of the Solicitors Amendment Act 1994) and in view of her age,
c) c) The fact that the respondent solicitor failed to liaise directly with the solicitors on record for the named person in the context of the settlement of a purported counterclaim,
d) d)The fact that the respondent solicitor acted without any express instructions from the named person,
2) Withdrew the amount of in or around €259,000 from the named client account, in breach of regulation 7(1) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations 2001-2006 (SI 241 of 2001 as amended).
On 5 July 2018, the High Court ordered that:
1) The respondent solicitor not be permitted to practise as a sole practitioner or in partnership, but only as an assistant solicitor in the employment and under the direct control and supervision of another solicitor of at least ten years’ standing – said order to be stayed until 1 December 2018 to facilitate a sale of the respondent solicitor’s practice,
2) The respondent solicitor pay €15,000 to the compensation fund and pay half the costs of the Law Society before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, to be taxed in default of agreement,
3) The respondent solicitor pay to the Law Society the costs of the High Court, less one day, to be taxed in default of agreement.
Gary O’Flynn
Gary O’Flynn, Solicitors, Unit 9 Nof Commercial Centre, Old Mallow Road, Cork
In the matter of Gary O’Flynn, a solicitor formerly practising as Gary O’Flynn, Solicitors, Unit 9 Nof Commercial Centre, Old Mallow Road, Cork, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2015 [10549/DT20/16 and High Court record 2018 13 SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Gary O’Flynn (respondent solicitor)
On 26 September 2017, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of professional misconduct in that he:
1) Was convicted before Cork Circuit Criminal Court on 28 May 2014 of 13 counts of making a gain or causing a loss by deception, contrary to section 6 of the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act 2001, having pleaded not guilty to each count. For these offences, the respondent solicitor was sentenced in respect of each count to a term of imprisonment of three years, to date from 28 May 2014 and to run concurrently, with the final two years of each term to be suspended for a period of two years on the respondent solicitor agreeing to be bound to keep the peace for the said period.
2) Was convicted before Cork Circuit Criminal Court on three counts of soliciting another person to murder an individual on a date or dates unknown between 1 October 2012 and 13 February 2013 inclusive, contrary to section 4 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, and was sentenced in respect of each count to a term of imprisonment of five years, with the terms of imprisonment to date from 9 February 2015, to run concurrently, and with the final two years of each term to be suspended for a period of two years on the respondent solicitor agreeing to be bound to keep the peace for the said period.
3) Was convicted before Cork Circuit Criminal Court on two counts of making a gain or causing a loss by deception, contrary to section 6 of the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act 2001. For these offences, the respondent solicitor was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of two years, to date from 9 February 2015.
4) Was convicted before Cork Circuit Criminal Court on two counts of using an instrument that he knew or believed to be a false instrument with the intention of inducing another person to accept it as genuine, and by reason of so accepting the said instrument, to do some act or to make some omission or to provide some service to the prejudice of that person or any other person, contrary to section 26 of the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act 2001. For these offences, the respondent solicitor was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of three years, to date from 9 February 2015.
5) Has, through his criminal convictions, brought the solicitors’ profession into disrepute.
The tribunal ordered that the matter go forward to the High Court and, on 16 April 2018, in High Court proceedings 2018 no 13 SA, the High Court made orders that:
1) The respondent solicitor’s name be struck off the Roll of Solicitors,
2) The respondent solicitor pay a contribution of the sum of €6,000 towards the costs of the Law Society of Ireland in the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal proceedings,
3) The respondent solicitor pay measured costs of the Law Society of Ireland in respect of the High Court application in the sum of €5,362.97 within three months of the order.
Patrick Callanan
n/a
In the matter of Patrick Callanan, 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 [7251/DT88/10]; High Court [2015/6 SA]; Court of Appeal [2015/237]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Patrick Callanan (respondent solicitor)
On 27 August 2014, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:
1) Provided a certificate of earnings in respect of a named person to Permanent TSB, dated 15 September 2004, knowing the contents of the certificate to be false,
2) Provided a certificate of earnings in respect of a named person to ICS Building Society, dated 14 September 2004, knowing the contents of the certificate to be false,
3) Provided a certificate of earnings in respect of a named person to IIB Homeloans Limited, dated 15 September 2004, knowing the contents of the certificate to be false,
4) Provided a certificate to Permanent TSB and IIB Homeloans representing that a named person was employed as a law clerk with the firm Wells & O’Carroll Solicitors, when that person had never been employed by that firm,
5) Gave or caused to be given multiple undertakings to the named lending institutions to register a first charge in their favour in respect of a property at Carrickmacross, Co Monaghan.
The tribunal ordered that the matter should go forward to the High Court and, on 13 April 2015, the High Court ordered that:
1) The respondent solicitor be prohibited from practising as a solicitor or from holding himself out as a solicitor entitled to practise for a period of ten years from the date of the making of this order,
2) The respondent, at the expiration of the ten-year prohibition period, apply to the court should he wish to resume practice as a solicitor,
3) In the event of the respondent solicitor applying to the court to resume practice as a solicitor, that he not be permitted to practise as a sole practitioner or in partnership; that he be permitted 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,
4) The respondent never be given cheque-signing rights over any client account,
5) The respondent, when seeking employment as a solicitor, must furnish any prospective solicitor employer with a copy of these findings,
6) The respondent pay the sum of €5,000 to the compensation fund,
7) The respondent solicitor pay the whole of the Society’s costs and witness expenses in the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal proceedings, to be taxed in default of agreement,
8) The respondent pay the Society’s costs of the within application, to be taxed in default of agreement.
The respondent solicitor appealed the order to the Court of Appeal on 12 June 2015.
On 21 July 2017, the Court of Appeal ordered that the said judgment and order of the High Court made on 13 April 2015 be set aside and that the matter be remitted to the President of the High Court for consideration of the appropriate penalty to be imposed on the respondent, pursuant to the provisions of section 8 of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act 1960, as substituted by section 18 of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act 1994.
The matter was relisted before the High Court and, on 11 April 2018, the High Court ordered that:
1) The respondent is not a fit and proper person to be a member of the solicitors’ profession,
2) The name of the respondent be struck off the Roll of Solicitors,
3) The respondent pay a contribution of €5,000 towards the costs of the applicant for the proceedings in the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal,
4) The respondent pay the sum of €2,000 to Mr Enda O’Carroll, solicitor, in respect of his expenses for attendances at the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal proceedings,
5) The respondent pay the Society’s costs of the within application, to be taxed in default of agreement and such costs to be set off against the costs awarded to the respondent against the applicant in the substantive appeal.
John Mark McFeely
Hegarty & McFeely Solicitors, 10 Queen Street, Derry BT48 7EX, Northern Ireland; and 27 Clarendon Street, Derry BT48 7EX, Northern Ireland
In the matter of John Mark McFeely, a solicitor previously practising as Hegarty & McFeely Solicitors at 10 Queen Street, Derry BT48 7EX, Northern Ireland, and at 27 Clarendon Street, Derry BT48 7EX, Northern Ireland, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2015 [2017/DT25; 2017/DT48; 2017/DT49; 2017/DT50; and High Court record 2017 91 SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
John Mark McFeely (respondent solicitor)
2017/DT25
On 20 September 2017, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of professional misconduct in that he:
1) Failed to ensure that there was furnished to the Society a closing accountant’s report, as required by regulation 26(2) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations 2001 (SI 421 of 2001) in a timely manner or at all, having ceased practice on 31 December 2012,
2) Failed to respond to the Society’s queries in relation to the balance of client funds held by him since he ceased practising.
2017/DT48
On 20 September 2017, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of professional misconduct in that he:
1) Failed to comply with an undertaking dated 19 June 2007 furnished to Permanent TSB on behalf of his named clients and property at Newtowncunningham, Co Donegal, in a timely manner or at all,
2) Failed to respond to the Society’s letter of 7 October 2016 in a timely manner, within the time prescribed, or at all,
3) Failed to attend the meeting of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee on 29 November 2016, despite being required to do so by letter dated 22 November 2016.
2017/DT49
On 20 September 2017, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of professional misconduct in that he:
1) Failed to comply with an undertaking furnished to named complainants on 30 December 2004 in respect of his named clients and property at Castlefinn, Co Donegal, in a timely manner or at all,
2) Failed to comply with the direction made by the Complaints and Client Relations Committee at its meeting on 19 July 2016 that he furnish a full report to the Society by 29 July 2016, which decision was communicated to him by letter dated 20 July 2016,
3) Failed to respond to letters from the Society dated 12 January and 29 January 2016 in a timely manner or at all.
2017/DT50
On 20 September 2017, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of professional misconduct in that he:
1) Failed to comply with an undertaking dated 20 September 2007 furnished to Permanent TSB in respect of his named client and property at Newtowncunningham, Donegal, in a timely manner or at all,
2) Failed to respond to the Society’s correspondence of 7 October 2016 and 2 November 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 29 November 2016, despite being required to do so by letter dated 22 November 2016.
The tribunal sent all four matters forward to the High Court and, on 5 February 2018, in High Court proceedings 2017 no 91 SA, the High Court made an order that:
1) The respondent solicitor’s name be struck off the Roll of Solicitors,
2) The respondent solicitor pay a cumulative sum of €5,500 as a contribution towards the costs of the disciplinary proceedings within six months of the order,
3) The respondent solicitor pay the whole of the costs of the applicant, such costs to be taxed by a taxing master of the High Court in default of agreement.
