In the matter of Michele Caulfield, solicitor, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2015 [12575/DT94/16 and High Court record 2017 no 71 SA]

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)

Michele Caulfield (respondent solicitor)

On 4 July 2017, the Solicitor Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of professional misconduct in her practice as a solicitor in that she:

1)   Created a shortfall of €261,968.30 on clients’ funds in her employer’s practice by her misappropriation of client funds and by transferring funds between unrelated accounts,

2)   On 31 July 2013, requisitioned two cheques to purchase bank drafts payable to Bank of Ireland for €34,639.02 and €25,000 from the ledger account of a minor deceased and misappropriated these funds by lodging €25,000 to her own bank account and €34,639.02 to her father’s company’s account,

3)   On 16 November 2012, requisitioned a cheque to purchase a sterling bank draft of £21,500 (€27,143.41) from the ledger account of a named deceased and misappropriated these funds by using this draft to pay a car dealer in Newry for the purchase of a car,

4)   On 11 January 2013, requisitioned three further cheques from a named estate made payable to St Vincent’s Private Hospital (€842.59), Mount Carmel Hospital (€698.60) and Bank of Ireland (€8,000), which were unrelated to the client matter, thereby depriving the estate of these funds,

5)   On 30 June 2015, requisitioned a client account cheque for €12,500 from a named estate and misappropriated the funds by purchasing a bank draft payable to a named motor dealer, and then tried to conceal the payments made by describing same as ‘balance due to residuary beneficiary’,

6)   Withdrew €10,600 on 15 May 2015 from the ledger account of a minor deceased by requisitioning a bank draft payable to a named individual and misappropriated same by paying it to the named individual, a car dealer, a payment unconnected with the matter,

7)   Wrongfully alleged that the bank had made an overpayment of €20,000 in a named estate, thereby depriving the estate of €20,000 properly due to it,

8)   Arranged for an altered copy of a bank draft showing €78,272.10 (purporting to be the correct figure) to be placed on file in the estate of a named deceased and arranged for a corrective affidavit to be prepared for Revenue, altered the cash account, and wrongfully informed the beneficiaries of the lesser amount,

9)   Used the €20,000 misappropriated from the estate of the named deceased to make a number of payments unrelated to this estate, including a number of personal payments,

10) Used €8,709.83, including a refund by a nursing home of €7,264.05, for her personal use from the estate of a named deceased by lodging funds to the solicitor’s personal bank account,

11) Took €5,000 from the estate of a named deceased and lodged same to the account of a company owned by the solicitor’s father,

12) In the estate of a named deceased, requisitioned a cheque for €34,404.20, described as funds due to a beneficiary, but misappropriated same by lodging it to her personal bank account,

13) In the estate of a named deceased, requisitioned a cheque to Bank of Ireland for the balance of the ledger account of €7,506.46, which payment was not made to the beneficiary,

14) In the estate of a named deceased, took the sum of €1,059.70 from the client account as ‘payment of administration bond’ addressed to Avalon Insurance, but wrongfully used same to pay moneys due to Avalon Insurance for the benefit of her father,

15) In the estate of a named deceased, wrongfully used a cheque for €1,500 on 3 July 2015 to pay her named obstetrician,

16) Made transfers in eight different instances between unrelated ledger accounts, thereby causing a shortfall in the client funds of those accounts affected.

The tribunal ordered that the matter be sent forward to the High Court and, on Monday 6 November 2017, in High Court proceedings 2017 no 71 SA, the High Court made an order striking the name of the respondent solicitor from the Roll of Solicitors.

In the matter of John A Tobin, solicitor, practising as John A Tobin Solicitors, Level 3 Cornmarket, Robert Street, Limerick, and in the matter of an application by the Law Society of Ireland to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal [4679/DT42/12; 4679/DT50/12; 4679/DT43/12; 4679/DT44/12; 4679/DT45/12; 4679/DT46/12; 4679/DT47/12; 4679/DT48/12; 4679/DT49/12, and High Court record 2013 no 104 SA]

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)

John A Tobin (respondent solicitor)

On 18 June 2013, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:

4679/DT42/12

1)   Failed to comply with part or all of his undertaking dated 8 December 2003,

2)   Failed to respond, either at all or in a timely manner, to correspondence from the complainant,

3)   Failed to respond, either at all or in a timely manner, to correspondence from the Society,

4)   Misrepresented to the bank, under cover letter dated 21 October 2008, the position regarding the registration of its security.

4679/DT50/12

1)   Failed to comply with his undertaking dated 5 March 2004,

2)   Failed to respond to correspondence from the complainant,

3)   Failed to respond to correspondence from the Society,

4)   Failed to comply with directions made by the committee.

4679/DT43/12

1)   Failed to comply with part or all of his undertaking dated 7 June 2005,

2)   Failed to respond, either at all or in a timely manner, to correspondence from the Society,

3)   Failed to comply with part or all of the committee’s directions.

4679/DT44/12

1)   Failed to comply with part or all of his undertaking dated 12 July 2000,

2)   Failed to respond, either at all or in a timely manner, to an order of the High Court,

3)   Failed to respond, either at all or in a timely manner, to correspondence from the Society,

4)   Failed to comply with part or all of the committee’s directions.

4679/DT45/12

1)   Failed to comply with part or all of his undertaking dated 7 June 2005,

2)   Failed to respond, either at all or in a timely manner, to correspondence from the Society,

3)   Failed to comply with part or all of the committee’s directions.

4679/DT46/12

1)   Failed to comply with part or all of his undertaking dated 7 June 2005,

2)   Failed to respond, either at all or in a timely manner, to correspondence from the complainant,

3)   Failed to respond, either at all or in a timely manner, to correspondence from the Society.

4679/DT47/12

1)   Failed to comply with part or all of his undertaking dated 7 June 2005,

2)   Failed to respond, either at all or in a timely manner, to correspondence from the complainant,

3)   Failed to respond, either at all or in a timely manner, to correspondence from the Society,

4)   Failed to comply with directions of the committee and/or the High Court.

4679/DT48/12

1)   Failed to comply with part or all of his undertaking dated 4 May 2007,

2)   Failed to respond, either at all or in a timely manner, to correspondence from the complainant,

3)   Failed to respond, either at all or in a timely manner, to correspondence from the Society.

4679/DT49/12

1)   Failed to comply with part or all of his undertaking dated 27 July 2005,

2)   Failed to respond, either at all or in a timely manner, to correspondence from the Society,

3)   Failed to comply with part or all of the committee’s directions.

The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal referred the matter forward to the High Court and, on 13 February 2015, in record 2013 no104 SA, the High Court made the following orders:

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

2)   That the name of the respondent solicitor shall be struck from the Roll of Solicitors,

3)   That the Law Society recover the costs of the proceedings, limited to a two-day hearing, and the costs of the proceedings before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, to include witness expenses as against the respondent when taxed or ascertained,

4)   That the respondent have leave to appeal the within order and to lodge such an appeal within such period as is provided for in order 58 or order 86A of the Rules of the Superior Courts (as the case may be) and, in the event of execution, be further stayed until the further determination of such appeal,

5)   That the costs order be stayed for a period of three months from the date of perfection of the order,

6)   That any further application for a stay be made to the Court of Appeal.

The respondent solicitor appealed to the Court of Appeal and, by order dated 21 July 2017, the court made the following orders:

1)   That the appeal be dismissed,

2)   That the Law Society recover the costs of the appeal, to be taxed in default of agreement,

3)   That execution on foot of the costs of the appeal be stayed for a period of 28 days from the date of perfection of the order and, in the event of an application to the Supreme Court for leave to appeal, to be further stayed pending the determination of such application and, in the event of leave to appeal being granted by the Supreme Court, to be further stayed pending the determination of that appeal.

Note: the order of the Court of Appeal was perfected on 8 September 2017. No notice of appeal was filed by the respondent solicitor.

In the matter of Barry Murphy, a solicitor formerly practising as Eugene Carey & Company, Solicitors, Courthouse Chambers, Mallow, Co Cork, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2011 [12724/DT90/16 and High Court record 2017 no 60 SA]

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)

Barry Murphy (respondent solicitor)

On 18 May 2017, 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 minimum deficit arise on the client account in the sum of €432,442.89, as at 30 June 2016,

2)   Made unauthorised withdrawals from the client account to a personal account of €384,210, in breach of regulation 7(1),

3)   Paid office expenses of €10,697.39 from the client account, in breach of regulation 7(2)(b),

4)   Failed to ensure that paid cheques were being returned to the practice, in breach of regulation 20(1)(f),

5)   Caused or allowed debit balances to arise on the client account in the sum of €2,582.62, in breach of regulation 7(2)(a),

6)   Failed to keep proper books of account, in breach of regulation 12(1) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations 2001, to show the true position in relation to client liabilities,

7)   Failed to prepare a balancing statement on the client account for 31 December 2015 within two months of this date, in breach of regulation 12(7).

The tribunal ordered that the matter should go forward to the High Court and, on 24 July 2017, on consent, the High Court ordered that:

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

2)   The respondent solicitor do pay to the applicant the costs of the proceedings before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal inclusive of outlay, as measured in the sum of €1,714.50, but that the execution and registration of these costs be stayed for a period of 12 months from the date of the making of this order,

3)   The respondent solicitor pay to the applicant the costs of the within proceedings inclusive of outlay, as measured in the sum of €1,816, but that the execution and registration of these costs be stayed for a period of 12 months from the date of the making of this order.

In the matter of Michael O’Neill, a solicitor previously practising as Michael O’Neill at Kingscourt, 33 South Main Street, Naas, Co Kildare, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2011 [2842/DT71/15; 2842/DT79/15; and High Court record 2017 no 61 SA]

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)

Michael O’Neill (respondent solicitor)

On 2 March 2017, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:

1)   Failed to keep record books of account, in breach of regulation 12 of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations, thereby making it difficult to ascertain the true position of client funds in the practice,

2)   Allowed a deficit of client funds totalling €521,142 as of 31 May 2014 to arise in his practice,

3)   Made round-sum transfers in the client account on a regular basis (207 transfers in a two-year period) purportedly as fees, but failed to post any fee notes in the two year period,

4)   Failed to ensure there was furnished to the Society a closing accountant’s report, as required by regulation 26(2) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations in a timely manner or at all, having ceased practice on 4 August 2014.

The tribunal ordered that the matters be sent forward to the High Court and, in High Court record 2017 no 61 SA on 17 July 2017, the High Court ordered that:

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

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

3)   The Law Society recover the costs of the proceedings and the costs of the proceedings before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, to include witness expenses when taxed or ascertained.

In the matter of Daniel (Donal) Downes, a solicitor formerly practising as O’Dea & Company, Solicitors, 1st floor, Hardiman House, Eyre Square, Galway, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2011 [4298/DT46/14; 4298/DT87/14; 4298/DT89/15; and High Court record 2017/48 SA]

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)

Daniel (Donal) Downes (respondent former solicitor)

On 24 January 2017, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent former solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor as follows:

4298/DT46/14

1)    Failed to comply with an undertaking furnished to ACC Bank on 2 June 2009 in respect of named borrowers and property at Co Galway in a timely manner or at all,

2)    Failed to respond to the Society’s correspondence and, in particular, the Society’s letters of 9 March 2013, 25 April 2013, 21 May 2013, and 2 September 2013 in a timely manner, within the time prescribed, or at all,

3)    Failed to comply with the directions made by the Complaints and Client Relations Committee at its meeting of 16 July 2013 that he:

a) Furnish certain information to the Society within 21 days of the date of the meeting,

b) Furnish a progress report to the committee on or before 14 September 2013, and that he

c) Furnish a further progress report to the committee on or before 14 November 2013,

4)    Failed to attend the Complaints and Client Relations Committee meeting of 3 December 2013, despite being required to so attend.

4298/DT87/14

1)    Forged the signature of one of the nominated cheque signatories on a number of client account cheques without her authority, thereby circumventing the arrangement in the practice that all cheques had to be signed by two assistant solicitors,

2)    Failed to have adequate supporting documentation on files to enable the vouching of transactions, in breach of regulation 12(1) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations,

3)    Caused backdated letters and documents to be created and placed on client files, some during the investigation of his practice,

4)    Provided information to the investigating accountant during his time in his office that subsequently proved to be false,

5)    Caused a false confirmation to be created on a file of a named client confirming an agreement to pay €85,000 to a named individual and forged his client’s signature on the confirmation,

6)    Paid approximately €15,000 too much from the client account to a named client and tried to conceal this by the creation of the false confirmation document,

7)    Failed to comply with anti-money-laundering procedures and had no or inadequate supporting documentation on file in relation to the receipt of €150,000 in cash in a named matter,

8)    Caused €206,000 to be paid from the client account in relation to a named client, thereby creating a debit balance of approximately €46,000,

9)    Caused or allowed the debit balance referred to in (8) above to be concealed by the backdating of a transfer of €46,000 from the client ledger account of another client,

10)  Caused a deed of partnership and a deed of dissolution of the partnership to be created on or about 8 May 2013, but backdated the deed of partnership to 6 January 2012 and caused a letter to be created on or about 21 November 2013 on the same file that was backdated to 10 May 2013 and that purported to send copies of the deeds to one of the clients,

11)  Failed to keep proper books of account.

4298/DT89/15

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 28 April 2014.

The tribunal sent the matter forward to the High Court and, on Monday 10 July 2017, in proceedings 2017 no 48 SA, the High Court declared that the former respondent solicitor was not a fit person to be a member of the solicitors’ profession and ordered that the former respondent solicitor do pay:

1)   Within six months from the date hereof, the sum of €5,000 to the Law Society as a contribution towards the costs the Society incurred before the disciplinary tribunal,

2)   The costs of the Law Society in respect of the High Court application, such costs to be taxed in default of agreement – with execution to be stayed for 12 months from the date hereof.

The former respondent solicitor’s name had already been struck from the Roll of Solicitors by order of the High Court on 28 April 2014 in proceedings 2014 no 53 SA.

In the matter of Paul Lambert, a former solicitor, previously practising as Merrion Legal, Butlers Court, 77 Sir John Rogerson’s Quay, Dublin 2, 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 [8876/DT100/15 and High Court record 2017/43 SA]

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)

Paul Lambert (respondent former solicitor)

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

1)   Failed to ensure that there was furnished to the Society an accountant’s report for the year ended 30 September 2014 within six months of that date, in breach of regulation 21(1) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations (SI 421 of 2001),

2)   Through his conduct, showed disregard for his statutory obligation to comply with the Solicitors Accounts Regulations and showed disregard for the Society’s statutory obligation to monitor compliance with the Solicitors Accounts Regulations for the protection of clients and the public.

The tribunal sent the matter forward to the High Court and, on Monday 29 May 2017, the High Court ordered that:

1)   The respondent former solicitor is not a fit person to be a member of the solicitors’ profession, as recommended by the disciplinary tribunal, having noted that the solicitor was struck off the Roll of Solicitors by order of the High Court on 17 July 2015 in proceedings 2015 no 5 SA,

2)   The respondent former solicitor pay the whole of the costs of the Law Society, to be taxed by a taxing master of the High Court in default of agreement.

In the matter of Andrew G Morrow, solicitor, formerly practising as David Wilson & Co, Solicitors, Raphoe, Lifford, Co Donegal, 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 [4674/DT04/15 and High Court record 2017/45 SA]

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)

Andrew Morrow (respondent solicitor)

On 7 February 2017, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:

1)   Caused or permitted a minimum deficit of around €177,657 on the client account as at 28 February 2014,

2)   Caused or allowed around €291,000 of non-client account payments, of a personal nature, to be expended from the client account, to include instances where the respondent solicitor used clients’ moneys to pay for his own personal pension contribution, family health insurance, his mother’s care costs and home bills, plus health insurance and his own personal credit card bills, contrary to regulation 7(2)(b),

3)   Caused or permitted a concealment of the client account deficit by recording around three amounts totalling €155,132 as loans to the respondent solicitor, when these were in fact client moneys,

4)   Failed to credit client moneys promised during the administration of an estate in the sum of €99,063, contrary to regulation 12, when same was recorded to the client ledger named ‘MK Morrow’ and described as ‘loan to Andrew’ and purported as a loan to the respondent solicitor,

5)   Failed to credit client moneys promised to the estate of a deceased person of €44,029, contrary to regulation 12, when same was recorded on the client ledger named ‘MK Morrow’ and described as ‘loan from MK Morrow’ and purported as a loan from the respondent solicitor,

6)   Failed to maintain proper books of account so as to show at any given time the financial state of practice and clients’ moneys, contrary to regulation 12.

The tribunal directed the Law Society to bring its report and recommendation on sanction of a limited practising certificate to the High Court, that the solicitor not be permitted to practise as a sole practitioner or in partnership, but only as an assistant solicitor in the employment and direct control and supervision of another solicitor of not less than ten years’ standing, to be approved in advance by the Law Society of Ireland, and to pay a measured costs contribution of €5,000 to the Law Society of Ireland.

On 24 May 2017, the High Court affirmed the findings of misconduct made against the respondent solicitor by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal and ordered that:

1)   In lieu of the recommendation of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, the court accepted the formal undertaking made by the respondent solicitor through counsel never to practise as a solicitor and not to hold himself out as a person entitled to practise as a solicitor, in perpetuity,

2)   The respondent solicitor pay the agreed measured costs of €5,000, inclusive of VAT, as a contribution to the applicant’s costs for the proceedings before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal,

3)   The respondent solicitor pay the agreed measured costs to the applicant for the within application in the sum of €7,500, inclusive of VAT.

The court noted that the applicant be at liberty to publish the making of this order in Iris Ofigúil and such other publications/press at its discretion.

In the matter of David Herlihy, solicitor, formerly practising as principal of David Herlihy, Solicitors, Lord Edward Street, Kilmallock, Co Limerick, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2011 [9286/DT90/15 and High Court record 2017/5SA]

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)

David Herlihy (respondent solicitor)

On 25 February 2016, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of professional misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:

1)   In respect of six matters, made a stamp duty return that he knew to be false,

2)   On eight occasions, failed to apply moneys collected from one or more clients towards the discharge of stamp duty and/or registration fees,

3)   Failed to take any or any adequate steps when he knew or ought to have known that documentation relating to a loan bore a purchase price in excess of that which appeared in the contract in respect of five matters,

4)   Failed to comply, either adequately or at all, on one or more occasions, with the requirements of section 68(1) of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act 1994, and/or

5)   Failed on one or more occasions to comply with the requirements of the Criminal Justice (Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing) Act 2010, and/or

6)   Failed to comply adequately or at all with the directions of the committee made on 23 May 2013, and/or

7)   Failed to attend or arrange to be represented at a meeting of the committee dated 26 June 2013, when required to do so, and/or

8)   Failed to reply adequately to correspondence from the Society dated 30 April 2013.

The tribunal ordered that this matter go forward to the High Court and, on 10 March 2017, the High Court ordered that:

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

2)   The applicant be permitted to take up clients’ moneys and lodge same to a Law Society nominated account and to take possession of the books of account and ledger cards and accounting records of the respondent solicitor’s practice,

3)   Pursuant to section 20(6) of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act 1960 (as amended by substitution by section 28 of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act 1994), the respondent lodge forthwith (or cause to be lodged), pursuant to the provisions of regulation 4(1) of the Solicitors (Accounts) Regulations 2001 (SI 421/2001), any client moneys subsequently received by him to the appropriate client account or client accounts, unless otherwise ordered by the court,

4)   The respondent solicitor pay the sum of €5,000 as a contribution towards the whole of the costs of the applicant before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal and pay the sum of €5,000 as a contribution towards the whole of the costs of the applicant before the High Court, with a stay on registration and execution for a period of 12 months from the date of the High Court order,

5)   There be liberty to apply.

The order of the High Court is under appeal to the Court of Appeal by the respondent solicitor.

In the matter of Michael Hanrahan, solicitor, formerly practising as Michael Hanrahan at 43 Lower Main Street, Dungarvan, Co Waterford, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2011 [2930/DT153/13 and High Court record no 2016/220 SA]

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)

Michael Hanrahan (respondent solicitor)

On 11 November 2016, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:

1)   Caused a minimum deficit in the client account of €181,856 as at 31 August 2012,

2)   Wrongfully withdrew a sum of €93,407 from the estate of the named deceased person where he was executor and where he had also witnessed the will and there was no charging clause in the will,

3)   Transferred €84,674 from the executor’s account in the above estate to his office account,

4)   Withdrew a further €8,733 from a deposit of €30,000 received at the auction on a land sale in the same estate,

5)   In another named estate, transferred €22,803 of moneys to the office account, whereas his section 68 letter showed that his fees would have amounted to €7,502,

6)   In another named estate, transferred a total of €30,421 to the office account, whereas his section 68 letter showed that his fees would have amounted to €10,012,

7)   Took the foregoing amounts without raising fee notes,

8)   In another named estate, calculated his fees at €7,619 but transferred a total of €13,892,

9)   Transferred this amount without furnishing a section 68 letter,

10) Paid himself €6,195 plus VAT before the grant of administration in relation to the estate had issued,

11) Paid himself these moneys without raising any fee note or notification to the clients of these withdrawals,

12) In a named estate, calculated his fees at €8,150 plus VAT but transferred a total of €31,992 from the client to the office account,

13) By engaging in the above transfers, left the distribution of €44,589 short by €3,189 per person, which roughly equates with the excess transfers from the client account of €31,992, less €9,075,

14) Did not inform the beneficiary of the transfer of funds to the office account on 12 different occasions between April 2010 and December 2011.

The tribunal ordered that the matter should go forward to the High Court and, on 23 January 2017, by consent, 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, including witness expenses, to be taxed in default of agreement – execution and registration of these on foot of said costs order be stayed for a period of 12 months from the date of the order,

3)   The respondent solicitor pay the applicant the costs of the High Court proceedings, to be taxed in default of agreement – execution and registration of these costs on foot of this costs order be stayed for a period of 12 months from the date of the order.

In the matter of Henry Joseph Arigho, a solicitor formerly practising as Henry Arigho & Co, Solicitors, Main Street, Moate, Co Westmeath, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2011 [3452/DT61/13, 3452/DT62/13, 3452/DT63/13, 3452/DT176/13, 3452/DT185/13, and High Court record no 2016/222 SA]

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)

Henry Joseph Arigho (respondent solicitor)

On 23 July 2014, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:

3452/DT61/13

1)   Failed to comply with part or all of his undertaking, dated 28 August 2007 in respect of a named property, to a bank in a timely manner or at all,

2)   Failed to attend the meeting of the applicant’s Complaints and Client Relations Committee on 10 January 2012, despite being required to do so,

3)   Failed to reply satisfactorily to one or more letters from the complainant bank in a timely manner and/or at all, notwithstanding his undertaking to them.

3452/DT62/13

1)   Failed to comply with part or all of his undertaking, dated 28 August 2007 in respect of a named property, to a bank in a timely manner or at all,

2)   Failed to attend the meeting of the applicant’s Complaints and Client Relations Committee on 10 January 2012, despite being required to do so,

3)   Failed to reply satisfactorily to one or more letters from the complainant bank in a timely manner and/or at all, notwithstanding his undertaking to them.

3452/DT63/13

1)   Failed to comply with part or all of his undertaking, dated 17 October 2008, relating to a named property,

2)   Failed to attend the meeting of the applicant’s Complaints and Client Relations Committee on 10 January 2012, despite being required to do so,

3)   Failed to reply satisfactorily to one or more letters from the complainant bank in a timely manner and/or at all, notwithstanding his undertaking to them.

3452/DT176/13

1)   Failed to comply with part or all of his undertaking dated 19 December 2002, insofar as it related to a specified property,

2)   Failed to reply to one or more letters from the complainant bank either in a satisfactory and/or a timely manner, notwithstanding his undertaking to the bank.

3452/DT185/13

1)   Failed to comply with part or all of his undertaking dated 27 May 2002,

2)   Failed to reply to one or more letters from the complainant bank either in a satisfactory and/or timely manner, notwithstanding his undertaking to the bank.

The tribunal ordered that the matter go forward to the High Court and, on 12 December 2016, the High Court ordered that any future practising certificate of the respondent solicitor limit him to practising 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 applicant.