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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.