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.
Notice
It has come to the attention of the Law Society that an internet search engine deploying AI-technology is generating inaccurate information in relation to disciplinary findings against solicitors.
This issue has been raised with the service provider concerned.
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.
-
Patrick Delaney
Date of Order10/07/2023In the matter of Patrick Delaney a solicitor previously practising as Patrick Delaney Solicitors, Parkside House, Castleknock, Dublin 15, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2015 [2023 no 52 SA]
Take notice that, by order of the President of the High Court made on 10 July 2023, it was ordered that the name of Patrick Delaney be struck from the Roll of Solicitors.
-
Rody Kelly-Corrigan
Date of Order05/07/2023In the matter of Rody Kelly Corrigan, a solicitor previously practising as Rody Kelly Corrigan, Solicitors, at The Glass House, 11 Coke Street, Smithfield, Dublin 7, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2015 [2023 no 26 SA]
Take notice that, on 5 July 2023, the President of the High Court ordered that Rody Kelly Corrigan be suspended from practice for 12 months from 27 April 2023.
-
Edward O'Brien
Date of Order23/05/2023Published June 2023 Gazette
THE HIGH COURT: 2023 NO 21 SA
In the matter of Edward O’Brien, a solicitor previously practising as Edward O’Brien Solicitors, 8A The Village Centre, Lucan, Co Dublin
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Edward O’Brien (respondent solicitor)
Take notice that, by order of the President of the High Court made on 8 May 2023, it is ordered that Edward O’Brien, solicitor, previously practising as Edward O’Brien Solicitors, 8A The Village Centre, Lucan, Co Dublin, be suspended from practice and be prohibited from holding himself out as a solicitor entitled to practise until further order of the court.
Niall Connors, Registrar of Solicitors, Law Society of Ireland,
May 2023
-
Christopher Walsh
Date of Order08/05/2023In the matter of Christopher Walsh, a solicitor practising as Christopher B Walsh, Solicitors, 90 Park Drive Avenue, Castleknock, Dublin 15, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2015[2021/DT06 and High Court 2023/3 SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Christopher Walsh (respondent solicitor)
The matter came before the High Court on 8 May 2023, and the court 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 applicant,
2) The respondent solicitor pay the sum of €7,551.50 as a contribution towards the costs of the applicant in the tribunal proceedings,
3) The respondent solicitor pay the sum of €2,000 to the compensation fund,
4) The respondent solicitor pay the sum of €3,700.50 to the Law Society for its costs of the High Court application.
-
Patrick Delaney
Date of Order30/03/2023In the matter of Patrick Delaney, a solicitor previously practising as Patrick Delaney, Solicitors, Parkside House, Castleknock, Dublin 15, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2015[2019/DT52 and 2020/DT08 and High Court 2023 no 52 SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Patrick Delaney (respondent solicitor)
2019/DT52
On 30 March 2023, the tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor, in that he failed to ensure there was furnished to the Society an accountant’s report, as required by regulation 26 (1)of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations 2014 (SI 516 of 2014),for the year ended 5 December 2018 within six months of that date.
-
Patrick Delaney
Date of Order30/03/2023In the matter of Patrick Delaney, a solicitor previously practising as Patrick Delaney, Solicitors, Parkside House, Castleknock, Dublin 15, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2015[2019/DT52 and 2020/DT08 and High Court 2023 no 52 SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Patrick Delaney (respondent solicitor)
2020/DT08
On 30 March 2023, the tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor, in that he:
1) Caused an actual deficit in client funds of €1,530,566.16 as of 2 September 2019, with a further potential deficit of €767,401.76 being identified, making an apparent deficit of €2,297,967.91 in client funds as of 2 September 2019,
2) Misappropriated client funds by engaging in a process of teeming and lading,
3) Failed to lodge client monies received to the client’s bank account,
4) Made unauthorised withdrawals from the client bank account,
5) Made unauthorised transfers to ledger cards of unrelated clients,
6) Transferred professional fees when not in funds to do so,
7) Delayed in redeeming mortgages, as the relevant money for this purpose was misappropriated and redemption was not possible until further unrelated money was received,
8) Allegedly failed to stamp and register deeds,
9) Misappropriated monies belonging to clients by way of payment to gambling websites,
10) Made unauthorised withdrawals by way of cash totalling €28,870 from the client bank account,
11) Failed to keep proper books of accounts, in breach of regulation 13 of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations,
12) Was in breach of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations, including regulations 4(1), 6(5), 7(1), 9(4), 11(4), 12(1), 25, and 26,
13) Caused claims of €3,472,045.74 to be made on the compensation fund up to 5 May 2020, with payments of €925,457.46 being discharged as at that date.
The tribunal directed that the Society bring its findings and reports before the High Court and, on 10 July 2023, the court ordered that:
1) The respondent solicitor’s name be struck off the Roll of Solicitors,
2) The respondent solicitor pay the sum of €11,000 to the compensation fund,
3) The respondent solicitor pay €1,500,000 as restitution to the applicant,
4) The respondent solicitor pay €9,786 as a contribution towards the whole of the costs of the applicant in the tribunal proceedings,
5) The respondent solicitor pay the applicant the sum of €3,604, representing the applicant’s costs of the High Court application.
-
Michael Malone
Date of Order02/03/2023In the matter of Michael Malone, a solicitor practising as Michael Malone & Co, Solicitors, 8A Blarney Shopping Centre, Blarney, Co Cork, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2015[2021/DT07]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Michael Malone (respondent solicitor)
On 2 March 2023, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of professional misconduct, in that he:
1) Failed to comply with an undertaking furnished to a named bank on 31 August 2015 on behalf of his named clients and property in Cork City in a timely manner or at all,
2) Failed to comply with a direction of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee, made at its meeting on 11 February 2021 and communicated to him by letter dated 12 February 2021, that he provide certain documentation to the Society,
3) Failed to respond to the following letters from the Society, in a timely matter or at all: letters dated 15 May 2019, 7 June 2019, 26 June 2019, 22 October 2019, 12 November 2019, 7 April 2020 (incorrectly dated 24 March 2020), 5 May 2020, 9 October 2020, 12 February 2021, 9 March 2021, 23 April 2021, 27 May 2021, 10 June 2021, and 28 June 2021.
The tribunal ordered that the respondent solicitor:
1) Stand censured,
2) Pay the sum of €3,000 to the compensation fund,
3) Pay the sum of €2,712 as a contribution towards the whole of the costs of the applicant or of any person appearing before the tribunal, as taxed by a taxing master of the High Court in default of agreement.
-
Gail Enright
Date of Order21/11/2022In the matter of Gail Enright, a solicitor formerly practising in Michael Enright & Co, Solicitors, 28 South Mall, Cork, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2015[2018/DT85 and High Court record 2022/198SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Gail Enright (respondent solicitor)
On 8 June 2022, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct, in that she:
1) Dishonestly caused or improperly allowed deficits on the client account by transfers of client moneys to the office account, including:
a) An improper transfer of €6,949 from the client account to the office account on 1 May 2015 as fees and VAT for a named account, when there were no funds received into the client account in respect of this transaction,
b) An improper transfer on 25 May 2015 of the amount of €4,205 as fees and VAT, when there were no funds in the client account in respect of this transaction,
c) An improper transfer on 4 April 2016 of €18,450 from the client account to the office account as fees and VAT for a named account, when there were no funds in the client account in respect of this transaction,
d) An improper transfer on 3 October 2016 in the amount of €19,272 from the client account to the office account as fees and VAT for a named account, when there were no funds received into the client account in respect of this transaction, and
e) Improper transfers between October 2015 and August 2016 totalling €35,545 from a contract deposit received from a named party, and
2) Attempted to conceal or permitted the attempt to conceal any and/or all of the deficits at allegation (1) above by rectifying deficits in or around account reporting date(s),
3) Dishonestly caused and/or improperly allowed transfers from the estate of a named party, giving rise to a deficit of client funds, to include:
a) Transfer on 1/5/2015 of €12,300, and/or
b) Transfer on 2/6/2015 of €9,225, and/or
c) Transfer on 12/6/2015 of €6,150, and/or
d) Transfer on 2/11/2015 of €6,765, and/or
e) Transfer on 4/11/2015 of €10,455, and/or
f) Transfer on 9/11/2015 of €6,150, and/or
g) Transfer on 16/11/2015 of €5,535, and/or
h) Transfer on 16/12/2016 of €6,765, and/or
i) Transfer on 23/5/2016 of €18,450,
Total: €81,795.
4) Attempted to conceal deficits on a named estate by creating or causing to be created false copies of a letter of 9 December 2013 addressed to the beneficiaries containing a fee estimate of €85,000, plus VAT, for the named estate,
5) Dishonestly caused and/or improperly allowed the taking of fees from a contract deposit of €44,426 received on 1 October 2015 in respect of the purchase of a commercial property by a named client:
a) 1/10/2015 €4,059, and/or
b) 14/10/2015 €1,968, and/or
c) 14/10/2015 €2,429, and/or
d) 14/10/2015 €799, and/or
e) 11/12/2015 €9,840, and/or
f) 14/12/2015 €1,180, and/or
g) 21/12/2015 €2,460, and/or
h) 16/5/2016 €6,765, and/or
i) 2/6/2016 €6,150,
Total: €35,650.
6) Dishonestly caused and/or improperly allowed transfers from a named estate, giving rise to a deficit of client funds of in or around €30,000,
7) Caused or permitted serious breaches of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations 2014:
a) Breach of regulation 7, whereby funds were transferred from the client account to the office account as professional fees, which were not properly available to be applied in satisfaction of professional fees,
b) Breach of regulation 7, in that debit balances were allowed to arise on individual client ledgers,
c) Breach of regulation 8, in that withdrawals were effected from the client account to the office account, not in accordance with regulation 7,
d) Breach of regulation 11, by reason of failure to furnish bills of costs in respect of the funds transferred from the client account to the office account,
e) Breach of regulation 11, arising from the withdrawal of money from the client account as provided for in regulation 8(2) in respect of professional fees or outlays not properly payable to the solicitors at the time of such withdrawal,
f) Breach of regulation 12, in that the solicitor failed to maintain books of account that showed the true financial position in relation to the solicitor’s transactions with clients’ moneys.
The matter came before the High Court and, on 21 November 2022, the High Court ordered that:
1) The name of the respondent solicitor be struck from the Roll of Solicitors,
2) The respondent solicitor pay a contribution in the sum of €5,000 to the applicant towards its costs and outlay for the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal proceedings, by way of four yearly instalments of €1,250,
3) The respondent solicitor pay the applicant its measured costs and outlay of the within application in the sum of €6,000, by way of four yearly instalments of €1,500.
-
Gail Enright
Date of Order08/06/2022In the matter of Gail Enright, a solicitor formerly practising in Michael Enright & Co, Solicitors, 28 South Mall, Cork, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2015[2018/DT85 and High Court record 2022/198SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Gail Enright (respondent solicitor)
On 8 June 2022, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct, in that she:
1) Dishonestly caused or improperly allowed deficits on the client account by transfers of client moneys to the office account, including:
a) An improper transfer of €6,949 from the client account to the office account on 1 May 2015 as fees and VAT for a named account, when there were no funds received into the client account in respect of this transaction,
b) An improper transfer on 25 May 2015 of the amount of €4,205 as fees and VAT, when there were no funds in the client account in respect of this transaction,
c) An improper transfer on 4 April 2016 of €18,450 from the client account to the office account as fees and VAT for a named account, when there were no funds in the client account in respect of this transaction,
d) An improper transfer on 3 October 2016 in the amount of €19,272 from the client account to the office account as fees and VAT for a named account, when there were no funds received into the client account in respect of this transaction, and
e) Improper transfers between October 2015 and August 2016 totalling €35,545 from a contract deposit received from a named party, and
2) Attempted to conceal or permitted the attempt to conceal any and/or all of the deficits at allegation (1) above by rectifying deficits in or around account reporting date(s),
3) Dishonestly caused and/or improperly allowed transfers from the estate of a named party, giving rise to a deficit of client funds, to include:
a) Transfer on 1/5/2015 of €12,300, and/or
b) Transfer on 2/6/2015 of €9,225, and/or
c) Transfer on 12/6/2015 of €6,150, and/or
d) Transfer on 2/11/2015 of €6,765, and/or
e) Transfer on 4/11/2015 of €10,455, and/or
f) Transfer on 9/11/2015 of €6,150, and/or
g) Transfer on 16/11/2015 of €5,535, and/or
h) Transfer on 16/12/2016 of €6,765, and/or
i) Transfer on 23/5/2016 of €18,450,
Total: €81,795.
4) Attempted to conceal deficits on a named estate by creating or causing to be created false copies of a letter of 9 December 2013 addressed to the beneficiaries containing a fee estimate of €85,000, plus VAT, for the named estate,
5) Dishonestly caused and/or improperly allowed the taking of fees from a contract deposit of €44,426 received on 1 October 2015 in respect of the purchase of a commercial property by a named client:
a) 1/10/2015 €4,059, and/or
b) 14/10/2015 €1,968, and/or
c) 14/10/2015 €2,429, and/or
d) 14/10/2015 €799, and/or
e) 11/12/2015 €9,840, and/or
f) 14/12/2015 €1,180, and/or
g) 21/12/2015 €2,460, and/or
h) 16/5/2016 €6,765, and/or
i) 2/6/2016 €6,150,
Total: €35,650.
6) Dishonestly caused and/or improperly allowed transfers from a named estate, giving rise to a deficit of client funds of in or around €30,000,
7) Caused or permitted serious breaches of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations 2014:
a) Breach of regulation 7, whereby funds were transferred from the client account to the office account as professional fees, which were not properly available to be applied in satisfaction of professional fees,
b) Breach of regulation 7, in that debit balances were allowed to arise on individual client ledgers,
c) Breach of regulation 8, in that withdrawals were effected from the client account to the office account, not in accordance with regulation 7,
d) Breach of regulation 11, by reason of failure to furnish bills of costs in respect of the funds transferred from the client account to the office account,
e) Breach of regulation 11, arising from the withdrawal of money from the client account as provided for in regulation 8(2) in respect of professional fees or outlays not properly payable to the solicitors at the time of such withdrawal,
f) Breach of regulation 12, in that the solicitor failed to maintain books of account that showed the true financial position in relation to the solicitor’s transactions with clients’ moneys.
-
Michelle Cronin
Kennedy Buildings, 24 Main Street, Tallaght Village, Dublin 24
Date of Order14/02/2022In the matter of Michelle Cronin, a solicitor previously practising as Michelle Cronin Solicitors at Kennedy Buildings, 24 Main Street, Tallaght Village, Dublin 24 [2020/DT13 and High Court record 2022 no 3SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Michelle Cronin (respondent solicitor)
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal dealt with a complaint against the respondent solicitor on 1 July 2021, and again on 28 October 2021, and found her guilty of professional misconduct, in that she:
1) Failed to comply with an undertaking furnished to the complainant on behalf of Kildare County Council, which undertaking was furnished under cover of a letter dated 7 April 2017 and was furnished in respect of her named clients and property in Naas, Co Kildare, being lands contained in a Kildare folio, in a timely manner,
2) Failed to respond to the complainant’s letters of 4 January 2019 and 29 August 2019 in connection with the outstanding undertaking,
3) Failed to respond to the Society’s letters of 30 January 2020 and 4 March 2020 in a timely manner, within the time provided, or at all.
The tribunal referred the matter to the President of the High Court who, in proceedings entitled 2022 no 3SA on 14 February 2022, ordered that the respondent solicitor not be permitted to practise as a sole practitioner or in partnership, and that she 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.
The High Court also ordered that the solicitor pay the measured costs of the Society before the disciplinary tribunal and before the High Court.
-
Oisin Nolan
Richmond House, 15A Main Street, Blackrock, Co Dublin
Date of Order14/02/2022In the matter of Oisin Nolan, a solicitor formerly practising at Richmond House, 15A Main Street, Blackrock, Co Dublin, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2015 [2019/DT17 and High Court record 2022 no 2 SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Oisin Nolan (respondent solicitor)
On 26 October 2021, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct, in that he failed to ensure that there was furnished to the Society a closing accountant’s report, as required by regulation 33(2) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations 2014 (SI 516/2014), in a timely manner or at all, having ceased practice on 23 January 2019.
The tribunal ordered that the Law Society bring its finding and report before the High Court.
On 14 February 2022, the High Court ordered that the solicitor be suspended from practice until such time as he furnished the Law Society of Ireland with his closing accountant’s report, as required by regulation 33(2) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations.
The High Court also ordered that the respondent solicitor pay the measured costs of the Society before the disciplinary tribunal and before the High Court.
-
Ann Houlihan
Ann Houlihan Solicitors, Alexandra House, The Sweepstakes, Ballsbridge, Dublin 4
Date of Order13/12/2021In the matter of Ann Houlihan, a solicitor previously practising as Ann Houlihan Solicitors at Alexandra House, The Sweepstakes, Ballsbridge, Dublin 4, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2015 [2020/DT05 and High Court record 2021 no 72 SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Ann Houlihan (respondent solicitor)
On 5 October 2021, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of professional misconduct in that she:
1) Failed to maintain proper books of account, in breach of regulations 13 and 25 of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations,
2) Allowed a deficit of €380,461.79 in client funds as of 30 November 2019,
3) Failed to discharge a mortgage of €202,747.52 on behalf of a client, despite being in funds to do so, and instead misapplied this money,
4) Failed to pay a client settlement of €60,000 to her, despite being in funds to do so, and instead misapplied this money,
5) Failed to discharge stamp duty in relation to nine matters, and registration fees in each of those matters, along with an additional matter totalling €117,109, four of which appeared to contain undertakings to financial institutions, and instead misapplied this money,
6) Updated three deeds upon stamping to avoid interest and penalties,
7) Concealed the deficit on the client account by a process of teeming and lading,
8) Was in breach of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations and, in particular, in breach of regulations 7(1), 7(2), 9(2), 9(4), 11(4), 12(3), 13, and 25,
9) Took money directly from the client’s bank account of €30,497.72 in breach of regulations 9 and 7 of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations,
10) Transferred money to the office account in the guise of professional fees totalling €348,198.97, in breach of regulation 12(3) of the regulations,
11) Used other client’s money to conceal an overpayment of €20,000 in respect of a named client.
The disciplinary tribunal ordered that the Law Society bring its findings and report before the High Court.
On 13 December 2021, the High Court ordered that:
1) The respondent solicitor’s name be struck off the Roll of Solicitors,
2) The respondent solicitor pay a sum of €10,000 to the compensation fund,
3) The respondent solicitor pay the measured costs of the Society in the disciplinary and High Court proceedings.
-
Patrick McGonagle
previously practising at 1 Main Street, Dundrum, Dublin 14
Date of Order07/12/2021In the matter of Patrick McGonagle, a solicitor previously practising as McGonagle Solicitors, 1 Main Street, Dundrum, Dublin 14, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2015[2020/DT03 and High Court record 2022 no 53 SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Patrick McGonagle (respondent solicitor)
On 7 December 2021, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of professional misconduct, in that he:
1) Failed to keep any or adequate books of account together with relevant supporting documents, as required by regulation 13 of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations 2014,
2) Failed to record transactions relating to clients in the office account, in an office cash book, or client ledgers, in breach of regulation 13(7) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations,
3) Allowed a deficit in client funds of €74,164.80 as of 30 June 2019, reduced to €42,417.77 as of 31 October 2019,
4) Allowed unauthorised transfers between unrelated client ledger accounts, in breach of regulation 10 of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations,
5) Allowed debit balances of €18,613.24 to occur on the client account as of 31 October 2019, in breach of regulation 7(2)(a) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations,
6) Allowed an unexplained difference of €34,821 in the client control account in the closing figures as at 30 June 2019 and the opening balances as at 1 July 2019,
7) Withdrew costs from the client account that were not lodged to the office account, in breach of regulation 9(2) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations,
8) Took monies for fees when not properly due, in breach of regulation 7(1)(a)(iii) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations,
9) Paid office overheads from the client account, in breach of regulation 7(2)(b) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations,
10) Failed to complete balancing statements every six months within two months of the balancing date, in breach of regulation 13(8) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations,
11) Failed to complete balancing statements for office transactions on a yearly basis within two months of the balancing date, in breach of regulation 13(9) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations,
12) Failed to maintain nominal office accounts, in breach of regulation 13(7)(d) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations,
13) Failed to record as a debit, on the office side of relevant ledger accounts, the amount of the professional fees in any bill of costs furnished to a client, in breach of regulation 11(4) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations.
The disciplinary tribunal ordered that the Law Society bring the findings and report before the High Court. On 20 June 2022, the High Court ordered that:
1) The name of the respondent solicitor be struck off the Roll of Solicitors,
2) The respondent solicitor pay a sum of €1,500 towards the compensation fund,
3) The respondent solicitor pay a contribution of €3,112 towards the whole of the costs of the Law Society in the disciplinary proceedings,
4) The respondent solicitor pay measured costs of €1,774 in respect of the High Court proceedings.
-
Shane O'Donnell
Flynn & O’Donnell Solicitors, Loft 3, The Grainstore, Distillery Lofts, Distillery Road, Drumcondra, Dublin 3
Date of Order25/03/2021In the matter of Shane O’Donnell, a solicitor practising as Flynn & O’Donnell Solicitors, Loft 3, The Grainstore, Distillery Lofts, Distillery Road, Drumcondra, Dublin 3, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2015 [2019/DT64]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Shane O’Donnell (respondent solicitor)
On 25 March 2021, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of professional misconduct in that he failed to ensure that there was furnished to the Society an accountant’s report for the year ended 31 December 2018 within six months of that date, in breach of regulation 26(1) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations 2014 (SI 516 of 2014).
The tribunal ordered that the respondent solicitor:
1) Stand censured,
2) Pay a sum of €500 to the compensation fund,
3) Pay the sum of €1,212 as a contribution towards the whole of the costs of the Society.
-
Michael Keane
Flynn & McMorrow, Solicitors, Bridge Street, Carrick-on-Shannon, Co Leitrim
Date of Order15/12/2020In the matter of Michael Keane, solicitor, Flynn & McMorrow, Solicitors, Bridge Street, Carrick-on-Shannon, Co Leitrim, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2015 [2018/DT21 and High Court record 2020 no 21 SA]
Named client (applicant)
Michael Keane (respondent solicitor)
On 15 December 2020, further to the determination of the applicant’s appeal of the decision of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, the High Court found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in respect of the following complaint, as set out in the applicant’s affidavit: failed and continues to fail to use his best endeavours to recover [the applicant’s] fees in respect of any, some, or all of the cases listed by the applicant.
The High Court ordered that:
1) The respondent solicitor stand censured,
2) The respondent solicitor pay 50% of the applicant’s legal costs, to be adjudicated in default of agreement.
-
Kathleen Doocey
KM Doocey Solicitors, American Street, Belmullet, Co Mayo,
Date of Order16/11/2020In the matter of Kathleen Doocey, a solicitor practising as KM Doocey Solicitors at American Street, Belmullet, Co Mayo, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2015 [2018/DT83 and High Court 2020 no 40 SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Kathleen Doocey (respondent solicitor)
On 23 July 2019, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in her practice as a solicitor in that she:
- Allowed a deficit of €169,152 to arise and be on her client account as of 31 December 2017,
- Concealed a deficit of €50,000 in relation to the C estate by using other clients’ money credited to their ledger account, thereby concealing that deficit,
- Put a statement of account dated 1 September 2015 on the client’s file that showed an incorrect sale price of €255,000, instead of the actual sale price of €205,000, and also showed a total of €100,000 paid to clients, which had the effect of concealing the irregularities in relation to this matter,
- Used €42,720 received from a client (JD) in respect of a purchase, which helped conceal the deficit that had arisen in relation to the C estate matter, leaving a shortfall of €42,658.50 on the JD client ledger account,
- Used €42,195.57 from the OD estate to help clear the deficit on the JD ledger account and thereby caused a shortfall on the OD estate ledger account,
- Took €37,831.78 from the estate of S (deceased) and credited that sum to the OD estate ledger account, which helped conceal the shortfall on that ledger account,
- Cleared the debit balance of €33,177 on the S estate ledger account with a transfer of that amount dated 30 June 2017 from the Suspense SUS16 client ledger account, which concealed the shortfall on the S estate ledger account and left a shortfall on the SUS16 client ledger account,
- Cleared the shortfall on the Suspense SUS16 client ledger account by the transfer of €35,900 dated 30 June 2017 from the client account of JG, which left a shortfall on his client ledger account,
- Cleared the shortfall on the JG client ledger account by a transfer of €35,900 from another client ledger, Suspense account SUS17, which left a debit balance on that ledger account, thereby concealing the shortfall on the JG client ledger account,
- Transferred €24,850 from the DC client ledger account to the Suspense SUS17 client account with a date of 13 December 2017, which contributed to a shortfall of €25,000 on the DC client ledger account,
- Paid €25,000 from the client account on 21 December 2017 to the Legal Aid Board on DC’s behalf, but failed to enter this payment in the books of account,
- Took €24,000 out of a sum of €64,659.06 received into the client account from MD, a client, on 11 July 2017 and lodged the amount to the office bank account on 12 July 2017 and failed to record the receipt and payment of this sum in the client books of account, thereby concealing the misappropriation,
- Wrongfully credited the €24,000 taken from MD’s money in the account to the office ledger account of the Suspense SUS17 account, describing it as “rectification” and wrongfully described the lodgment of €24,000 as “loan funds” in the office bank account,
- Wrongfully paid the sum of €8,581.41 from the client account to the office account and described it as “rectification” in the office bank account; on the same date, the €8,581.41 payment from the client account was debited to the Suspense SUS17 client ledger account and caused a debit balance on the SUS17 client ledger account to increase from €4,251.24 to €12,835.65,
- Misdescribed the sum of €34,772.30 in the client account books, which helped conceal the fact that it was mainly composed of clients’ money used to clear debit balances and deficits on other clients’ ledger accounts,
- Caused a debit balance of €18,225 to occur on the MD client ledger account in August 2017, mainly because of the misapplication of €24,000, and subsequently cleared this debit balance with a transfer dated 28 December 2017 of €18,225 from the Suspense SUS17 client ledger account,
- Lodged a total of €26,000 to the client account on 23 November 2017, composed of €13,500 belonging to BN clients and €12,500 belonging to BC client, which was incorrectly credited to the Suspense SUS17 client leger account, where it cleared a debit balance and was used with other clients’ moneys to cover various deficits on various client leger accounts, thereby concealing the shortfall and deficits on the client account,
- Between January and December 2017, drew various amounts totalling €20,090 from the client account to the office account and paid a probate fee of €319 out of the client account, resulting in a debit balance of €18,459 on the client ledger account of the TS estate,
- In January 2018, after clearance of the debit balance of €18,459, paid a further €6,150 and €4,920 from the TS estate to the office account, leaving a sum of €11,070 remaining to be refunded to the client account in relation to that estate as of January 2018,
- In the C estate, failed to enter a client account cheque for €4,322 written on 24 November 2017 in the books of accounts and, instead, the same amount was dated 1 November and was debited to the estate client ledger account and credited to the Suspense SUS17 client ledger account, with the effect of reducing the debit balance on that ledger account and increasing the debit balance on the C estate ledger account,
- Failed to show a receipt of €5,750 in the client ledger account of LOC client, notwithstanding the payment of same in September 2017, and credited this sum of €5,750 in the books of account to a number of clients’ ledger accounts in various amounts, thereby reducing the debit balances on those accounts,
- Drew amounts totalling €10,698 to the office account in the period 2015 to 2017, which were debited to the client ledger account of the C estate, leaving a shortfall of €6,177 as of 31 December 2017 in the C estate,
- Having received €5,000 into the client account of PR client in December 2017 for the purposes of discharging a liability in that amount in a family law matter, failed to pay that money until 2018, and instead moved the €5,000 to the credit of the Suspense SUS17 client ledger account with a date of 31 December 2017, thereby concealing a shortfall on that account,
- Drew amounts from the client account to the office account in the period February 2016 to December 2017 in the estate of JOD, exceeding the amount of costs agreed with the client by about €20,000.
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal ordered that the Law Society bring its findings and report before the High Court.
On 16 November 2020, the High Court ordered that:
- The respondent solicitor’s name be struck off the Roll of Solicitors,
- The respondent solicitor pay a fine of €2,000 to the compensation fund,
- The respondent solicitor pay costs of €1,500 for the proceedings before the disciplinary tribunal,
- The respondent pay agreed costs of €11,527 for the proceedings before the High Court.
-
Raphael M Gilmore
Gilmore Solicitors, 22 Bridge Street, Ringsend, Dublin 4
Date of Order27/07/2020In the matter of Raphael M Gilmore, a solicitor previously practising as Gilmore Solicitors, 22 Bridge Street, Ringsend, Dublin 4, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2015 [2019/DT29 and High Court record 2020 32 SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Raphael Gilmore (respondent solicitor)
On 16 January 2020, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:
1) Failed to keep proper books of accounts, in breach of regulations 13 and 25 of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations,
2) Allowed a deficit of €213,309 in client funds as of 11 November 2018,
3) Failed to stamp and register ten deeds, despite being in funds to do so,
4) Misled the Society and the Regulation of Practice Committee by producing a false closing accountant’s report,
5) Misled the Regulation of Practice Committee and the Society at the meeting of 27 June 2018 by denying that the closing accountant’s report that was produced was false,
6) Misled the Regulation of Practice Committee and the Society by producing false payment logs to indicate that the deficit in relation to a named client had been cleared, when this was not the case,
7) Misled the Regulation of Practice Committee by stating that the deficit in relation to another named client was cleared, when this was not the case,
8) Misled the Regulation of Practice Committee and the Society at its meeting of 6 December 2017 by indicating that the deficit was cleared,
9) Misled the Regulation of Practice Committee and the Society by indicating that nine out of the ten deeds had been stamped, when this was not the case,
10) Allowed an undated letter from his reporting accountant to be submitted to the Regulation of Practice Committee and the Society in January 2018, which was later shown to be falsified,
11) Failed to abide by his commitment to the Regulation of Practice Committee to have cheques co-signed by his reporting accountant and instead falsified his reporting accountant’s signature on client account cheques to circumvent this requirement,
12) Submitted a falsified office bank-account statement to his reporting accountant.
The disciplinary tribunal ordered that the Law Society bring its findings and report before the High Court.
On 27 July 2020, 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 sum in measured costs to the Law Society.
-
Anthony O'Gorman
Anthony F O'Gorman and Co, Solicitors, St Michael’s Road, Gorey, Co Wexford
Date of Order08/06/2020In the matter of Anthony O'Gorman, solicitor, formerly practising as Anthony F O'Gorman and Co, Solicitors, at St Michael’s Road, Gorey, Co Wexford, and in the matter of an application by the Law Society of Ireland to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal [3163/DT160/15 and High Court record 2017/11SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Anthony O'Gorman (respondent solicitor)
On 18 May 2016, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in the following matters:
1) The respondent solicitor failed, in the course of and arising from his practice as a solicitor, to maintain (as part of his accounting records) proper books of account and such relevant supporting documents as to enable clients’ moneys, handled and dealt with by the solicitor, to be duly recorded and the entries relevant thereto in the books of account to be appropriately vouched, and thereby failed to comply with regulation 12 of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations 2001-2013,
2) Between January 2013 and June 2014, the respondent solicitor transferred moneys by way of round sum transfers in cash from the client account to the office account, and thereby created a deficit in the client account of €321,386 as of 30 June 2014, and thereby failed to comply with regulation 7(1) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations,
£) Between January 2013 and June 2014, the respondent solicitor withdrew moneys totalling €321,386 by way of round-sum transfers from the client account to the office account, in breach of regulations 8(1) and/or 8(2) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations,
4) Between January 2013 and June 2014, the respondent solicitor ‘cashed’ cheques totalling €154,876.46, some of which may have been used for costs but which were not properly recorded, in breach of regulation 12 and/or regulation 8(1) and/or 8(2) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations,
5) In respect of a named matter, the respondent solicitor deducted costs from the client account prior to receipt of costs in the matter, thereby creating a debit balance of €31,376, in breach of regulation 7(2)(a) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations,
6) As of 30 September 2014, the respondent solicitor allowed debit balances to arise in respect of a client ledger account, in breach of regulation 7(2)(a) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations,
7) The respondent solicitor failed to complete balancing statements not later than two months after the balancing date to which they relate, and thereby failed to comply with regulation 12(7)(b) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations,
8) In respect of the period 1 January 2013 and 30 June 2014, the respondent solicitor failed to have a formal written anti-money-laundering policy document in place, in breach of section 54 of the Criminal Justice (Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing) Act 2010,
9) During the period between 1 January 2013 and 30 June 2014, the respondent solicitor failed to comply with the provisions of section 68(6) of the Solicitors Amendment Act 1994, in that clients were not informed of the costs recovered on a party-and-party basis and that the respondent solicitor had failed to provide a full account to clients.
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal referred the matter to the High Court and, in record number 2017/11SA, the High Court made the following order on 23 March 2018:
1) The respondent solicitor pay to the applicant the sum of €14,500 then owing, arising from costs of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal,
2) The matter stand adjourned to 3 April 2020, the court noting the undertakings given by the respondent solicitor not to apply for a practising certificate again and never to practise nor seek to practise as a solicitor, nor hold himself out as a solicitor entitled to practise.
The matter came back before the High Court on 8 June 2020. The High Court noted the renewed undertakings given by the respondent solicitor not to apply for a practising certificate again and never to practise nor seek to practise as a solicitor, nor hold himself out as a solicitor entitled to practise, and made the following order: that the applicant do recover against the respondent solicitor the sum of €31,766.55 in costs.
-
Eamonn Moloney
Eamonn Moloney & Co, Solicitors, 1/2 Anglesea Street, Cork
Date of Order13/01/2020In the matter of Eamonn Moloney, solicitor, formerly practising as Eamonn Moloney & Co, Solicitors, 1/2 Anglesea Street, Cork, and in the matter of an application by the Law Society of Ireland to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2015 [2018/DT79; 2019/DT23; and High Court record 2019/135 SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Eamonn Moloney (respondent solicitor)
2019/DT 23
On 24 October 2019, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he failed to ensure that there was furnished to the Society an accountant’s report for the year ended 31 July 2018 within six months of that date, in breach of regulation 26(1) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations 2014 (SI 516 of 2014).
2018/DT 79
On 31 October 2019, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he failed to ensure that there was furnished to the Society an accountant’s report for the year ended 31 July 2017 within six months of that date, in breach of regulation 26(1) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations 2014.
The tribunal ordered that the matters go forward to the High Court and, on 13 January 2020, the High Court ordered that:
1) The respondent solicitor be suspended from practice as a solicitor with immediate effect until such time as he has fully complied with the provisions of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations 2014by furnishing to the Law Society his accountant’s reports for financial years ended 31 July 2017 and 31 July 2018 respectively,
2) The respondent solicitor pay the measured costs of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal proceedings and the High Court proceedings in the total amount of €5,874.36.
-
David Doyle
Doyle Associates, 56 Main Street, Rathfarnham, Dublin 14
Date of Order21/10/2019In the matter of David Doyle, a solicitor previously practising as a partner in Doyle Associates, 56 Main Street, Rathfarnham, Dublin 14, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2015 [2019/DT09 and High Court reference 2019 no 57 SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
David Doyle (respondent solicitor)
On 27 June 2019, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of professional misconduct in that he:
1) Caused a minimum deficit of €258,969 in the client account as at 31 October 2017,
2) Failed to maintain proper books of accounts, in breach of regulation 13(1) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations 2014,
3) Failed to maintain books of account that showed the true position in relation to his dealings with clients’ moneys, in breach of regulation 13(2) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations 2014,
4) Engaged in a practice of teeming and lading, thereby concealing the existence of a deficit in client funds,
5) Caused nine debit balances to arise on the client ledger in the sum of €258,969, in breach of regulation 7(2)(a) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations 2014,
6) Took client moneys of €113,356 due to the estate of KD (deceased) on 28 July 2017 and lodged them to his own personal account, in breach of regulation 14 of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations 2014,
7) Caused a shortfall of €13,324 in the estate of DA (deceased) by paying the inheritance tax of €13,324 of a named beneficiary from the unrelated client ledger account of S & ER, which shortfall was concealed by teeming and lading,
8) On 14 September 2015, wrongly paid the sum of €46,623 from the sale of proceeds of a property sold for clients S & ER to the Revenue Commissioners in respect of an inheritance tax liability for a named beneficiary in a completely unrelated matter,
9) In or around 31 July 2017, paid a sum of €48,371.74 from his own bank account in part discharge of two mortgage accounts in the name of his clients S & ER, having misapplied the funds originally received on 26 September 2013,
10) In or around 3 August 2017, paid a sum of €7,003.50 to a bank to part discharge a mortgage account in the name of his clients S & ER, having wrongfully misapplied the funds originally received on 26 September 2013. This payment was taken from the unrelated client ledger account dealing with the estate of SO (deceased),
11) Caused a debit balance to arise of €59, 185 on the client ledger account dealing with an estate by:
· Wrongfully paying an inheritance tax liability of MM in the sum of €46,623 on 14 September 2015 from the client ledger account of S & ER, a completely unrelated matter,
· Wrongfully paid the inheritance tax liability of named individuals on 11 August 2015 from the client ledger account dealing with the estate of AB (deceased). Those named individuals each had an inheritance tax liability of €6,281, and two of the aforementioned payments were posted to the client ledger account dealing with the estate of AB (deceased),
· Wrongfully paid €17,300 to NC for his personal injuries settlement from the sale of an unrelated property on 10 December 2008,
· Made a payment to his brother of €5,000 and a payment to a utility company of €6,000 and posted them to the client ledger account of NC a completely unrelated matter,
· Caused a debit balance to arise on the client side of the client ledger account of NC in the sum of €11,300,
· Wrongfully took the proceeds of two cheques for €3,500 and €3,000 which were due to a client,
· Admitted causing a debit balance of €99,600 in the client ledger account relating to a sale file,
· Took a cheque made payable to a client for €2,500 from a sale file client ledger account on 6 February 2009 and cashed it for his own use,
· Admitted causing a shortfall of €894.75 on 30 January 2009 in a named file,
12) In an estate he:
· Took €65, 125 on 5 November 2015 to cover an inheritance tax liability of KK in a completely unrelated matter,
· Took €4,500 on 12 November 2015 and paid same to JC in relation to the estate of NC (deceased) an unrelated matter,
· On 3 November 2016, he withdrew €22, 102.50 by bank draft payable to a finance company in an unrelated matter,
· On 3 August 2017, he purchased a bank draft for €7,000 and used same to pay part of a mortgage redemption in an unrelated file,
13) In relation to an estate ledger he:
· Caused a debit balance of €9,633.50 on the client ledger account by paying (a beneficiary in this estate) KK’s inheritance tax of €65, 125 from another client ledger account,
· Took €55,491.50 from this client ledger account on 24 October 2014 and paid it to PO a beneficiary in an unrelated matter,
· In relation to the estate ledger of NC (deceased), he caused a debit balance of €4,500 by paying €4,500 to JC from the ledger account of SO (deceased) an unrelated file,
· In relation to a company file, he caused a debit balance on this client ledger account of €22, 102 by taking €22, 102 from the ledger account of SO (deceased), an unrelated file, to make a payment to a finance company,
· In relation to the estate of SB (deceased), he caused a deficit of €85,000 by wrongfully transferring €85,000 to JS, a beneficiary in an unrelated matter, on 15 May 2017,
14) In relation to the file of PO and the estate of BH (deceased) he:
· Wrongfully credited the balance of a settlement of €58,500 received on 6 March 2014 to an unrelated client ledger account in the name of OS (deceased),
· Wrongfully took €55,491.50 from an unrelated client ledger account (MC deceased) on 24 October 2014 to pay the client the balance of his settlement,
15) In relation to the estate of OS (deceased) he:
· Caused a debit balance of €50,287 on the client ledger account,
· Wrongfully lodged €58,500 belonging to another client matter to this client ledger account on 14 March 2014,
· Wrongfully made a payment from this client ledger account of €8,213.12 on 21 October 2014 to PO/JK in an unrelated estate matter,
16) In relation to the estate of AO (deceased), he caused a debit balance of €8,213.12 on this client ledger account by wrongfully paying this sum from another estate account on 21 October 2014 to conceal a deficit on this client ledger account,
17) He created a shortfall of €21,500 on the client ledger account of DD in July 2015 to part pay a settlement he (the solicitor) had entered into in respect of a Circuit Court proceedings against him,
18) In relation to an estate, he wrongfully took €16,500 from this estate and used same to pay a settlement he (the solicitor) had entered into in respect of Circuit Court proceedings against him.
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal sent the matter forward to the High Court and, in High Court proceedings 2019 no 57 SA, the High Court on 21 October 2019 ordered that:
1) The name of the solicitor be struck from the Roll of Solicitors,
2) He pay a sum of €3,012 towards the disciplinary costs,
3) He pay the taxed or agreed costs of the Society.
-
James (Seamus) Doody
Doody Solicitors, 21 South Mall, Cork
Date of Order18/10/2019In the matter of James (Seamus) Doody, solicitor, practising in Doody Solicitors, 21 South Mall, Cork, and in the matter of an application by the Law Society of Ireland to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal [6285/DT172/15, 6285/DT173/15, 6285/DT174/15, 6285/DT175/15, 6285/DT176/15 and 6285/DT177/15; High Court record 2019/13SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
James (Seamus) Doody (respondent solicitor)
On 31 July 2018, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in the following matters.
6285/DT172/15
In respect of complaint one:
1) Failed to comply, up to the date of expiry of the stay on referral to the tribunal, with part or all of an undertaking dated 12 March 2001 in respect of a named property in a timely manner or at all,
2) Failed to respond adequately or at all to some or all of the correspondence sent to him by the complainant, including a letter dated 3 October 2011,
3) Repeatedly failed to respond adequately or at all to some or all of the correspondence sent to him by the Society, including letters dated 27 September 2012, 15 October 2012, 7 January 2013, 21 January 2013, 20 February 2013, 13 March 2013, 3 May 2013, 24 June 2013, 10 July 2013, 17 September 2013, 20 November 2013 and 6 December 2013,
4) Failed to comply with a direction of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee dated 28 January 2014 to provide detailed information in relation to the file and to provide the Society with an update no later than 25 February 2014.
In respect of complaint two:
1) Failed to comply, up to the date of expiry of the stay on referral to the tribunal, with part or all of an undertaking to the complainant dated 31 May 2004 in respect of a named property in a timely manner or at all,
2) Repeatedly failed to respond adequately or at all to some or all of the correspondence sent to him by the complainant, including letters dated 22 June 2011 and 11 April 2012,
3) Repeatedly failed to respond adequately or at all to some or all of the correspondence sent to him by the Society, including letters dated 15 October 2012, 7 January 2013, 21 February 2013, 28 March 2013, 19 April 2013, 8 May 2013, 9 August 2013, 19 September 2013, 20 November 2013 and 6 December 2013,
4) Failed to comply with a direction of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee dated 28 January 2014 to provide detailed information in relation to the file and to provide the Society with an update no later than 25 February 2014.
In respect of complaint three:
1) Failed to comply, up to the date of expiry of the stay on referral to the tribunal, with part or all of an undertaking to the complainant dated 7 November 2007 in respect of a named property in a timely manner or at all,
2) Failed to respond adequately or at all to some or all of the correspondence sent to him by the complainant, including a letter dated 8 August 2011,
3) Repeatedly failed to respond adequately or at all to some or all of the correspondence sent to him by the Society, including letters dated 15 October 2012, 26 February 2013, 25 March 2013, 17 May 2013, 16 August 2013, and 18 September 2013,
4) Failed to comply with a direction of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee dated 28 January 2014 to provide detailed information in relation to the file and to provide the Society with an update no later than 25 February 2014.
In respect of complaint four:
1) Failed to comply, up to the date of expiry of the stay on referral to the tribunal, with part or all of an undertaking to the complainant dated 23 March 2009 in respect of a named property in a timely manner or at all,
2) Failed to respond adequately or at all to some or all of the correspondence sent to him by the complainant, including a letter dated 16 June 2011,
3) Repeatedly failed to respond adequately or at all to some or all of the correspondence sent to him by the Society, including letters dated 15 October 2012, 7 January 2013, 21 January 2013, 20 February 2013, 13 March 2013, 3 May 2013, 25 June 2013, 9 August 2013, 26 September 2013, 17 October 2013, 21 November 2013, 19 December 2013 and 24 February 2014,
4) Failed to comply with a direction of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee dated 28 January 2014 to provide detailed information in relation to the file and to provide the Society with an update no later than 25 February 2014.
In respect of complaint five:
1) Failed to comply, up to the date of expiry of the stay on referral to the tribunal, with part or all of an undertaking to the complainant dated 20 October 2006 in respect of a named property in a timely manner or at all,
2) Failed to respond adequately or at all to some or all of the correspondence sent to him by the complainant, including a letter dated 16 June 2011,
3) Repeatedly failed to respond adequately or at all to some or all of the correspondence sent to him by the Society, including letters dated 20 February 2013, 25 March 2013, 17 May 2013, 16 August 2013, 18 September 2013, 21 October 2013, 3 January 2014, 13 January 2014, and 14 February 2014.
In respect of complaint six:
1) Failed to comply, up to the date of expiry of the stay on referral to the tribunal, with part or all of an undertaking to the complainant dated 8 December 2004 in respect of a named property in a timely manner or at all,
2) Failed to respond adequately or at all to some or all of the correspondence sent to him by the complainant, including a letter dated 8 August 2011,
3) Repeatedly failed to respond adequately or at all to some or all of the correspondence sent to him by the Society, including letters dated 20 February 2013, 28 March 2013, 16 April 2013, 9 August 2013, 18 September 2013, 21 October 2013, 22 November 2013 and 11 February 2013,
4) Failed to comply with a direction of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee dated 28 January 2014 to provide detailed information in relation to the file and to provide the Society with an update no later than 25 February 2014.
In respect of complaint seven:
1) Failed to comply, up to the date of expiry of the stay on referral to the tribunal, with part or all of an undertaking to the complainant dated 17 February 2006 in respect of a named property in a timely manner or at all,
2) Failed to respond adequately or at all to some or all of the correspondence sent to him by the complainant, including a letter dated 22 June 2011,
3) Repeatedly failed to respond adequately or at all to some or all of the correspondence sent to him by the Society, including letters dated 21 February 2013, 28 March 2013, 19 April 2013, 17 September 2013, 20 November 2013, 6 December 2013 and 11 February 2014,
4) Failed to comply with a direction of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee dated 28 January 2014 to provide detailed information in relation to the file and to provide the Society with an update no later than 25 February 2014.
In respect of complaint eight:
1) Failed to comply, up to the date of expiry of the stay on referral to the tribunal, with part or all of an undertaking to the complainant dated 21 March 2008 in respect of a named property in a timely manner or at all,
2) Failed to respond adequately or at all to some or all of the correspondence sent to him by the complainant, including letters dated 9 January 2012 and 12 April 2012,
3) Repeatedly failed to respond adequately or at all to some or all of the correspondence sent to him by the Society, including letters dated 21 February 2013, 28 March 2013, 19 April 2013, 17 July 2013, 17 September 2013, 17 August 2014, 29 August 2014 and 18 September 2014,
4) Failed to comply with a direction of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee dated 16 September 2014 to provide detailed information in relation to the file and to attend at the committee meeting dated 28 October 2014.
In respect of complaint nine:
1) Failed to comply, up to the date of expiry of the stay on referral to the tribunal, with part or all of an undertaking to the complainant dated 1 March 2007 in respect of named properties in a timely manner or at all,
2) Failed to respond adequately or at all to some or all of the correspondence sent to him by the complainant, including letters dated 11 February 2009 and 10 June 2009,
3) Repeatedly failed to respond adequately or at all to some or all of the correspondence sent to him by the Society, including letters dated 24 February 2010, 7 April 2010, 20 May 2010, 8 June 2010, 23 July 2010, 7 September 2010, 4 October 2010,8 November 2010, 16 October 2012, 9 November 2012, 7 December 2012, 7 August 2014, 28 August 2014 and 18 September 2014,
4) Failed to comply with a direction of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee dated 16 September 2014 to provide detailed information in relation to the file and to attend at the committee meeting dated 28 October 2014.
6285/DT173/15
1) Failed to comply with an undertaking given to the bank in respect of a named property in a timely manner or at all,
2) Failed to respond adequately or at all to some or all of the correspondence sent to him by the complainant/the bank, including letters dated 29 May 2012, 2 May 2012, 13 October 2011 and/or 20 July 2011,
3) Failed to respond adequately or at all to some or all of the correspondence sent to him by the Society, including letters dated 22 August 2012, 6 December 2012, 28 January 2013, 21 March 2013, 4 June 2013, 17 October 2013, and 22 November 2013,
4) Failed to comply with the Complaints and Client Relations Committee’s direction of 28 January 2014.
6285/DT174/15
1) Failed to complete, and/or to take all reasonable steps to complete, title registration in respect of a named property,
2) Failed to disclose to the complainant that, over a period of seven years, he had not completed the registration of her title,
3) Failed to respond to enquiries made by the complainant’s new solicitor in July 2013,
4) Failed to comply with assurances given by him to the complainant and the Law Society that documents would be lodged in the Land Registry,
5) Failed to respond adequately or at all to one or more letters sent to him by the Society, including letters dated 11 September 2013, 1 October 2013, 17 October 2013, 2 January 2014, 11 February 2014, and 7 March 2014.
6285/DT175/15
In respect of complaint one:
1) Failed to comply, up to the date of the expiration of the stay on the referral of this matter to the tribunal, with an undertaking to the complainant dated 25 April 2005, pertaining to a named property in a timely manner or at all,
2) Failed to respond adequately or at all to some or all of the correspondence sent to him by the complainant dated 3 July 2007, 16 October 2009, 23 January 2010, 1 June 2010, 7 December 2010, 16 March 2011, 24 June 2011, 6 October 2011, 27 January 2012, 16 April 2012, 12 October 2012, 26 November 2012, 30 November 2012 and/or 11 February 2013,
3) Failed to respond adequately or at all to some or all of the correspondence sent to him by the Society dated 13 May 2013, 17 September 2013, 21 October 2013, 26 November 2013 and/or 3 January 2014,
4) Failed to comply with the directions of the committee dated 28 January 2014 to furnish certain documentation.
In respect of complaint two:
1) Failed to comply, up to the date of the expiration of the stay on the referral of this matter to the tribunal, with an undertaking to the complainant dated 13 December 2005, pertaining to a named property in a timely manner or at all,
2) Failed to respond adequately or at all to some or all of the correspondence sent to him by the complainant dated 16 October 2009, 23 January 2010, 2 February 2010, 28 June 2010, 30 November 2010, 9 March 2011, 21 June 2011, 27 September 2011, 18 January 2012, 18 July 2012, 26 November 2012, 1 February 2013, and/or 11 February 2013,
3) Failed to respond adequately or at all to some or all of the correspondence sent to him by the Society dated 6 June 2013, 28 June 2013, 16 August 2013, 13 September 2013, 30 September 2013, 21 October 2013, 2 January 2014, 3 February 2014 and/or 12 March 2014,
4) Failed to comply with the committee’s directions dated 25 July 2013 to make a contribution of €500 towards the Society’s costs,
5) Failed to comply with the committee’s directions dated 25 July 2013 to furnish certain documentation,
6) Failed to comply with the directions of the committee dated 28 January to furnish certain documentation.
6285/DT176/15
1) Failed to comply with his undertaking dated 24 September 2007 to the complainant to deal with Land Registry queries in relation to a named property in a timely manner or at all,
2) Failed to respond adequately or at all to some or all of the correspondence sent to him by the complainant, including letters dated 21 January 2008, 9 June 2008, 20 June 2012, 9 November 2012, 8 April 2013, 12 August 2013, 16 September 2013, 10 January 2014, 11 February 2014, 7 March 2014, 19 March 2014 and/or 13 August 2014,
3) Failed to respond adequately or at all to some or all of the correspondence sent to him by the Society, including letters dated 11 September 2014, 29 September 2014, 5 November 2014, and 26 November 2014,
4) Failed to comply with the Complaints and Client Relations Committee’s direction of 28 October 2014 to make a contribution towards the Society’s costs.
6285/DT177/15
1) Failed to comply, up to the date of the expiry of the stay on the referral of this matter to the tribunal, with part or all of his undertaking dated 10 May 2001 given to the complainant in relation to a named property in a timely manner or at all,
2) Failed to respond adequately or at all to some or all of the correspondence sent to him by the complainant and/or solicitors for the complainant, including letters dated 22 August 2006, 22 August 2007, 20 February 2008, 6 July 2009 10 March 2010, 9 June 2010, 9 August 2010, 19 October 2010, 14 June 2011 and/or 9 November 2012,
3) Failed to respond adequately or at all to some or all of the correspondence sent to him by the Society, including letters dated 26 February 2013, 25 March 2013, 27 May 2013, 17 July 2013, 16 October 2013, 22 November 2013, 11 February 2014 and/or 12 March 2014,
4) Failed to comply with the Complaints and Client Relations Committee’s direction dated 28 January 2014 to furnish the Society with documentation relating to the undertaking detailed above.
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal referred the matter forward to the High Court and, in record number 2019/13SA, the High Court made the following orders on 18 October 2019:
1) That the respondent solicitor is not a fit person to be a member of the solicitors’ profession,
2) That the name of the respondent solicitor shall be struck from the Roll of Solicitors.
-
James (Seamus) Doody
Doody Solicitors, 21 South Mall, Cork
Date of Order18/10/2019In the matter of James (Seamus) Doody, solicitor, practising in Doody Solicitors, 21 South Mall, Cork, and in the matter of an application by the Law Society of Ireland to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal [2017/DT84, 2017/DT87 and 2017/DT88; High Court record 2019/12SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
James (Seamus) Doody (respondent solicitor)
On 10 July 2018, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in the following matters.
2017/DT84
1) Failed to comply adequately or at all with part of one or more of the following undertakings to the complainant:
a) Undertaking dated 11 March 2007 in respect of his named clients in relation to a named property,
b) Undertaking dated 1 April 2010 in respect of his named clients in relation to a named property,
c) Undertaking dated 29 September 2005 in respect of his named clients in relation to a named property,
d) Undertaking dated 12 October 2006 in respect of his named in relation to a named property,
e) Undertaking dated 30 May 2008 in respect of his named client in relation to a named property,
f) Undertaking dated 19 June 2008 in respect of his named clients in relation to a named property,
g) Undertaking dated 3 March 2014 in respect of his named clients in relation to a named property,
2) Failed to comply with the directions of the committee dated 1 September 2015, 3 November 2015 and/or 11 February 2016,
3) Failed to respond adequately or at all to a letter from the Society dated 14 April 2015.
2017/DT87
1) Failed to comply adequately or at all with all or part of an undertaking to the complainant dated 14 September 2007 in respect of named clients in relation to a named property,
2) Failed to comply with the directions of the committee dated 3 November 2015, 11 February 2016 and 16 June 2016,
3) Failed to respond adequately or at all to letters from the Society dated 8 July 2015, 5 August 2015 and 25 August 2015.
2017/DT88
1) Failed to comply adequately or at all with an undertaking dated 28 March 2005 to the complainant in respect of his named client in relation to a named property,
2) Failed to respond adequately or at all to a letter dated 20 November 2015 sent to him by the Society,
3) Failed to respond adequately or at all to correspondence from the bank and, in particular, letters dated 21 June 2010, 2 December 2010, 3 November 2011, 2 May 2012, 23 May 2014, 24 June 2014, 16 January 2015, 12 February 2015, and an email thread concluding with an email dated 23 April 2015.
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal referred the matter forward to the High Court and, in record number 2019/12SA, the High Court made the following orders on 18 October 2019:
1) That the respondent solicitor is not a fit person to be a member of the solicitors’ profession,
2) That the name of the respondent solicitor shall be struck from the Roll of Solicitors.
-
Maurice B O’Sullivan
Maurice O’Sullivan & Company Solicitors, 9 Colbert Street, Listowel, Co Kerry
Date of Order14/10/2019In the matter of Maurice B O’Sullivan, a solicitor practising as Maurice O’Sullivan & Company Solicitors, at 9 Colbert Street, Listowel, Co Kerry, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2015 [2017/DT24, 2017/DT38, 2017/DT39, 2017/DT40, 2017/DT41, 2017/DT42, 2017/DT51, 2017/DT73, 2017/DT78, and 2017/DT115; and High Court reference 2019 no 23 SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Maurice B O’Sullivan (respondent solicitor)
2017/DT24
On 11 January 2018, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of professional misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:
1) Failed to comply with an undertaking furnished to First Active PLC on 1 May 2002 in respect of his named client and borrower and property in Co Limerick in a timely manner or at all,
2) Failed to comply with an undertaking furnished to First Active PLC on 6 March 2002 in respect of his named clients and borrowers and property in Co Limerick in a timely manner or at all,
3) Failed to comply with an undertaking furnished to First Active PLC on 1 June 2005 in respect of his named client and the borrower and property in Co Limerick in a timely manner,
4) Failed to comply with an undertaking furnished to Ulster Bank Ireland Limited on 26 April 2006 in respect of a named borrower and property in Co Kerry in a timely manner or at all,
5) Failed to comply with an undertaking furnished to First Active PLC on 1 June 2007 in respect of named borrowers and property in Co Kerry in a timely manner or at all,
6) Failed to comply with an undertaking furnished to First Active PLC on 2 October 2007 in respect of the named borrowers and property in Co Kerry in a timely manner or at all,
7) Failed to comply with an undertaking furnished to Ulster Bank on 6 October 2008 in respect of the named borrowers and property in Co Kerry in a timely manner or at all,
8) Failed to comply with an undertaking furnished to Ulster Bank on 14 July 2009 in respect of the named borrowers and property in Co Kerry in a timely manner or at all,
9) Failed to respond to the Society’s correspondence and, in particular, the Society’s letters of 23 October 2015 and 6 November 2015 in a timely manner, within the time provided, or at all.
2017/DT38
On 11 January 2018, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of professional misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:
1) Failed to comply with his client’s instructions to register her entitlement to her property in Co Kerry in a timely manner or at all, having been instructed to do so in 1999/2000,
2) Failed to respond to the complainant’s queries in relation to her instructions,
3) Failed to respond to the Society’s correspondence of 29 February 2016, 22 March 2016, 22 April 2016, 14 July 2016, 18 July 2016 in a timely manner, within the time provided, or at all,
4) Failed to comply with the direction made by the Complaints and Client Relations Committee at its meeting on 28 June 2016 that he furnish an update to the committee on or before 20 August 2016.
2017/DT39
On 11 January 2018, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of professional misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:
1) Failed to respond satisfactorily to correspondence from one of the joint executors of an estate and, in particular, the co- executor’s letter of 8 July 2015 in a timely manner,
2) Failed to respond to the Society’s correspondence and, in particular, the Society’s letters of 14 January 2015, 2 February 2015, 20 February 2015, 3 March 2015, 10 September 2015, 6 October 2015, 22 December 2015, 2 February 2016 and 23 February 2016 in a timely manner, within the time provided, or at all.
2017/DT40
On 11 January 2018, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of professional misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:
1) Failed to comply with an undertaking dated 9 July 2004 furnished to the complainants in respect of his named client and property in Dublin 8 in a timely manner,
2) Failed to comply with an undertaking furnished to the complainants on 7 March 2006 in respect of his clients and the borrowers and property in Co Kerry in a timely manner or at all,
3) Failed to comply with two undertakings, one furnished on 7 September 2001 and the second furnished on 29 April 2004, to the complainants in respect of his client and the borrower and property in Co Kerry in a timely manner or at all,
4) Failed to respond to the Society’s correspondence and, in particular, the Society’s letters of 15 February 2016, 24 March 2016 and 18 April 2016 within the time provided, in a timely manner, or at all,
5) Failed to comply with a direction made by the Complaints and Client Relations Committee at its meeting on 26 April 2016 that he furnish a response to the Society on or before 10 June 2016,
6) Failed to comply with a direction made by the Complaints and Client Relations Committee at its meeting on 28 June 2016 that he furnish an update to the Society on or before 20 August 2016.
2017/DT41
On 11 January 2018, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of professional misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:
1) Failed to protect his former clients’ interests and failed to ensure that they had title to their properties in Co Kerry in a timely manner or at all,
2) Failed to respond to the Society’s correspondence and, in particular, the Society’s letters to him of 12 November 2014, 1 December 2014, 7 January 2015, 5 February 2015, 9 March 2015, 23 March 2015, 14 April 2015, 9 June 2015, 20 July 2015, 10 September 2015, 6 October 2015, 29 October 2015, 26 January 2016 and 25 February 2016 within the time provided, in a timely manner, or at all,
3) Failed to comply with a direction made by the Complaints and Client Relations Committee at its meeting of 3 June 2015 and communicated to him by letter dated 9 June 2015 that he furnish updates to the Society every six weeks.
2017/DT42
On 11 January 2018, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of professional misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:
1) Failed to comply with an undertaking furnished to the complainants on 28 January 2004 in respect of his named client and borrower and property in Co Kerry in a timely manner or at all,
2) Failed to comply with an undertaking furnished to the complainants on 20 January 2009 in respect of his named clients and the borrowers and property in Co Kerry in a timely manner or at all,
3) Failed to comply with an undertaking furnished to the complainants on 17 October 2007 in respect of his named clients and borrowers and property in Co Limerick in a timely manner or at all,
4) Failed to comply with an undertaking furnished to the complainants on 11 October 2007 in respect of his named clients and the borrowers and property in Co Limerick in a timely manner or at all,
5) Failed to comply with an undertaking furnished to the complainants on 11 October 2007 in respect of his named client and the borrower and property in Co Limerick in a timely manner or at all,
6) Failed to comply with an undertaking furnished to the complainants on 2 October 2006 in respect of his named client and the borrower and property in Co Kerry in a timely manner or at all,
7) Failed to comply with an undertaking furnished to the complainants on 3 July 2006 in respect of his named client and the borrower and property in Co Kerry in a timely manner or at all,
8) Failed to comply with an undertaking furnished to the complainants on 14 March 2005 in respect of his named clients and the borrowers and property in Co Kerry in a timely manner or at all,
9) Failed to comply with an undertaking furnished to the complainants on 21 June 2006 in respect of his named client and the borrower and property in Co Kerry in a timely manner or at all,
10) Failed to comply with an undertaking furnished to the complainants on 9 April 2001 in respect of his named client and the borrower and property in Co Kerry in a timely manner or at all,
11) Failed to comply with an undertaking furnished to the complainants on 28 October 2004 in respect of his named clients and the borrowers and property in Co Kerry in a timely manner or at all,
12) Failed to comply with an undertaking furnished to the complainants on 29 October 2004 in respect of his named clients and the borrowers and property in Co Kerry in a timely manner,
13) Failed to comply with an undertaking furnished to the complainants on 30 July 2007 in respect of his named client and the borrower and property in Co Kerry in a timely manner or at all,
14) Failed to comply with an undertaking furnished to the complainants on 28 November 2006 in respect of his named client and the borrower and property in Co Kerry in a timely manner or at all.
2017/DT51
On 11 January 2018, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of professional misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:
1) Failed to comply with an undertaking dated 30 September 2014 furnished to the complainant in respect of his named clients and the borrowers and property in Co Kerry in a timely manner or at all,
2) Failed to respond to the Society’s correspondence and, in particular, to the Society’s letters of 4 October 2016, 20 October 2016, 3 November 2016, 18 November 2016, 30 November 2016 and 15 December 2016 within the time provided, in a timely manner, or at all,
3) Failed to attend the meeting of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee on 24 January 2017, despite being required to do so by letter dated 17 January 2017.
2017/DT73
On 19 April 2018, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of professional misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:
1) Failed to comply with an undertaking furnished to the complainants on 27 June 2007 in respect of his named clients and the borrowers and property in Co Kerry in a timely manner,
2) Failed to comply with an undertaking furnished to the complainants on 4 May 2007 in respect of his named clients and the borrowers and property in Co Limerick in a timely manner or at all,
3) Failed to comply with an undertaking dated 29 May 2006 furnished to the complainant in respect of his named clients and the borrowers and property in Co Kerry in a timely manner or at all,
4) Failed to comply with an undertaking dated 13 September 2001 furnished to the complainant in respect of his named clients and the borrowers and property in Co Kerry in a timely manner,
5) Failed to comply with an undertaking dated 21 November 2003 furnished to the complainants in respect of his named clients and the borrowers and the property in Co Kerry in a timely manner,
6) Failed to comply with an undertaking furnished to the complainants on 30 June 1997 in respect of his named clients and the borrowers and property in Co Kerry in a timely manner,
7) Failed to comply with an undertaking furnished to the complainant on 2 October 2002 in respect of his named clients and the borrowers and property in Co Kerry in a timely manner,
8) Failed to comply with an undertaking dated 23 April 2009 furnished to the complainant in respect of his named clients and the borrowers and property in Co Kerry in a timely manner,
9) Failed to comply with an undertaking dated 23 March 2007 furnished to the complainant in respect of his named client and the borrowers and property in Co Kerry in a timely manner,
10) Failed to comply with an undertaking dated 13 November 2012 furnished to the complainant in respect of his named clients and the borrowers and property in Co Kerry in a timely manner,
11) Failed to comply with an undertaking dated 20 June 2001 furnished to the complainant in respect of his named clients and borrowers and property in Co Kerry in a timely manner.
2017/DT78
On 19 April 2018, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of professional misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:
1) Failed to protect his client’s interest and failed to ensure that his client had title to his property in Co Kerry in a timely manner,
2) Caused unnecessary stress to an elderly client by failing to return the complainant’s birth certificate to him in a timely manner,
3) Failed to respond to his client’s enquiries,
4) Failed to respond in a timely manner or at all to the Society’s correspondence and, in particular, the Society’s letters of 21 November 2016, 7 December 2016, 5 January 2017, 3 March 2017, 5 April 2017, 20 April 2017, 4 May 2017 and 24 May 2017 in a timely manner, within the time provided, or at all,
5) Failed to comply with the direction made by the Complaints and Client Relations Committee at its meeting on 28 February 2017 that he pay a sum of €550 towards the costs incurred by the Society as a result of his failure to respond to the Society’s correspondence and to attend the meeting,
6) Failed to comply with the direction made by the Complaints and Client Relations Committee at its meeting on 6 June 2017 and that he make a further contribution of €350 towards the cost incurred by the Society,
7) Failed to comply with the direction made by the Complaints and Client Relations Committee at his meeting on 18 July 2017 that he return the birth certificate to his client forthwith,
8) Failed to attend the Complaints and Client Relations Committee meeting on 28 February 2017, 4 April 2017 and 18 July 2017, despite being required to do so.
2017/DT115
On 19 April 2018, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of professional misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:
1) Failed to register the interests of his clients in relation to the registration of their title to their home, having been instructed and paid to do so in 2006, in a timely manner,
2) Failed to respond satisfactorily to his clients’ enquiries in relation to their instructions to him in a timely manner,
3) Failed to respond in a timely manner or at all to the Society’s correspondence and, in particular, the Society’s letters of 14 July 2015, 23 October 2015, 25 November 2015, 9 June 2017 and 28 June 2017.
The tribunal ordered that all matters should go forward to the High Court and, on 14 October 2019, in proceedings 2019 no 23 SA, the High Court ordered that:
1) The respondent solicitor’s name be struck off the Roll of Solicitors, with a stay on the said order until 31 December 2019,
2) The respondent solicitor pay a sum of €13,000 as a contribution towards the cost of the disciplinary proceedings,
3) The respondent solicitor pay the whole of the costs of the applicant’s High Court application, such costs to be taxed in default of agreement.
-
Michael Doody
Doody Solicitors, 21 South Mall, Cork
Date of Order10/10/2019In the matter of Michael Doody, solicitor, principal at Doody Solicitors, 21 South Mall, Cork, and in the matter of an application by the Law Society of Ireland to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal [2017/DT85 and 2017/DT86; High Court record 2019/11SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Michael Doody (respondent solicitor)
On 10 July 2018, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in the following matters.
2017/DT85
1) Failed to comply adequately or at all with an undertaking dated 12 October in respect of his named client in relation to a named property,
2) Failed to respond adequately or at all to letters dated 20 November and 2 December 2015 sent to him by the Society,
3) Failed to respond adequately or at all to correspondence from the complainant and, in particular, letters dated 12 October 2011, 30 January 2012, 13 March 2014, 15 April 2014, 16 January 2015, 12 February 2015, and an email thread concluding with an email dated 23 April 2015.
2017/DT86
1) Failed to comply adequately or at all with an undertaking dated 15 May 2006 in respect of his named clients in relation to a named property,
2) Failed to comply adequately or at all with an undertaking dated 15 November 2006 in respect of his named client in relation to named properties,
3) Failed to comply adequately or at all with an undertaking dated 12 August 2008 in respect of his named client in relation to a named property,
4) Failed to comply adequately or at all with the directions of the committee, in particular, the directions dated 1 September 2015, 3 November 2015 and 1 February 2016,
5) Failed to respond adequately or at all to correspondence sent to him from the Society, in particular, letters dated 14 April 2015.
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal referred the matter forward to the High Court and, in record number 2019/11SA, the High Court made the following orders on 10 October 2019:
1) That the respondent solicitor only be permitted to practise under the direct control and supervision of another solicitor of at least ten years’ standing, to be approved in advance by the Law Society, with a stay on the order for a period of four weeks, the respondent solicitor undertaking that, within the aforementioned four-week period, no undertakings will be given by him unless previously approved by the Law Society,
2) That the Law Society recover the whole of the costs of the proceedings before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal and the High Court, to be taxed in default of agreement.
-
James Dorney
Dorney Solicitors, Phoenix House, Monahan Road, Cork
Date of Order01/07/2019In the matter of James Dorney, solicitor, practising as Dorney Solicitors, Phoenix House, Monahan Road, Cork, and in the matter of an application by the Law Society of Ireland to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2015 [2018/DT80; 2018/DT106; High Court record 2019/49 SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
James Dorney (respondent solicitor)
2018/DT80
On 11 April 2019, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he failed to ensure that there was furnished to the Society an accountant’s report for the year ended 28 February 2018 within six months of that date, in breach of regulation 26(1) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations 2014.
2018/DT106
On 11 April 2019, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:
1) Failed to maintain proper records by withdrawing funds from the client account to the office account without supporting documentation, contrary to regulation 7 of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations 2014,
2) Failed to maintain proper books of account and such relevant supporting documents as would enable clients’ moneys handled and dealt with by the solicitor to be duly recorded and the entries relevant thereto in the books of account to be appropriately vouched, contrary to regulation 13(1) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations,
3) Failed to comply with the direction of the Regulation of Practice Committee meeting, made on 25 January 2018, directing the respondent solicitor be given two alternative dates for inspection of his practice, by not responding to the Society to confirm agreement to inspection on either Thursday 15 February 2018 or Friday 2 March 2018,
4) Failed to comply with the directions of the Regulation of Practice Committee, thus causing the Law Society of Ireland to make an application to the High Court for an order pursuant to section 18 of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act 2002 prohibiting him from practising as a solicitor until such time as he was fully compliant with the provisions of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations,
5) Failed to comply with High Court orders made on 9 April 2018, 9 May 2018, 11 June 2018, 30 July 2018 and 5 November 2018,
6) Failed to submit a closing or final reporting accountant’s report following the cessation of his practice, contrary to regulation 33(2) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations.
The tribunal ordered that the matter should go forward to the High Court and, on 1 July 2019, in proceedings 2019/49 SA, the High Court ordered that:
1) The respondent solicitor continue to be suspended and prohibited from practising as a solicitor until such time as he has fully complied with the provisions of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations, as originally ordered by the High Court on 9 April 2018, and affirmed in subsequent orders of the High Court on 8 May 2018, 11 June 2018 and 5 November 2018,
2) In the event that the respondent solicitor does become compliant with the provisions of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations to the satisfaction of the Law Society of Ireland, the respondent solicitor is to apply to the High Court to lift the suspension order if he intends to resume practice and, in that event, that he not be permitted to practise as a sole practitioner or in a partnership, but only to practise as an assistant solicitor in the employment and under the direct control and supervision of another solicitor of at least ten years’ standing, to be approved in advance by the Law Society of Ireland,
3) The respondent solicitor pay the measured and agreed costs of the within application,
4) The respondent solicitor pay the costs of the application in the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal proceedings 2018/DT80 in the measured sum advocated by the Law Society,
5) The respondent solicitor pay the costs of the applicant in Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal proceedings 2018/DT106 as measured by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal.
-
Alan Lloyd
AM Maloney & Co, Solicitors, Harbour Street, Tullamore, Co Offaly
Date of Order20/05/2019In the matter of Alan Lloyd, a solicitor formerly practising in the firm of AM Maloney & Co, Solicitors, Harbour Street, Tullamore, Co Offaly, and in the matter of an application by the Law Society of Ireland to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2015 [2018/DT38 and High Court record 2019/6 SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Alan Lloyd (respondent solicitor)
On 20 November 2018, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:
1) Practised as a solicitor/provided legal services while there was not a practising certificate for the practice year 2016 in respect of him in force, contrary to section 55 of the principal act and/or section 56(1) and/or (2) of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act 1994,
2) Held himself out as a person entitled to practise/provide legal services during the practice year 2016 while there was not a practising certificate in respect of him in force,
3) Attended at Tullamore Garda Station on 12 August 2016 and provided legal services and/or held himself out as a person entitled to provide legal services in respect of a person detained under section 2 of the Criminal Justice (Drug Trafficking) Act 1996 while not qualified to do so, by reason of there not being a practising certificate in respect of him in force,
4) Attended at Tullamore Garda Station on 15 September 2016 and provided legal services and/or held himself out as a person entitled to provide legal services in respect of a person detained under section 4 of the Criminal Justice Act 1984 while not qualified to do so, by reason of there not being a practising certificate in respect of him in force,
5) Practised as a solicitor/provided legal services while there was not a practising certificate for the practice year 2017 in respect of him in force, contrary to section 55 of the principal act and/or section 56(1) and/or (2) of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act 1994,
6) Held himself out as a person entitled to practise/provide legal services during the practice year 2017 while there was not a practising certificate in respect of him in force,
7) Attended at Birr Garda Station on 3 and/or 4 March 2017 and provided legal services and/or held himself out as a person entitled to provide legal services in respect of a person detained for alleged offence(s) of sexual assault while not qualified to do so, by reason of there not being a practising certificate in respect of him in force,
8) On or around 4 March 2017, misrepresented to a garda sergeant that he was a solicitor entitled to practise and to represent a detainee in custody,
9) Caused, permitted, or allowed fees to be paid in respect of his attendance(s), while an unqualified person, at Birr Garda Station on 3 and 4 March 2017,
10) By his actions in practising and/or providing legal services and/or holding himself out as a person entitled to provide legal services, while unqualified by reason of not holding a valid practising certificate, acted with reckless disregard for the interests of clients/prospective clients and/or for the administration of justice, thereby tending to bring the profession into disrepute.
The tribunal ordered that the matter should go forward to the High Court and, on 20 May 2019, the High Court ordered that:
1) The name of the respondent be struck from the Roll of Solicitors,
2) The respondent pay a sum of costs, measured by the tribunal, to the applicant,
3) The respondent pay the applicant its costs of the High Court application, with taxation in default of agreement.
-
Thomas D'Alton
James J Kearns & Son, Solicitors, Portumna, Co Galway
Date of Order26/03/2019In the matter of Thomas D’Alton, a solicitor practising as James J Kearns & Son, Solicitors, Portumna, Co Galway, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2015 [2017/DT114, 2018/DT03, and High Court record 2018 no 126 SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Thomas D’Alton (respondent solicitor)
2017/DT114
On 25 October 2018, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in that he failed to ensure that there was furnished to the Society an accountant’s report for the year ended 31 January 2017 within six months of that date, in breach of regulation 26(1) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations 2014 (SI 516 of 2014).
2018/DT03
On 25 October 2018, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of professional misconduct in that he:
1) Allowed a deficit of €54,860 on his client account as of 30 April 2016, which was subsequently reduced to €46,860 by the introduction of €8,000 in June 2016,
2) Used €10,000 of clients’ moneys on 9 March 2015 to help discharge a personal revenue liability,
3) Took client moneys of €10,000 in September 2014 and €7,800 in July 2006 from a named estate, which moneys were used to reduce the office account overdraft,
4) Took client moneys of €8,000 from the estate of a named person in September 2015, which moneys were used to reduce the office account overdraft,
5) Took client moneys of €15,813.57 from a named estate in June 2014, which moneys were used to reduce the office account overdraft,
6) Took client moneys of €5,000 from the client account to the office account in July 2016,
7) Created a debit balance on the account of a named client of €5,002,
8) Failed to comply with anti-money-laundering legislation in the sample of clients’ files examined.
The tribunal directed that both matters be sent forward to the President of the High Court and, on 26 March 2019, in High Court proceedings entitled Law Society (Applicant) v Thomas D’Alton, the High Court made orders that the respondent solicitor be suspended from the Roll of Solicitors until 1 April 2020. Upon cessation of that suspension, the respondent solicitor may be issued with a practising certificate subject to the following conditions:
1) He will not be permitted to practise as a sole practitioner or in a partnership, but only as an employed solicitor,
2) He must act under the control and supervision of a solicitor who will be approved of in writing in advance by the Law Society,
3) He will not be permitted to give undertakings of any sort save with the written consent obtained in advance from the supervising solicitor,
4) He will not be permitted to have any drawing rights on the client or other accounts of the practice in which he may be employed.
The said conditions will apply to every practising certificate granted to him for a period of seven years following his restoration to the Roll of Solicitors in 2020.
-
Moya O'Donnell
Moya O’Donnell & Co, Solicitors, Elm Wood Terrace, Main Street, Killybegs, Co Donegal, and Glen Road, Glenties, Co Donegal
Date of Order18/02/2019In the matter of Moya O’Donnell, solicitor, practising as Moya O’Donnell & Co, Solicitors, Elm Wood Terrace, Main Street, Killybegs, Co Donegal, and Glen Road, Glenties, Co Donegal, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2015 [2018/DT34; High Court 2017/86 SA; High Court 2019/7 SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Moya O’Donnell (respondent solicitor)
On 6 November 2018, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in her practice as a solicitor in that she:
1) Caused or allowed an incorrect reporting accountant’s report for the financial year ending 31 March 2015 to be filed with the Society, which recorded a client deficit of €2,199, when there was a deficit in excess of €100,000 due to a large debit balance on a named client ledger,
2) Dishonestly caused or permitted a distribution/cash account(s) to be created and provided to the Society in respect of the estate of a named client, knowing it to falsely represent that a named client was a beneficiary of the estate, in an attempt to conceal a deficit on the named client estate of €32,831, which arose from the use of moneys from the named client estate to pay the named client moneys due to her from the estate of a different named client,
3) Dishonestly caused or permitted multiple deficits on her client account by payment of client moneys into her personal bank or credit card accounts and by payment of client moneys, held and/or due to particular clients, to other unrelated client matters, involving some 51 separate incidents of such activity,
4) Attempted to conceal deficits on her client account by causing or allowing false entries in the books of account to conceal the true destination of the payment(s),
5) Attempted to conceal deficits on her client account by engaging in a widespread practice of teeming and lading of client moneys,
6) Attempted to avoid detection by the Law Society of deficits and of the practice of teeming and lading of client moneys by use of false documentation, including in particular:
· A letter dated 29 August 2012 purporting to vouch a payment of €58,890 (at appendix 9.3 of the investigation report of 10 November 2017) from a named client estate, and/or
· Letters dated 30 January 2014 and 17 February 2014 purporting to vouch a payment of €80,000 (at appendix 9.4 of the investigation report) from the same named client estate, and/or
· A letter dated 2 September 2015 purporting to vouch a payment of €63,028 (at appendix 9.6 of the investigation report) from the same named client estate, and/or
· A document purporting to vouch a payment of €86,000 (at appendix 9.7 of the investigation report) from the same named client estate, and/or
· A document purporting to vouch instruction of a payment of €76,000 (at appendix 12.2 of the investigation report) from the file of a named client, and/or
· A document purporting to record an electronic funds transfer of €5,000 (at appendix 13.3 of the investigation report) to another named client on 8 December 2016, and/or
· A letter dated 14 July 2017 purporting to be from the Revenue Commissioners purporting to vouch a payment of €14,050 on a named client estate, and/or
· A document (at appendix 14.5 of the investigation report) purporting to vouch an electronic funds transfer of a bequest of €4,361 to a named beneficiary.
7) Dishonestly furnished or permitted to be furnished to the Society further documentation in an attempt to conceal deficits and/or teeming and lading on her client account, and in particular:
· A copy questionnaire purportedly completed by a named client, falsely showing her to be a beneficiary to a named client estate, and/or
· A copy cheque payable to a named client with annotation falsely vouching a payment from the same named client estate, and/or
· A document of 25 August 2017 falsely vouching a payment of €5,000 to a named client, a beneficiary of the same named client estate, and/or
· An affidavit in the name of a named client signed 18 November 2017 purporting to vouch payments on another named client estate, and/or
· An affidavit in the name of a named client signed 18 November 2017 purporting to vouch payments on another named client estate, and/or
· Copy identification documents of two named clients with the same name, purporting to support her false claim that there was a beneficiary to a named client estate by the name of this named client.
The tribunal, in its opinion as to the fitness of the respondent solicitor to be a member of the solicitors’ profession, expressed in its report the following recommendations:
1) The respondent solicitor was not a fit person to be a member of the solicitors’ profession,
2) Her name should be struck off the Roll of Solicitors,
3) She should pay the measured costs of the Law Society.
The tribunal ordered and directed the Law Society to bring its findings and the recommendations in its report to the High Court. The matter came before the High Court and, on 18 February 2019, the High Court ordered that the name of the respondent solicitor be struck off the Roll of Solicitors.
-
Damien Cassidy
Walker & Co, Solicitors, 22 Sandymount Road, Dublin 4
Date of Order11/01/2019In the matter of Damien Cassidy, a solicitor practising as Walker & Co, Solicitors, 22 Sandymount Road, Dublin 4, and in the matter of an application by the Law Society of Ireland to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2015 [2466/DT111/14; High Court 2016/58 SA; Court of Appeal 2016/563 CA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Damien Cassidy (respondent solicitor)
On 20 January 2016, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:
1) Failed to comply expeditiously, within a reasonable time, or at all with an undertaking given by him in respect of his named client over property at Co Dublin to the governor of the company of Bank of Ireland, by undertaking dated 12 February 2004,
2) Failed to reply adequately or at all to the Society’s correspondence in respect of an undertaking given by him on behalf of the same named client over property at Co Dublin and, in particular letters dated 11 October 2013, 6 November 2013, and 14 February 2014 respectively,
3) Failed to attend a meeting of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee on 25 March 2014 in respect of the complaint concerning his same named client over property at Co Dublin, despite being required to do so,
4) Failed to reply adequately or at all to the Society’s correspondence in respect of an undertaking given by him on behalf of his named clients over property at Co Dublin and, in particular, letters dated 11 October 2013, 6 November 2013, and 14 February 2014 respectively,
5) Failed to attend a meeting of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee on 25 March 2014 in respect of the complaint concerning his named clients over property at Co Dublin, despite being required to do so,
6) Failed to reply expeditiously, within a reasonable time, or at all with an undertaking given by him to Bank of Ireland Mortgage Bank on behalf of his named clients over property at Dublin 4, dated 14 October 2008,
7) Failed to reply adequately or at all to the Society’s correspondence in respect of an undertaking given by him on behalf of his clients named clients over property at Dublin 4 and, in particular, letters dated 11 October 2013, 6 November 2013, and 14 February 2014 respectively,
8) Failed to attend a meeting of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee on 25 March 2014 in respect of the complaint concerning his named clients over property at Dublin 4, despite being required to do so.
The tribunal ordered that the matter should go forward to the High Court and, on 21 November 2016, the High Court ordered that:
1) The name of the respondent solicitor shall be struck from the Roll of Solicitors,
2) The respondent solicitor pay to the applicant the costs of the proceedings before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal,
3) The respondent solicitor deliver up all files to the Society pursuant to provisions of section 19(1) of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act 1960, as amended, by substitution, by section 27 of the Solicitors ( Amendment) Act 1994.
The respondent solicitor appealed the order and, on 11 January 2019, the Court of Appeal ordered that, unless the books of appeal were lodged by 21 January 2019, the said appeal should stand struck out with liberty to apply or re-enter the appeal, with costs of the appeal to the applicant as against the respondent, to be taxed in default of agreement
-
Thomas O’Donoghue
O’Donoghue & Co, Solicitors, 2 Egan’s Lane, Tuam, Co Galway
Date of Order03/12/2018In the matter of Thomas O’Donoghue, a solicitor formerly practising as principal of O’Donoghue & Co, Solicitors, 2 Egan’s Lane, Tuam, Co Galway, and in the matter of an application by the Law Society of Ireland to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2015 [8824/DT40/15; 8824/DT41/15, and High Court record 2018 no 134 SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Thomas O’Donoghue (respondent solicitor)
8824/DT40/15
On 21 May 2018, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that, up to the date of referral to the tribunal, he:
1) Failed to comply with an undertaking dated 18 September 2007, provided to the complainant, in a timely manner or at all,
2) Failed to respond adequately or at all to some or all of the correspondence sent to him by the complainant.
8824/DT41/15
On 21 May 2018, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:
1) Failed to comply with an undertaking dated 7 May 2010, provided to the complainant, in a timely manner or at all,
2) Failed to respond to correspondence sent to him by the Society.
The tribunal ordered that the Law Society bring its findings and reports in both matters before the High Court.
On 3 December 2018, the High Court ordered that:
1) The name of the respondent solicitor be struck off the Roll of Solicitors,
2) The respondent solicitor pay the applicant’s costs before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal and the High Court.
-
Paul Cunningham
Cunningham Solicitors, 8 Emily Square, Athy, Co Kildare
Date of Order19/11/2018In the matter of Paul Cunningham, solicitor, formerly practising as Cunningham Solicitors, 8 Emily Square, Athy, Co Kildare, and in the matter of an application by the Law Society of Ireland to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2015 [2017/DT01; 2017/DT02; 2017/DT47; and High Court record 2018/109 SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Paul Cunningham (respondent solicitor)
On 19 July 2017, in an application bearing record no 2017/DT01, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:
1) Borrowed money from a named client and did not advise the named client to get independent advice before borrowing the money, contrary to chapter 3.5 of A Guide to Good Professional Conduct for Solicitors,
2) Borrowed money from a named client in breach of the fiduciary relationship of solicitor and client and, in so doing, brought the solicitors’ profession into disrepute,
3) Failed to repay in full the loan of €27,000 to a named client, despite agreeing to do so, leaving an outstanding liability to the named client of €17,000 plus interest and costs,
4) Failed to make a payment of €5,000 before Christmas 2015, despite telling the CCRC he would do so.
On 19 July 2017, in an application bearing record no 2017/DT02, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:
1) Failed to comply expeditiously, within a reasonable time, or at all with an undertaking dated 21 April 2006 given by him on behalf of his named clients over property at Athy, Co Kildare, to Bank of Ireland on 21 April 2006,
2) Failed to reply satisfactorily or at all to the complainant’s correspondence and, in particular, letters dated 14 December 2009, 8 February 2011, 24 April 2012, 31 August 2012, 3 April 2013 and 28 May 2013,
3) Failed to reply adequately, in a timely fashion, or at all to the Society’s correspondence and, in particular, letters dated 6 May 2014, 9 July 2014, 21 November 2014, 9 December 2014, 20 January 2015, 24 June 2015 and 10 August 2015.
On 14 November 2017, in an application bearing record no 2017/DT47, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:
1) Failed to transmit moneys, received by him for the complainant’s costs, to the complainant,
2) Failed to reply adequately or at all to the complainant’s correspondence, in particular, letters dated 5 December 2014, 28 April 2015, 7 October 2015, 25 May 2016, 11 July 2016, 4 October 2016, 26 October 2016 and 4 November 2016 respectively,
3) Failed to reply adequately or at all to the complainant’s telephone calls and, in particular, telephone calls made on 3 November 2016, 21 November 2016 and 22 November 2016 respectively,
4) Failed to reply adequately or at all to the Society’s correspondence and, in particular, letters dated 29 November 2016, 25 January 2017 and 17 February 2017 respectively.
The tribunal ordered that the matters should go forward to the High Court and, on 19 November 2018, the High Court ordered that:
1) The recommendation of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal be set aside and, in lieu thereof, the name of the respondent solicitor shall be struck from the Roll of Solicitors,
2) The respondent solicitor make restitution to the named complainant in the sum of €5,559.50,
3) The respondent solicitor pay the applicant its measured costs of the within proceedings.
-
Neil Corbett
Neil Corbett Solicitors, Davis Building, Lower Main Street, Mallow, Co Cork
Date of Order22/10/2018In 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
Date of Order22/10/2018In 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
Date of Order22/10/2018In 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
Date of Order15/10/2018In 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
Date of Order23/07/2018In 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
Date of Order20/07/2018In 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
Date of Order05/07/2018In 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
Date of Order16/04/2018In 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
Date of Order11/04/2018In 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
Date of Order05/02/2018In 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.
-
Michele Caulfield
Redacted
Date of Order06/11/2017In 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.
-
John A Tobin
John A Tobin Solicitors, Level 3 Cornmarket, Robert Street, Limerick
Date of Order08/09/2017In 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.
-
Barry Murphy
Eugene Carey & Company, Solicitors, Courthouse Chambers, Mallow, Co Cork
Date of Order24/07/2017In 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.
-
Michael O’Neill
Kingscourt, 33 South Main Street, Naas, Co Kildare
Date of Order17/07/2017In 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.
-
Daniel (Donal) Downes
O’Dea & Company, Solicitors, 1st floor, Hardiman House, Eyre Square, Galway
Date of Order10/07/2017In 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.
-
Paul Lambert
Merrion Legal, Butlers Court, 77 Sir John Rogerson’s Quay, Dublin 2
Date of Order29/05/2017In 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.
-
Andrew G Morrow
Date of Order24/05/2017In 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.
-
David Herlihy
David Herlihy, Solicitors, Lord Edward Street, Kilmallock, Co Limerick
Date of Order10/03/2017In 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.
-
Michael Hanrahan
43 Lower Main Street, Dungarvan, Co Waterford
Date of Order23/01/2017In 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.
-
Henry Joseph Arigho
Henry Arigho & Co, Solicitors, Main Street, Moate, Co Westmeath
Date of Order12/12/2016In 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.
-
Claire Keaney
Keaney & Company, Solicitors, PO box 42, Pearse Park, Dundalk, Co Louth
Date of Order17/10/2016In the matter of Claire Keaney, a solicitor previously practising as Keaney & Company, Solicitors, at PO box 42, Pearse Park, Dundalk, Co Louth, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2011 [7372/DT53/15, DT54/15, DT55/15, DT56/15, and High Court record 2016 no 127 SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Claire Keaney (respondent solicitor)
On 19 April 2016, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal heard four complaints against the above solicitor and delivered a decision in relation to each of those complaints on 25 May 2016.
7372/DT53/15
The tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in her practice as a solicitor in that, up to the date of referral to the tribunal, she:
1) Failed to stamp and register her client’s title to a property in Co Meath, purchased in July 2013, in a timely manner or at all,
2) Failed to respond to the Society’s correspondence and, in particular, the Society’s letters of 14 April 2014, 1 May 2014, 13 May 2014 and 25 June 2014 in a timely manner, within the time provided, or at all,
3) Failed to comply with the direction made by the Complaints and Client Relations Committee at its meeting on 22 July 2014 that she furnish a written update to the Society no later than 1 September 2014.
7372/DT54/15
The tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in her practice as a solicitor in that, up to the date of referral to the tribunal, she:
1) Failed to stamp and register her clients title to the property in Co Kilkenny, purchased in 2011, in a timely manner or at all,
2) Failed to comply with the direction made at the meeting of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee on 22 July 2014 that she furnish a full response to the Society, including a copy of the transfer deed, her ledger card, and any other relevant documentation on or before 1 September 2014.
7372/DT55/15
The tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in her practice as a solicitor in that she:
1) Failed to complete the stamping and registration of her client’s title and that of her client’s nephew and his wife to property in Tallaght, Dublin 24, having been instructed to do same and paid for doing same on 4 July 2008, in a timely manner or at all,
2) Failed to respond to the Society’s correspondence dated 28 May 2014, 13 June 2014, 30 June 2014, and 29 July 2014 in a timely manner, within the time provided, or at all,
3) Failed to comply with the direction made by the Complaints and Client Relations Committee at its meeting on 22 July 2014 that she furnish specific documentation to the committee on or before 1 September 2014.
7372/DT56/15
The tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in her practice as a solicitor in that she:
1) Failed to stamp and register her clients’ title to property in Co Kilkenny, purchased in 2011, in a timely manner or at all,
2) Failed to comply with the direction of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee made at its meeting on 29 July 2014 that she respond to the Society on or before 12 August 2014,
3) Continues to withhold moneys paid to her by her clients to stamp and register her clients’ title deeds.
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal referred the matter to the High Court and, in proceedings entitled 2016 no 127 SA on 17 October 2016, the High Court made orders that:
1) The respondent solicitor’s name be struck off the Roll of Solicitors,
2) The respondent solicitor pay the whole of the costs of the Society, to be taxed by a taxing master of the High Court in default of agreement – execution and registration of the said costs order to be stayed for a period of nine months.
-
Ciaran Quinn
Quinn Solicitors, Unit 118, First Floor, Baldoyle Industrial Estate, Baldoyle, Dublin 13
Date of Order10/10/2016In the matter of Ciaran Quinn, a solicitor previously practising as Quinn Solicitors at Unit 118, First Floor, Baldoyle Industrial Estate, Baldoyle, Dublin 13, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2011 [7620/DT13/14 and High Court record 2015 no 32 SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Ciaran Quinn (respondent solicitor)
On 4 December 2014, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of professional misconduct in that he:
1) Raised 36 separate invoices between 3 March 2008 and 10 February 2010, totalling €65,588.15, in respect of a named estate, without the knowledge or agreement of the administrator,
2) Deducted €65,588.15 in total from the said estate from March 2008 to February 2010 without the knowledge or agreement of the executor,
3) Failed to issue a section 68 letter in the named estate.
The tribunal referred the matter to the High Court and, on 10 October 2016, the High Court ordered that:
1) The respondent solicitor not be permitted to practise as a sole practitioner or in sole partnership; that he be permitted 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) That the respondent 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, execution and registration of the said costs to be stayed until after 1 June 2017.
-
Deirdre Fahy
D Fahy & Associates, Solicitors, 69 Main Street, Blackrock, Co Dublin
Date of Order10/10/2016In the matter of Deirdre Fahy, a solicitor previously practising as D Fahy & Associates, Solicitors, at 69 Main Street, Blackrock, Co Dublin, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2011 [5471/DT163/15; DT164/15; DT165/15; and High Court record 2016 no 128 SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Deirdre M Fahy (respondent solicitor)
On 15 June 2016, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal heard three complaints against the respondent solicitor. The tribunal found her guilty of misconduct in her practice as a solicitor in that she:
5471/DT163/15
1) Failed to register her client’s title to property in Balbriggan, Co Dublin, in a timely manner, despite being instructed and paid to do so in 2005,
2) Failed to comply with the direction made by the Complaints and Client Relations Committee at its meeting of 21 July 2015 that she furnish a full updated report in relation to the matters that were the subject matter of the complaint on or before Friday 4 September 2015, and communicated to her by letter dated 27 July 2015,
3) Failed to correspond with the Society in a timely manner, within the time provided in those letters, or at all and, in particular, the Society’s letters of 21 May 2015, 4 June 2015, and 27 July 2015.
5471/DT164/15
1) Failed to complete the registration of her former client’s title and mortgage in respect of their property in Lucan, Co Dublin, in a timely manner or at all, having been contracted to do so in 2006,
2) Deducted costs and €18,000 for stamp duty from a bill of costs in 2006 and failed to utilise that sum in a timely manner for the purpose for which it was deducted,
3) Failed to respond in a timely manner, within the time provided, or at all to the Society’s letters to her of 2 June 2015, 18 June 2015, and 27 July 2015,
4) Failed to comply with the direction made by the Complaints and Client Relations Committee at its meeting on 21 July 2015, and communicated to her by letter dated 27 July 2015, that she furnish a full updated report to the Society in relation to the complaint on or before Friday 4 September 2015.
5471/DT165/15
1) Failed to comply with an undertaking furnished to the complainants on 29 September 2006 in respect of her named clients and property at Drimnagh, Dublin 12, in a timely manner or at all,
2) Failed to comply with an undertaking furnished to the complainants on 23 May 2005 in respect of her named clients and property at Balbriggan, Co Dublin, in a timely manner,
3) Failed to comply with an undertaking furnished to the complainants on 3 May 2006 in respect of her named clients and property at Lucan, Co Dublin, in a timely manner or at all,
4) Failed to comply with an undertaking furnished to the complainants on 31 May 2006 in respect of her named clients and property at Lucan, Co Dublin, in a timely manner or at all,
5) Failed to comply with an undertaking furnished to the complainants on 15 November 2005 in respect of her named client and property at Clondalkin, Dublin 22, in a timely manner or at all,
6) Failed to comply with an undertaking furnished to the complainants on 19 May 2005 in respect of her named clients and property at Donaghmede, Dublin 13, in a timely manner or at all,
7) Failed to comply with an undertaking furnished to the complainants on 9 August 2007 in respect of her named client and property in Co Clare in a timely manner,
8) Failed to comply with an undertaking furnished to the complainants on 23 April 2004 in respect of her named clients and property at Santry, Dublin 11, in a timely manner,
9) Failed to comply with an undertaking furnished to the complainants on 19 May 2008 in respect of her named client and property in Co Mayo in a timely manner or at all,
10) Failed to comply with an undertaking furnished to the complainants on 28 March 2002 in respect of her named client and property at Lucan, Co Dublin, in a timely manner,
11) Failed to comply with an undertaking furnished to the complainants on 10 October 2002 in respect of her named clients and property at Newbridge, Co Kildare, in a timely manner or at all,
12) Failed to comply with an undertaking furnished to the complainants on 25 February 2008 in respect of her named client and property at Finglas West, Dublin 11, in a timely manner or at all,
13) Failed to comply with an undertaking furnished to the complainants on 3 December 2007 in respect of her named client and property at Sandyford, Co Dublin, in a timely manner or at all,
14) Failed to comply with an undertaking furnished to the complainants on 16 November 2007 in respect of her named clients and property at Sandyford, Dublin 18, in a timely manner or at all,
15) Failed to comply with an undertaking furnished to the complainants on 27 November 2006 in respect of her named clients and property at Clondalkin, Dublin 24, in a timely manner,
16) Failed to return deeds furnished to her on accountable receipt on 19 July 2011 from the complainants in respect of property in Co Wicklow and her named client in a timely manner,
17) Failed to respond to the Society’s correspondence and, in particular, the Society’s letters of 20 January 2015, 4 February 2015, 23 February 2015, and 23 March 2015 in a timely manner, within the time provided in the letter, or at all.
The tribunal, having heard the three complaints and made those findings of misconduct, referred the matter forward to the High Court and, on 10 October 2016, the High Court declared and ordered that:
1) The respondent solicitor is not a fit person to be a member of the solicitors’ profession, and
2) The respondent solicitor pay the whole of the costs of the Law Society of Ireland, to be taxed by a taxing master of the High Court in default of agreement.
The solicitor’s name had already been struck from the Roll of Solicitors by order of the High Court on 1 February 2016.
-
James (Seamus) G Doody
Doody Solicitors, 21 South Mall, Cork
Date of Order25/07/2016In the matter of James (Seamus) G Doody, practising as a partner in Doody Solicitors, 21 South Mall, Cork, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2011 [6285/DT105/14, 6285/DT105/13, 6285/DT187/13 and High Court record no 2016/79 SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
James (Seamus) G Doody (respondent solicitor)
6285/DT105/14
On 1 December 2015, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that, at the date of the referral of the matter to the tribunal, he had:
1) Failed to comply in a timely manner or at all with one or more of the following undertakings: undertaking in respect of a named client dated 12 March 2001, undertaking in respect to a named client dated 13 July 1999, undertaking in respect of named clients dated 18 June 2009,
2) Failed to comply with a direction of the applicant’s Complaints and Client Relations Committee on 25 April 2013 to provide a progress report to the applicant in respect of the first and/or second of the aforementioned undertakings,
3) Failed to respond adequately or at all to correspondence from the complainant bank in respect of one or more of the aforementioned undertakings,
4) Failed to respond adequately or at all to correspondence from the applicant in respect of one or more of the aforementioned undertakings.
6285/DT05/13
On 25 February 2016, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that, up to the date of referral of the matter to the tribunal, he had:
1) Failed to comply with his undertaking dated 30 August 2006 to the named complainant lending institution in a timely manner or at all,
2) Failed to reply to some of the correspondence sent to him by the applicant either in a timely manner or at all.
6285/DT187/13
On 25 February 2016, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor, in that he had:
1) Failed to comply with a solicitor’s undertaking dated 16 December 2005 up to the date of the swearing of the applicant’s grounding affidavit,
2) Failed to reply to multiple correspondence from the applicant,
3) Failed to comply with a direction of the applicant’s Complaints and Client Relations Committee on 26 July 2012 that he furnish a full update in respect of all developments,
4) Seriously prejudiced a client of the complainant solicitor, in that his failure to comply with his undertaking contributed to that client losing the sale of the property concerned,
5) Failed to attend a meeting of the aforementioned committee on 7 February 2013, despite being required to do so.
The tribunal referred the aforementioned matters to the High Court and, on 25 July 2016, it was ordered by the High Court that:
1) The respondent solicitor 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 applicant (a stay was placed on this aspect of the order until 9 September 2016 or such earlier date as may be agreed between the applicant and the respondent solicitor),
2) The respondent solicitor pay a contribution of €3,750 to the applicant’s costs, including witness expenses before the tribunal in respect of the second and third of the aforementioned proceedings,
3) The respondent solicitor pay a contribution of €3,750 to the applicant’s costs before the tribunal in respect of the first of the aforementioned proceedings,
4) The respondent solicitor pay a contribution of €1,500 to the applicant’s costs before the High Court.
-
Daniel Murphy
Daniel Murphy & Company, Solicitors, Macroom, Co Cork
Date of Order18/07/2016In the matter of Daniel Murphy, a solicitor practising as principal of Daniel Murphy & Company, Solicitors, Macroom, Co Cork, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2011[3917/DT56/14 and High Court record no 2016/77 SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Daniel Murphy (respondent solicitor)
On 22 March 2016, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that, up to the date of the referral of the matter to the tribunal, he had:
1) Failed to comply with part or all of 37 specified undertakings,
2) Failed to respond adequately or at all to some or all of the correspondence sent to him by the applicant,
3) Failed to attend at a meeting of the applicant’s Complaints and Client Relations Committee on 3 September 2013,
4) Failed to comply with directions of the committee dated 11 December 2012 and 19 February 2013.
The tribunal referred the matter to the High Court and, on 18 July 2016, the High Court ordered that:
1) The name of the respondent solicitor be struck from the Roll of Solicitors,
2) Costs in the amount of €2,500 be paid by the respondent solicitor to the applicant.
-
Kieran Quill
J Hodnett & Son, Solicitors, Nelson House, Emmet Place, Youghal, Co Cork
Date of Order11/07/2016In the matter of Kieran Quill, a solicitor formerly practising as principal of J Hodnett & Son, Solicitors, Nelson House, Emmet Place, Youghal, Co Cork, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2011 [4513/DT112/14, 4513/DT68/15, 4513/DT93/15 and High Court record no 2016/71 SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Kieran Quill (respondent solicitor)
4513/DT112/14
On 22 October 2015, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that, at the date of the referral of the matter to the tribunal, he had:
1) Failed to comply in a timely manner or at all with one or more of the following undertakings: (a) undertaking in respect of a named client dated 6 December 2004, (b) undertaking in respect of named clients dated 1 June 2006, (c) undertaking in respect of a named client dated 2 October 2006, (d) undertaking in respect of named clients dated 18 April 2008, (e) undertaking in respect of a named client dated 23 June 2009, (f) undertaking in respect of named clients dated 6 June 2007, (g) undertaking in respect of a named client dated 9 July 2007, (h) undertaking in respect of named clients dated 5 August 2008, (i) undertaking in respect of named clients dated 6 June 1996, (j) undertaking in respect of named clients dated 28 December 2006, (k) undertaking in respect of named clients dated 27 March 2009, (l) undertaking in respect of named clients dated 23 March 2007, (m) undertaking in respect of named clients in respect of a named property, (n) undertaking in respect of named clients dated 16 March 2004, (o) undertaking in respect of named clients dated 12 May 2003, (p) undertaking in respect of named clients dated 1 August 2003, (q) undertaking in respect of named clients dated 1 November 2005, (r) undertaking in respect of a named client dated 3 December 2007, (s) undertaking in respect of named clients dated 18 April 2008, (t) undertaking in respect of a named client dated 11 November 2004, (u) undertaking in respect of named clients dated 6 January 2005, (v) undertaking in respect of named clients dated 4 May 2003, (w) undertaking in respect of named clients dated 14 May 2004, (x) undertaking in respect of named clients dated 29 June 2009,
2) Failed to respond adequately or at all to correspondence from the complainant bank in respect of one or more of the aforementioned undertakings.
4513/DT68/15
On 14 January 2016, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:
1) Failed to comply with a direction of the applicant’s Complaints and Client Relations Committee to refund excessive fees in the amount of €6,000 (plus VAT) to a client complainant,
2) Failed to administer and/or make suitable arrangements to facilitate the administration of the estate of a named client in a timely manner,
3) Failed to take adequate steps to ensure that the title deeds relating to the client complainant’s farm were located and/or furnished to the client in the course of the administration of his late mother’s estate,
4) Failed to respond adequately or at all to some or all of the correspondence sent to him by the applicant, including correspondence dated 2 October 2012, and/or 31 January 2013, and/or 26 February 2013,
5) Breached regulation 7(1)(a)(iii), and/or 7(2)(a), and/or 7(2)(b), and/or 8(4) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations 2001 by taking client fees before they were due and owing.
4513/DT93/15
On 14 January 2016, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:
1) Prior to 31 January 2013, transferred or caused to be transferred amounts totalling circa €13,334 out of the client account to the office account and/or in satisfaction of outlay, in circumstances where:
a) Some or all of the transfers or payments were in breach of regulation 7(1) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations,
b) Some or all of the transfers or payments caused a debit balance to arise on various client ledger accounts in breach of regulation 7(2)(a) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations,
c) Some or all of the transfers were in breach of regulation 11(3) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations,
d) Some or all of the transfers amounted to a dishonest misappropriation of moneys belonging to one or more clients,
2) Prior to 31 January 2013, in respect of 36 clients’ ledger accounts:
a) Permitted credit balances totalling circa €12,281 to arise on the office side of the various clients’ ledger accounts, in breach of regulation 10(5) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations,
b) Failed without delay to correct the position in relation to credit balances totalling circa €12,281 on the office side of the various clients’ ledger accounts, in breach of regulation 10(5) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations,
3) In the course of acting for a named client, transferred or caused to be transferred in 2012 circa €5,500 from the client account of the named client to the office account, in circumstances where:
a) The transfers were in breach of regulation 7(1) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations,
b) The transfers caused a debit balance to arise on the client ledger account, in breach of regulation 7(2)(a) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations,
c) The transfers amounted to a dishonest misappropriation of moneys belonging to one or more other clients,
d) He concealed the existence of a debit balance by falsely including an amount of €5,500 as an outstanding lodgement when no such lodgement was in existence,
4) In the course of acting for named clients in respect of the purchase of a property at a named place in or around October 2010:
a) Failed to account to the named clients or the Revenue Commissioners in respect of some of the moneys paid to him by his clients to meet a stamp duty liability,
b) Dishonestly transferred, or arranged to be transferred, a payment in the amount of €3,630 in June 2011, purporting to be professional fees plus VAT, when these moneys were properly payable to either the named clients or the Revenue Commissioners,
c) The aforementioned transfer was in breach of regulation 11(3) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations,
5) In respect of the estate of a named client:
a) Dishonestly transferred, or arranged to be transferred in or around August/September 2011, payments totalling in or around €16,607, purporting to be professional fees plus VAT, when these moneys were not properly payable to him,
b) Transferred amounts totalling in or around €16,607 in circumstances where the transfer was in breach of regulation 11(3) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations,
6) In respect of the estate of a named client, transferred or arranged to be transferred amounts totalling circa €17,000, in late 2011, as professional fees and VAT, when these fees were excessive,
7) In respect of a named client:
a) Dishonestly transferred or arranged to be transferred amounts totalling circa €8,046, in 2011/2012, as professional fees and VAT, when some or all of this sum was not properly payable to him,
b) The aforementioned transfer was in breach of regulation 11(3) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations,
8) In respect of a named client:
a) Dishonestly transferred or arranged to be transferred amounts totalling circa €27,037, throughout the course of 2010 to 2013, as professional fees and VAT, when some or all of this sum was not properly payable to him,
b) The aforementioned transfer was in breach of regulation 11(3) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations,
c) Made, or arranged to be made, two false postings on 16 January and 25 February 2013 in the amounts of €2,460 and €6,150 on the client ledger account,
d) The aforementioned false postings represented a breach of regulation 12(2)(a) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations,
e) Failed to comply with regulation 12(3)(a) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations in respect of the matters described in the professional fee account dated 21 December 2011,
9) In respect of named clients:
a) Dishonestly transferred or arranged to be transferred amounts totalling circa €4,960, in 2012, as professional fees and VAT, when this sum was not properly payable to him,
b) The aforementioned transfer was in breach of regulation 11(3) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations,
c) Caused a debit balance to arise on the client ledger account in breach of regulation 7(2)(a) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations,
10) In respect of the estate of a named client:
a) Dishonestly transferred, or arranged to be transferred, amounts totalling circa €6,000, from 2011 to 2013, as professional fees and VAT and outlay, when this sum was not properly payable to him,
b) The aforementioned transfer was in breach of regulation 11(3) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations,
c) Caused a debit balance to arise on the client ledger account, in breach of regulation 7(2)(a) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations,
11) In respect of the estate of a named client:
a) Dishonestly transferred, or arranged to be transferred, amounts totalling circa €5,146, in 2011, as professional fees and VAT when this sum was not properly payable to him,
b) The aforementioned transfer was in breach of regulation 11(3) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations,
c) Caused a debit balance to arise on the client ledger account in breach of regulation 7(2)(a) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations,
12) In respect of the estate of a named client:
a) Dishonestly transferred or arranged to be transferred amounts totalling circa €9,355, in 2012 and 2013, as professional fees and VAT, when some or all of this sum was not properly payable to him,
b) The aforementioned transfer was in breach of regulation 11(3) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations,
13) Failed to maintain, as part of his accounting records, proper books of account showing the true financial position in relation to the solicitor’s transactions with clients’ moneys, in breach of regulation 12(2)(a) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations.
The tribunal referred the three aforementioned matters to the High Court and, on 11 July 2016, it was ordered by the High Court that:
1) The name of the respondent solicitor be struck off the Roll of Solicitors,
2) The respondent solicitor pay the sum of €7,500 to the applicant’s compensation fund,
3) The respondent solicitor pay the sum of €12,420 as a contribution towards the whole of the costs of the applicant.
-
Elizabeth M Cazabon
Cazabon Solicitors, Gray Office Park, Galway Retail Park, Headford Road, Galway
Date of Order13/06/2016In the matter of Elizabeth M Cazabon, a solicitor previously practising as Cazabon Solicitors, Gray Office Park, Galway Retail Park, Headford Road, Galway, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2011 [8142/DT80/15 and High Court record 2016 no 59 SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Elizabeth Cazabon (respondent solicitor)
On 11 February 2016, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of professional misconduct in that she 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 2001 (SI 421 of 2001), in a timely manner or at all, having ceased practice on 31 December 2013.
The tribunal ordered that the Society bring the matter before the President of the High Court and, on 13 June 2016, the High Court (noting that the respondent solicitor was struck off the Roll of Solicitors by order of the High Court dated 20 July 2015) ordered that the respondent solicitor:
1) Was not a fit person to be a member of the solicitors’ profession,
2) 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.
-
Patrick Enright
Patrick Enright & Co, Solicitors, Tralee Road, Castleisland, Co Kerry
Date of Order18/04/2016In the matter of Patrick Enright, a solicitor formerly practising as Patrick Enright & Co, Solicitors, Tralee Road, Castleisland, Co Kerry, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2011 [5340/DT72/14 and High Court record 2015/66 SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Patrick Enright (respondent solicitor)
On 16 April 2015, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he was convicted before Tralee Circuit Criminal Court of offences of forging documents with intent to defraud, contrary to section 4(1) of the Forgery Act 1913, and on 28 June 2013 was sentenced to a term of one year’s imprisonment from that date.
The tribunal ordered that the matter go forward to the High Court and, on 4 April and 18 April 2016, the President of the High Court ordered that:
1) The name of the respondent solicitor be struck from the Roll of Solicitors,
2) There be no order for costs made in respect of the tribunal proceedings,
3) The respondent solicitor pay the Society its costs of the High Court proceedings, to be taxed in default of agreement.
-
Date of Order14/03/2016
In the matter of Michael Crawford, a solicitor formerly practising as Michael Crawford, Solicitor, Lurganboy, Manorhamilton, Co Leitrim, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2011[5022/DT194/13; 5022/DT01/14; 5022/DT02/14; 5022/DT16/14; 5022/DT19/14; and High Court record 2016 no 11 SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Michael Crawford (respondent solicitor)
On 14 October 2015, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:
5022/DT194/13
1) Failed expeditiously, within a reasonable time, or at all to comply with an undertaking given by him in respect of named clients at property at Co Leitrim to IIB Homeloans KBC Bank Plc, by undertaking dated 3 December 2004,
2) Failed to reply adequately or at all to the complainant’s correspondence in respect of the first complaint and named clients and, in particular, by letters dated 21 June 2007, 16 April 2009, 3 June 2009, 1 September 2009, 3 September 2009, 16 September 2009, 30 November 2009, 10 August 2010, 2 December 2010, 11 March 2011, 21 June 2011, 22 June 2011, 5 October 2011, 10 January 2012 and 23 August 2012 respectively,
3) Failed to reply to the Society’s correspondence in respect of the first complaint and named clients and, in particular, letters dated 7 September 2012, 21 September 2012 and 19 October 2012 respectively,
4) Failed to comply with a direction of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee in respect of the first complaint and named clients, at the committee meeting dated 16 October 2012, within a reasonable time or at all,
5) Failed to comply with a direction of the committee in respect of the first complaint and named clients, originally directed by the committee meeting of 16 October 2012 and further extended by the committee meeting on 11 December 2012, within a reasonable time or at all,
6) Failed expeditiously, within a reasonable time, or at all to comply with an undertaking given by him in respect of named clients over property at Co Leitrim to IIB Homeloans KBC Bank, dated 25 April 2005,
7) Failed to reply adequately or at all to the complainant’s correspondence in respect of the second complaint and named clients and, in particular, letters dated 4 June 2007, 1 September 2009, 16 September 2009, 12 January 2011, 18 April 2011, 2 August 2011, 18 November 2011, 11 January 2012, 22 June 2012, 3 July 2012, 21 August 2012 and 15 October 2012 respectively.
5022/DT01/14
1) Failed to comply expeditiously, within a reasonable time, or at all with a direction of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee, made at its meeting on 19 February 2013, whereby he was directed to do the following: (a) make available the file or a complete copy thereof to the complainant, (b) refund any undisbursed outlay paid by the client, (c) waive refund any professional fees charged,
2) Failed to attend before the Complaints and Client Relations Committee meeting on 19 February 2013, despite being required to do so,
3) By his acts and omissions and his treatment of the complainant, brought the profession into disrepute.
5022/DT02/14
1) Failed to comply with a direction of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee at its meeting of 19 February 2013, which directed him (a) to make available the file or a complete copy of to the complainants, (b) that any undisbursed outlay paid by the complainants should be refunded, (c) that the professional fees should be waived / refunded,
2) Failed to respond adequately or at all to the complainant’s correspondence and, in particular, letters dated 10 January 2012 and 19 January 2012 respectively,
3) Failed to respond adequately or at all to the Society’s correspondence and, in particular, letters dated 30 January 2012, 22 May 2012, 7 June 2012 and 20 June 2012 respectively,
4) Failed to attend a meeting of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee on 19 February 2013, despite being required to do so,
5) Brought the profession into disrepute by his complete disregard for the interests of named clients.
5022/DT16/14
1) Failed to comply with an undertaking expeditiously, within a reasonable time, or at all given by him to AIB Bank on 7 October 1996 on behalf of named clients over property at Co Leitrim,
2) Failed to reply adequately or at all to the complainant’s correspondence in respect of the first complaint and named clients and, in particular, letters dated 14 March 2011, 5 July 2011, 14 February 2012, 20 February 2012, 6 March 2012, 28 March 2012, 12 April 2012 and 27 April 2012 respectively,
3) Failed to comply expeditiously, within a reasonable time, or at all with an undertaking given by him to AIB Bank on 15 September 2000 in respect of named clients over property at Co Donegal,
4) Failed to reply adequately or at all to the complainant’s correspondence in relation the second complaint and named clients and, in particular, letters dated 22 June 2011, 20 February 2012, 6 March 2012, 28 March 2012, 12 April 2012 and 27 April 2012 respectively,
5) Failed to comply expeditiously, within a reasonable time, or at all with an undertaking given by him on 16 July 2001 to AIB Bank in respect of a named client over property at Dublin 9,
6) Failed to reply adequately or at all to the complainant’s correspondence in respect of the fourth complaint and a named client and, in particular, letters dated 31 January 2011, 5 July 2011, 20 February 2012, 6 March 2012, 28 March 2012, 12 April 2012 and 27 April 2012 respectively,
7) Failed to comply expeditiously, within a reasonable time, or at all with an undertaking given by him on 26 April 2002 to AIB Bank on behalf of named clients over property at Co Leitrim,
8) Failed to reply adequately or at all to the complainant’s correspondence in respect of the fifth complaint and named clients and, in particular, letters dated 17 April 2009, 10 June 2009, 12 June 2009, 20 February 2012, 6 March 2012, 28 March 2012, 12 April 2012 and 27 April 2012 respectively,
9) Failed to comply expeditiously, within a reasonable time, or at all with an undertaking given by him to AIB Bank on 22 July 2003 in respect of a named client over property at Dublin 7,
10) Failed to reply to the complainant’s correspondence in respect of the seventh complaint and a named client and, in particular, letters dated 31 January 2011, 5 July 2011, 20 February 2012, 6 March 2012, 28 March 2012, 12 April 2012 and 27 April 2012 respectively,
11) Failed to comply expeditiously, within a reasonable time, or at all with an undertaking given by him to AIB Bank on 13 November 2003 in respect of a named client over property at Co Cavan,
12) Failed to reply adequately or at all to the complainant’s correspondence in respect of the eighth complaint and a named client and, in particular, letters dated 19 August 2011, 28 October 2011, 20 February 2012, 6 March 2012, 28 March 2012, 12 April 2012 and 27 April 2012 respectively,
13) Failed to comply expeditiously, within a reasonable time, or at all with an undertaking given by him to AIB Bank on 1 December 2004 in respect of named clients over property at Sligo,
14) Failed to reply adequately or at all to the complainant’s correspondence in respect of the ninth complaint and named clients and, in particular, letters dated 17 April 2009, 10 June 2009, 12 June 2009, 20 February 2012, 6 March 2012, 28 March 2012, 12 April 2012 and 27 April 2012 respectively,
15) Failed to comply expeditiously, within a reasonable time, or at all with an undertaking given by him to AIB Bank on 28 April 2005 in respect of a named client over property at Co Leitrim,
16) Failed to reply adequately or at all to the complainant’s correspondence in respect of the tenth complaint and a named client and, in particular, letters dated 19 August 2011, 28 October 2011, 20 February 2012, 6 March 2012, 28 March 2012, 12 April 2012 and 27 April 2012 respectively,
17) Failed to comply expeditiously, within a reasonable time, or at all with an undertaking given by him to AIB Bank on 11 May 2006 in respect of named clients over property at Co Sligo,
18) Failed to reply adequately to the complainant’s correspondence in respect of the 11th complaint and named clients and, in particular, letters dated 23 April 2010, 25 February 2012, 6 March 2012, 28 March 2012, 12 April 2012 and 27 April 2012 respectively,
19) Failed to comply expeditiously, within a reasonable time, or at all with an undertaking given by him to AIB Bank on 28 August 2006 in respect of named clients over property at Co Leitrim,
20) Failed to reply adequately or at all to the complainant’s correspondence in respect of the 12th complaint and named clients and, in particular, letters dated 31 January 2011, 5 July 2011, 20 February 2012, 6 March 2012, 28 March 2012, 12 April 2012 and 27 April 2012 respectively,
21) Failed to comply expeditiously, within a reasonable time, or at all with an undertaking given by him to AIB Bank on 21 May 2007 in respect of named clients over property at Co Sligo,
22) Failed to reply adequately or at all to the complainant’s correspondence in respect of the 13th complaint and named clients and, in particular, letters dated 9 January 2012, 20 February 2012, 6 March 2012, 28 March 2012, 12 April 2012 and 27 April 2012 respectively,
23) Failed to comply expeditiously, within a reasonable time, or at all with an undertaking given by him to AIB Bank on 1 April 2008 in respect of a named client over property at Co Leitrim,
24) Failed to reply adequately or at all to the complainant’s correspondence in respect of the 14th complaint and a named client and, in particular, letters dated 14 July 2010, 20 February 2012, 6 March 2012, 28 March 2012, 12 April 2012 and 27 April 2012 respectively,
25) Failed to comply expeditiously, within a reasonable time, or at all with an undertaking given by him to AIB Bank on 14 April 2008 in respect of named clients over property at Co Leitrim,
26) Failed to reply adequately or at all to the complainant’s correspondence in respect of the 15th complaint and named clients and, in particular, letters dated 28 February 2011, 5 July 2011, 20 February 2012, 6 March 2012, 28 March 2012, 12 April 2012 and 27 April 2012 respectively,
27) Failed to comply expeditiously, within a reasonable time, or at all with an undertaking given by him to AIB Bank on 9 June 2008 in respect of named clients over property at Co Leitrim,
28) Failed to reply adequately or at all to the complainant’s correspondence in respect of the 16th complaint and named clients and, in particular, letters dated 31 January 2011, 5 July 2011, 20 February 2012, 6 March 2012, 28 March 2012, 12 April 2012 and 27 April 2012 respectively,
29) Failed to comply adequately or at all with a direction of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee at its meeting on 16 October 2012.
5022/DT19/14
First complaint
1) Failed to comply expeditiously, within a reasonable time, or at all with an undertaking given by him to ICS Building Society Ltd on behalf of a named client on 10 December 2001 over property at Co Mayo,
2) Failed to respond adequately or at all to the complainant’s correspondence in respect of the first complaint and, in particular, letters dated 9 June 2008, 2 July 2008, 4 March 2011 and 23 June 2011 respectively,
3) Failed to comply adequately or at all with the directions of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee at its meeting on 16 October 2012 in respect of the first complaint.
4) Failed to comply adequately or at all with the directions of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee at its meeting of 11 December 2012 in respect of the first complaint.
Second complaint
1) Failed to comply expeditiously, within a reasonable time, or at all with undertakings given by him to ICS Building Society Ltd on 10 December 2001 and 29 June 2005 respectively on behalf of a named client over property at Co Mayo,
2) Failed to reply adequately or at all to the complainant’s correspondence in respect of the second complaint and, in particular, letters dated 2 July 2008, 4 March 2011 and 23 June 2011 respectively,
3) Failed to comply adequately or at all with the directions of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee in respect of the second complaint at its meeting on 16 October 2012,
4) Failed to comply adequately or at all with the directions of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee at its meeting on 11 December 2012 in respect of the second complaint.
Third complaint
1) Failed to comply expeditiously, within a reasonable time, or at all with undertakings given by him to Bank of Ireland Mortgages on 29 July 2003 and 29 May 2006 respectively on behalf of a named client over property at Co Roscommon,
2) Failed to reply adequately or at all to the complainant’s correspondence in respect of the third complaint and, in particular, letters dated 15 July 2004, 13 January 2005, 14 July 2005, 22 May 2008, 2 July 2008, 18 January 2010, 26 April 2010, 4 June 2010, 4 March 2011 and 8 April 2011 respectively,
3) Failed to reply adequately or at all to the Society’s correspondence in respect of the third complaint and, in particular, letters dated 9 September 2011, 25 October 2011, 8 November 2011, 23 November 2011 and 30 November 2011 respectively,
4) Failed to comply adequately or at all with the directions of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee at its meeting dated 16 October 2012 in respect of the third complaint,
5) Failed to comply adequately or at all with the directions of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee at its meeting on 11 December 2012 in respect of the third complaint.
Fourth complaint
1) Failed to comply expeditiously, within a reasonable time, or at all with an undertaking given by him to ICS Building Society Ltd on 5 October 2004 on behalf of a named client over property at Co Leitrim,
2) Failed to reply adequately or at all to the complainant’s correspondence in respect of the fourth complaint and, in particular, letters dated 22 December 2006, 2 July 2008, 29 January 2004 and 4 March 2011 respectively,
3) Failed to comply adequately or at all with the directions of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee at its meeting on 16 October 2012 in respect of the fourth complaint,
4) Failed to comply adequately or at all with the directions of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee at its meeting on 11 December 2012 in respect of the fourth complaint.
Fifth complaint
1) Failed to comply expeditiously, within a reasonable time, or at all with an undertaking given by him to Bank of Ireland on behalf of a named clients on 8 December 2004 over property at Co Mayo,
2) Failed to reply adequately or at all to the complainant’s correspondence in respect of the fifth complaint and, in particular, letters dated 19 January 2006, 20 July 2006, 18 January 2007, 8 February 2007, 2 July 2008, 18 July 2008, 18 January 2010, 26 April 2010, 4 June 2010, 4 March 2011 and 8 April 2011 respectively,
3) Failed to reply adequately or at all to the Society’s correspondence in respect of the fifth complaint and, in particular, letters dated 9 September 2011, 19 October 2011, 8 November 2011, 23 November 2011 and 30 November 2011 respectively,
4) Failed to comply adequately or at all with the directions of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee at its meeting on 16 October 2012 in respect of the fifth complaint,
5) Failed to comply adequately or at all with the directions of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee at its meeting on 11 December 2012 in respect of the fifth complaint.
Sixth complaint
1) Failed to comply expeditiously, within a reasonable time, or at all with an undertaking given by him to Bank of Ireland on 11 September 2006 on behalf of named clients over property at Co Leitrim,
2) Failed to reply adequately or at all to the complainant’s correspondence in respect of the sixth complaint and, in particular, letters dated 18 September 2009, 18 January 2010, 26 April 2010, 4 June 2010, 4 March 2011 and 8 April 2011 respectively,
3) Failed to reply adequately or at all to the Society’s correspondence in respect of the sixth complaint and, in particular, letters dated 9 September 2011, 25 October 2011, 8 November 2011, 23 November 2011 and 30 November 2011 respectively,
4) Failed to comply adequately or at all with the directions of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee at its meeting on 16 October 2012 in respect of the sixth complaint,
5) Failed to comply adequately or at all with the directions of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee at its meeting on 11 December 2012 in respect of the sixth complaint.
Seventh complaint
1) Failed to comply expeditiously, within a reasonable time, or at all with undertakings given by him to Bank of Ireland on 4 December 2006 and 25 February 2008 on behalf of a named client over property at Co Roscommon,
2) Failed to reply adequately or at all to the complainant’s correspondence in respect of the seventh complaint
-
Edward A (otherwise Eamonn) Kelly
Eamonn Kelly, Solicitor, Iveragh Road, Killorglin, Co Kerry
Date of Order29/02/2016In the matter of Edward A Kelly (otherwise Eamonn Kelly), previously practising as Eamonn Kelly, Solicitor, at Iveragh Road, Killorglin, Co Kerry, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2011 [5754/DT47/14; DT48/14; DT49/14, DT50/14; DT51/14; DT52/14; DT53/14; DT54/14; High Court record 2016 no 16 SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Edward A Kelly (otherwise Eamonn Kelly) (respondent solicitor)
On 5 November 2015, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal heard eight complaints against the above solicitor. The tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:
5754/DT47/14
1) Failed to comply with a solicitor’s undertaking to Bank of Ireland Mortgages, dated 28 March 2001, up to the date of swearing of the Society’s affidavit,
2) Failed to reply to correspondence from the Society investigating the complaint, being letters dated 28 June 2012, 30 July 2012, 9 October 2012, 25 October 2012, 17 December 2012, and 15 January 2013,
3) Failed to comply with 11 directions of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee numbered from (a) to (k) (inclusive) in the minutes of the meeting of the committee on 11 December 2012,
4) Failed to attend a meeting of the committee on 11 February 2013, despite being required to so attend.
5754/DT48/14
1) Failed to comply in a timely manner or at all with a solicitor’s undertaking dated 13 June 2005, furnished to the complainant in respect of his named client and property at Killorglin, Co Kerry,
2) Failed to reply to correspondence from the Society, being letters dated 16 May 2012, 2 July 2012, 31 July 2012, 29 August 2012, and 27 September 2012,
3) Failed to comply with a direction of the committee made on 16 October 2012 that he furnish the information laid out in the minutes from (a) to (k) (inclusive) within 21 days,
4) Failed to attend the meeting of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee on 11 December 2012 or to arrange to be represented.
5754/DT49/14
1) Failed to reply to correspondence from the Society, being letters dated 7 August 2012, 16 August 2012, 9 October 2012, 5 November 2012, and 20 February 2013,
2) Failed to comply with the direction of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee made on 11 December 2012 requiring him to furnish certain information within 21 days or at all,
3) Failed to attend a meeting of the committee, as required to do so on 19 February 2013.
5754/DT50/14
1) Failed to comply with an undertaking to the complainant dated 22 May 2010 in respect of named clients and property at Cahirciveen, Co Kerry,
2) Failed to reply to correspondence from the Society investigating the complaint, being letters dated 19 June 2012, 6 July 2012, 21 August 2012, 10 October 2012, 23 October 2012, 20 November 2012, and 15 January 2013,
3) Failed to comply with the direction of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee set out at (a) to (k) (inclusive) of the minutes of the meeting of 11 December 2012.
5754/DT51/14
1) Failed to comply with a solicitor’s undertaking dated 24 August 1998 furnished to the complainant on behalf of his named client and property at Beaufort, Co Kerry, in a timely manner or at all,
2) Failed to reply to correspondence from the Society, being letters dated 16 May 2012, 7 June 2012, 26 July 2012, 9 August 2012, 30 August 2012, 1 October 2012, 22 October 2012, and 13 December 2012,
3) Failed to comply with a direction of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee made on 16 October 2012 within 21 days, as directed,
4) Failed to attend the meeting of the committee on 7 December 2012 as directed or to arrange representation.
5754/DT52/14
1) Failed to comply with a solicitor’s undertaking furnished to the complainant, dated 29 June 2000, in respect of his named client and property at Killorglin, Co Kerry,
2) Failed to reply to correspondence from the Society, being letters dated 16 May, 2012, 2 July 2012, 21 August 2012, 10 October 2012, 23 October 2012, 20 November 2012, and 15 January 2013,
3) Failed to comply with a direction of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee made on 11 December 2012, and communicated to him by letter dated 17 December 2012, in a timely manner or at all.
5754/DT53/14
1) Failed to comply with an undertaking, dated 2 April 2007 and given to EBS Limited, up to the date of swearing of the Society’s affidavit,
2) Failed to reply to correspondence from the Society, being letters dated 16 May 2012, 2 July 2012, 15 August 2012, 30 August 2012, 13 September 2012, and 25 September 2012,
3) Failed to comply with the direction of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee of 16 October 2012,
4) Failed to attend the meeting of the committee on 11 December 2012 or to arrange to be represented.
5754/DT54/14
1) Failed to comply with an undertaking furnished to the complainant, stamped February 2004, in respect of his named client and property at Palmerstown, Dublin 20, in a timely manner or at all,
2) Failed to reply to correspondence from the Society investigating the complaint, being letters dated 16 May 2012, 7 June 2012, 21 August 2012, 24 September 2012, 8 October 2012, and 5 November 2012,
3) Failed to attend a meeting of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee or to arrange representation on 19 February 2013, as required,
4) Failed to comply with a direction of the committee made at its meeting on 11 December 2012 and communicated to him by letter dated 17 December 2012 within the time specified by the committee or at all,
5) Failed to attend a meeting of the committee on 11 February 2013 despite being required to so attend.
The tribunal, having heard the eight complaints and made the findings of misconduct set out above, referred the matter to the President of the High Court and, in proceedings entitled 2016 no 16 SA on 29 February 2016, the High Court ordered that:
1) The respondent solicitor’s name be struck from the Roll of Solicitors,
2) The Law Society recover the costs of the proceedings herein and the costs of the proceedings before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, to include witness expenses, to be taxed in default of agreement.
-
Kevin O'Keeffe
Coakley Moloney Solicitors, 49 South Mall, Cork,
Date of Order03/02/2016In the matter of Kevin O’Keeffe, solicitor, formerly practising in Coakley Moloney Solicitors, 49 South Mall, Cork, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2011 [4536/DT16/13 and High Court record 2014 no 100 SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Kevin O’Keeffe (respondent solicitor)
On 2 December 2013, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:
1) Misapplied stamp duty and outlay funds of €83,945, received in respect of a property purchase by a named client, between 6 February 2004 and 8 August 2005, giving rise to a deficit on the client account,
2) Failed to stamp the deeds in the property purchase by a named client, despite having received stamp duty moneys in June 2003, and thereby giving rise to a potential liability to interest and penalties,
3) Failed to disclose the above unpaid stamp duty liability in a client matter at the time of the investigation by the Law Society in September 2010 or in a timely manner thereafter,
4) Misapplied in or about €71,195 from stamp duty moneys of a named client on or about 15 February 2006, by discharging costs in an unrelated client matter using same, giving rise to a deficit on the client account,
5) Misapplied a further €20,000 from the stamp duty moneys of a named client on or about 9 May 2006, by making a payment in that amount to an unrelated client, giving rise to a deficit on the client account,
6) Failed to disclose the misapplication of the above stamp duty moneys of a named client at the time of the investigation by the Law Society in September 2010 or in a timely manner thereafter,
7) Caused a payment of €25,000 to be made to a named client in or about January 2007, when there were no funds in the client ledger to meet the payment, giving rise to a deficit on the client account of €25,000,
8) Caused or allowed the above payment of €25,000 to be made from funds on a client ledger of which funds were the subject of an undertaking to repay bank borrowings,
9) Caused or allowed payments of €11,000 on 10 March 2009 and €17,000 on 20 July 2009 to be wrongly made from the client account, giving rise to a deficit, in circumstances where there were no funds received in the client account in respect of these payments,
10) Between 12 June 2006 and 11 December 2007, misapplied funds totalling €3,656 from a client ledger, giving rise to a deficit on the client account,
11) Caused or allowed a payment of €50,000 from the client account on or about 8 January 2009 in respect of the estate of a named client when there were no funds in the client account for the estate,
12) Caused or allowed the above payment of €50,000 to be made from funds on the client ledger of a named client, which funds were the subject of an undertaking to a bank to satisfy a loan,
13) Misappropriated and/or failed to apply a sum of €15,000 for CAT paid by a beneficiary of the estate of a named client,
14) Caused or allowed payments of €7,500 on 13 December 2002, €5,000 on 10 July 2003, and €5,000 on 23 September 2003 to be wrongly paid from the client account, giving rise to deficits totalling €17,500 on the client account,
15) By his actions, caused a deficit on the client account of the practice of Coakley Moloney as at 16 January 2012 of in or about €153,440.
The tribunal ordered that the matter go forward to the High Court and, on 9 March 2015, the High Court ordered:
1) That the respondent solicitor not be permitted to practise as a sole practitioner; that he be permitted to practise only 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 Society,
2) That the respondent solicitor must never have signing rights either solely or jointly over any client account,
3) That the respondent solicitor pay the sum of €15,000 to the compensation fund of the Law Society of Ireland,
4) That Mr Justin McCarthy, solicitor, and Mr David Keane, solicitor, provide a bond in the sum of €100,000 to the High Court by way of a personal guarantee as to the respondent solicitor’s future conduct, as appended to the High Court order and executed on 9 March 2015,
5) That the respondent solicitor pay the whole of the applicant’s costs, to include witness expenses of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal proceedings, with taxation in default of agreement,
6) That the respondent pay the applicant the costs of the within proceedings, with taxation in default of agreement.
-
Deirdre M Fahy
D Fahy & Associates, Solicitors, 69 Main Street, Blackrock, Co Dublin
Date of Order01/02/2016In the matter of Deirdre M Fahy, a solicitor previously practising as D Fahy & Associates, Solicitors, 69 Main Street, Blackrock, Co Dublin, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2011 [5471/DT137/13; DT138/13; DT139/13; DT140/13; DT141/13; DT142/13; DT191/13; DT100/14; High Court record 2015 no 124 SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Deirdre M Fahy (respondent solicitor)
On 23 July 2015, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal heard eight complaints against the above solicitor. The tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in her practice as a solicitor in that she:
5471/DT137/13
1) Failed to comply with an undertaking dated 18 February 2008, furnished to IIB Homeloans (now KBC Bank) in respect of her named client and borrower and two properties, one at Athlone, Co Westmeath, and at New Ross, Wexford, in a timely manner or at all,
2) Failed to respond to the Society’s correspondence and, in particular, the Society’s letters of 20 March 2012, 12 April 2012 and 16 May 2012 in a timely manner or at all,
3) Failed to comply with the direction of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee made at its meeting on 26 June 2012 and communicated to the solicitor on 29 June 2012 within the time specified or at all,
4) Failed to comply with a further direction of the committee made at its meeting on 4 September 2012 and communicated to the solicitor on 10 September 2012 within the time specified or at all.
5471/DT138/13
1) Failed to comply with an undertaking furnished to the complainants on 7 November 2008 in respect of her named client and property in Tallaght, Dublin 24, in a timely manner,
2) Failed to respond to the Society’s letters and, in particular, the Society’s letters of 25 June 2012, 25 July 2012 and 10 September 2012 in a timely manner, within the time specified in the letter, or at all,
3) Failed to comply with the direction of the committee made at its meeting on 4 September 2012 and communicated to her by letter dated 10 September 2012 within the time specified by the committee or at all.
5471/DT139/13
1) Failed to comply with two undertakings, one dated 13 July 2005 and one dated 3 July 2007, both in respect of her named borrower and property at Ongar, Dublin 15, furnished to ICS Building Society, in a timely manner or at all,
2) Failed to respond to the Society’s correspondence and, in particular, the Society’s letters of 22 December 2010, 25 January 2011, 7 March 2011, 22 March 2011, 9 May 2011, 20 July 2011, 4 August 2011, 30 August 2011, 13 September 2011, 1 November 2011, 14 November 2011, 12 December 2011, 9 January 2012, 7 February 2012, 27 March 2012, 24 April 2012 and 17 May 2012 in a timely manner or at all,
3) Failed to comply with the directions of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee made at its meeting on 26 June 2012 and communicated to the solicitor on 29 June 2012 within the time specified or at all,
4) Failed to comply with a further direction of the committee made at its meeting on 4 September 2012 and communicated to the solicitor on 10 September 2012 within the time specified or at all.
5471/DT140/13
1) Failed to comply with an undertaking furnished to the complainants on 10 August 2009 in respect of her named client and property at Donabate, Co Dublin, in a timely manner or at all,
2) Failed to respond to the Society’s correspondence and, in particular, the Society’s letters of 25 June 2012, 26 July 2012, 16 August 2012, 26 September 2012 and 22 October 2012 in a timely manner, within the time specified in the letter, or at all,
3) Failed to comply with the direction of the committee made at its meeting on 4 September 2012 and communicated to her by letter dated 10 September 2012 within the time specified by the committee or at all,
4) Failed to comply with a further direction of the committee made at its meeting on 16 October 2012 and communicated to her on 22 October 2012 in a timely manner or at all.
5471/DT141/13
1) Failed to comply with an undertaking furnished to the complainants on 28 March 2006 in respect of her named client, the borrower, and property at Lucan, Co Dublin, in a timely manner or at all,
2) Failed to respond to the Society’s correspondence and, in particular, to the Society’s letters of 22 June 2012, 26 July 2012, 16 August 2012, 10 September 2012, 2 October 2012 and 22 October 2012 in a timely manner, within the time specified in the letter, or at all,
3) Failed to comply with the direction of the committee made at its meeting on 4 September 2012 and communicated to her by letters dated 10 September 2012 and 2 October 2012 within the time specified by the committee or at all,
4) Failed to comply with a further direction of the committee made at its meeting on 16 October 2012 and communicated to her on 22 October 2012 in a timely manner or at all.
5471/DT142/13
1) Failed to comply with an undertaking dated 20 July 2007 furnished to IIB Homeloans (now KBC Bank) in respect of her named clients and borrowers and property at Lucan, Co Dublin, in a timely manner,
2) Failed to respond to the Society’s correspondence and, in particular, the Society’s letters of 20 March 2012, 12 April 2012, and 16 May 2012 in a timely manner or at all,
3) Failed to comply with the direction of the committee made at its meeting on 26 June 2012 and communicated to the solicitor on 29 June 2012 within the time specified or at all,
4) Failed to comply with a further direction of the committee made at its meeting on 4 September 2012 and communicated to the solicitor on 10 September 2012 within the time specified or at all.
5471/DT191/13
1) 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 2001 (SI 421 of 2001) in a timely manner or at all, having ceased practice on 30 November 2012,
2) Through her conduct, showed disregard for her statutory obligation to comply with the Solicitors Accounts Regulations and showed disregard for the Society’s statutory obligation to monitor compliance with the regulations for the protection of clients and the public.
5471/DT100/14
Failed to comply with an undertaking furnished to Bank of Ireland Mortgages on 30 May 2012 in respect of her named clients and borrowers and property in Dublin 12 in a timely manner or at all.
The tribunal, having heard the eight complaints and made those findings of misconduct, referred the matter to the President of the High Court and, in proceedings entitled 2015 no 124 SA on 1 February 2016, the High Court made an order that:
1) The respondent solicitor’s name be struck from the Roll of Solicitors,
2) The respondent 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.
-
Elizabeth McGrath
O’Connell McGrath Solicitors, 5 Athlunkard Street, Limerick
Date of Order25/01/2016In the matter of Elizabeth McGrath, a former solicitor previously practising as O’Connell McGrath Solicitors at 5 Athlunkard Street, Limerick, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2011 [11016/DT21/14; 11016/DT62/14; High Court record 2015 no 216 SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Elizabeth McGrath (respondent solicitor)
On 16 April 2015, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in her practice as a solicitor in that she:
11016/DT21/14
1) Failed to comply with an undertaking dated 16 July 2009 furnished to EBS Building Society in respect of her named clients and property in Co Limerick in a timely manner or at all,
2) Failed to respond to the Society’s correspondence and, in particular, the Society’s letters of 18 April 2012 and 2 May 2012 in a timely manner or at all,
3) Failed to comply with the direction of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee made at its meeting on 12 June 2012 that she make a contribution of €300 towards the costs incurred by the Society as a consequence of her failure to respond to the Society,
4) Failed to comply with the direction of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee, made at its meeting of 26 July 2012, that she comply with the section 10 notice and that she pay a further sum of €150 in respect of her failure to respond to the Society’s correspondence.
11016/DT62/14
1) Notwithstanding the fact that she had a second signatory on the client account, allowed a deficit of €16,447.01 to be in existence on her client account as of 30 June 2013, due to client ledger debit balances, in breach of regulation 7(2) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations,
2) Notwithstanding the fact that she had a second signatory on the client account, allowed a further deficit of €36,861.76 to be in existence as of 30 September 2013,
3) Failed to keep proper books of account on a regular basis, allowing same to have been approximately nine months in arrears prior to the investigation of her practice, in breach of regulation 12 of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations,
4) Allowed debit balances to arise as of 31 December 2012 of €9,997, in breach of regulation 7(2) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations, and failed to have all cleared, notwithstanding the fact that her reporting accountant stated that the deficit had been cleared in full,
5) Paid part of the premium due for her professional indemnity insurance from the client account on 24 May 2013,
6) Made round sum transfers of costs totalling €16,500 from the client account to the office account without supporting documentation.
On 25 January 2016, the High Court declared that the respondent is not a fit person to be a member of the solicitors’ profession, having regard to the adjudication made by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal on 16 April 2015 in respect of the complaints then before the tribunal, and ordered that the respondent do pay to the Society the whole of the costs of the proceedings, to be taxed in default of agreement.
The respondent solicitor had previously been struck off the Roll of Solicitors by the High Court on 28 April 2014.
-
Eoin M Dee
Eoin Dee, Solicitors, Thomas House, 47 Thomas Street, Waterford
Date of Order18/01/2016In the matter of Eoin M Dee, a solicitor previously practising as Eoin Dee, Solicitors, Thomas House, 47 Thomas Street, Waterford, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2011 [8243/DT05/15 and High Court record 2015 no 214 SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Eoin M Dee (respondent solicitor)
On 29 October 2015, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of professional misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he 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 2001 (SI 421 of 2001), in a timely manner or at all, having ceased practice on 31 January 2014.
The tribunal ordered that the matter go forward to the High Court and, on 18 January 2016, the High Court ordered that:
1) The respondent solicitor be suspended from practising as a solicitor until such time as he files his closing accountant’s report with the Society,
2) The respondent solicitor pay the whole of the costs of the Society before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal and the High Court, to be taxed in default of agreement.
-
Aine Feeney McTigue
Feeney Solicitors, First Floor, Lismoyle House, Merchants Road, Galway
Date of Order07/12/2015In the matter of Aine Feeney McTigue, a solicitor previously practising as Feeney Solicitors, First Floor, Lismoyle House, Merchants Road, Galway and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2011 [10123/DT23/13 and High Court record 2015 no 173 SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Aine Feeney McTigue (respondent solicitor)
On 8 October 2015, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in that she:
1) Allowed debit balances totalling €3,092 to occur on nine client ledger accounts at her accounting date of 31 September 2011,
2) Allowed a minimum deficit of €48,678.18 on the client account as of 30 September 2011, subsequently adjusted to €33,297.78, in breach of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations,
3) Permitted unauthorised transfers between unrelated accounts to temporarily clear debit balances,
4) Took costs from deposits received in a number of conveyancing transactions,
5) Failed to pay stamp duty that had been discharged and paid by the client and instead used same to pay costs,
6) Failed to ensure that a client bank account was correctly designated,
7) Failed to ensure that adequate narrative was written on cheques paid to banks or financial institutions.
The tribunal referred the matter forward to the High Court and, on 7 December 2015, the High Court ordered that:
1) The name of the respondent solicitor be struck from the Roll of Solicitors,
2) The Society recover the costs of the proceedings in the High Court and the tribunal, to be taxed by in default of agreement.
-
Thomas G Myles
Myles & Co, Solicitors, 21 Hillside, Monaghan, Co Monaghan
Date of Order23/11/2015In the matter of Thomas G Myles, a solicitor formerly practising as Myles & Co, Solicitors, 21 Hillside, Monaghan, Co Monaghan, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2011 [4961/DT110/14 and High Court record 2015 no 80 SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Thomas G Myles (respondent solicitor)
On 18 June 2015, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:
1) Failed to comply expeditiously, within a reasonable time, or at all with an undertaking dated 6 January 2004, given by him on behalf of named clients to the complainant financial institution for a property at Co Monaghan,
2) Failed to reply adequately or at all to the complainant’s correspondence and, in particular, letters dated 4 April 2006, 3 July 2006, 2 July 2008, 11 January 2010, 2 February 2010, 4 May 2010, 16 June 2010, 4 March 2011, 24 March 2011, 8 April 2011, and 17 April 2012 respectively,
3) Failed to reply adequately or at all to the Society’s correspondence, in particular, letters dated 12 November 2013, 17 December 2013, 13 January 2014, and 5 August 2014 respectively,
4) Failed to comply expeditiously, within a reasonable time, or at all with an undertaking dated 21 December 2005, given by him to the complainant on behalf of a named client over property at Co Cavan,
5) Failed to reply adequately or at all to the complainant’s letters dated 9 January 2006, 18 April 2006, 23 May 2007, 20 June 2008, 19 May 2009, 2 February 2010, 24 May 2010, 16 June 2010, 25 June 2010, 13 October 2010, 8 April 2011, 20 September 2011, 17 April 2012, and 29 November 2012 respectively.
The tribunal ordered that the matter go forward to the High Court and, on 23 November 2015, 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 the whole of the Society’s costs and witness expenses in the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal proceedings, with taxation in default of agreement,
3) The respondent solicitor pay to the Society the costs of the High Court proceedings, to be taxed in default of agreement.
-
Thomas G Myles
Myles & Co, Solicitors, 21 Hillside, Monaghan, Co Monaghan
Date of Order23/11/2015In the matter of Thomas G Myles, a solicitor formerly practising as Myles & Co, Solicitors, 21 Hillside, Monaghan, Co Monaghan, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2011 [4961/DT106/14 and High Court record 2015 no 81 SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Thomas G Myles (respondent solicitor)
On 18 June 2015, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he failed to honour an undertaking, dated 30 November 2009, given by him to the complainant to discharge his fees of €5,992.21 for the proceeds of costs to be received in a named case expeditiously, within a reasonable time, or at all.
The tribunal ordered that the matter go forward to the High Court and, on 23 November 2015, 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 the whole of the Society’s costs and witness expenses in the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal proceedings, with taxation in default of agreement,
3) The respondent solicitor pay to the Society the costs of the High Court proceedings, to be taxed in default of agreement.
-
Thomas G Myles
Myles & Co, Solicitors, 21 Hillside, Monaghan, Co Monaghan
Date of Order23/11/2015In the matter of Thomas G Myles, a solicitor formerly practising as Myles & Co, Solicitors, 21 Hillside, Monaghan, Co Monaghan, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2011 [4961/DT192/13 and High Court record 2015 no 62 SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Thomas G Myles (respondent solicitor)
On 14 April 2015, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor 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 regulations, in a timely manner or at all,
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 regulations for the protection of clients and the public.
The tribunal ordered that the matter go forward to the High Court and, on 23 November 2015, 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 the whole of the Society’s costs and witness expenses in the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal proceedings, with taxation in default of agreement,
3) The respondent solicitor pay to the Society the costs of the High Court proceedings, to be taxed in default of agreement.
-
Cindy McCarthy Yates
McCarthy Solicitors, 4 The Gully, Bandon, Co Cork
Date of Order02/11/2015In the matter of Cindy McCarthy Yates, a solicitor previously practising as McCarthy Solicitors at 4 The Gully, Bandon, Co Cork, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2011 [12313/DT24/14; 12313/DT44/14; 12313/DT79/14; 12313/DT86/14; High Court record 2015 no 116 SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Cindy McCarthy Yates (respondent solicitor)
12313/DT24/14
On 21 July 2015, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of professional misconduct in her practice as a solicitor in that she:
1) Failed to ensure there was furnished to the Society an accountant’s report for the year ended 31 August 2012 within six months of that date, in breach of regulation 21(1) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations 2001 (SI 421 of 2001),
2) Through her conduct, showed disregard for her statutory obligation to comply with the Solicitors Accounts Regulations and showed disregard for the Society’s statutory obligation to monitor compliance with the regulations for the protection of clients and the public.
12313/DT44/14
On 21 July 2015, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of professional misconduct in her practice as a solicitor in that she:
1) Failed to comply with an undertaking furnished to Bank of Ireland Mortgages in respect of her named clients and their customers and property at Co Cork, furnished on 15 July 2009, in a timely manner or at all,
2) Failed to respond to the Society’s correspondence and, in particular, the Society’s letters of 14 May 2013, 4 June 2013, 20 June 2013, 11 July 2013, 30 July 2013, 26 September 2013, and 3 October 2013 within the time prescribed, in a timely manner, or at all,
3) Failed to comply with the direction made by the Complaints and Client Relations Committee on 25 July 2013 that (a) she pay a €500 contribution towards the costs of the Society, and that (b) she furnish an update to the Society no later than 1 September 2013 in respect of the complaint.
12313/DT79/14
On 21 July 2015, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of professional misconduct in her practice as a solicitor in that she 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.
12313/DT86/14
On 21 July 2015, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of professional misconduct in her practice as a solicitor in that she:
1) Failed to comply with an undertaking dated 10 November 2011, furnished to Bank of Ireland Mortgages in respect of her named clients and their borrowers and property at Co Cork in a timely manner or at all,
2) Failed to attend the meeting of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee on 24 September 2013, despite being required to do so by letter dated 17 September 2013.
The tribunal, in the four matters, recommended that the matters be sent forward to the High Court and, on 2 November 2015, in proceedings 2015 no 116 SA, the High Court ordered that the name of the respondent solicitor be struck from the Roll of Solicitors.
-
Cindy McCarthy Yates
McCarthy Solicitors, 5 The Old Market, Market Square, Bandon, Co Cork
Date of Order02/11/2015In the matter of Cindy McCarthy Yates, a solicitor previously practising as McCarthy Solicitors at 5 The Old Market, Market Square, Bandon, Co Cork, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2011 [12313/DT86/13 and High Court 2014 no 83 SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Cindy McCarthy Yates (respondent solicitor)
On 25 March 2014, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in her practice as a solicitor in that she:
1) Failed to comply with an undertaking dated 2 February 2011 furnished to Bank of Ireland Mortgage Bank in relation to property at Co Cork and her named clients and borrowers in a timely manner or at all,
2) Failed to respond to the Society’s correspondence and, in particular, to the Society’s emails of 1 November 2012, 2 January 2013, and 29 January 2013 in a timely manner or at all,
3) Failed to attend the Complaints and Client Relations Committee on 7 February 2013, despite being required to do so.
The tribunal recommended that the matter be sent forward to the High Court and, on the 2 November 2015, in proceedings 2014 no 83 SA, the High Court ordered that:
1) The name of the respondent solicitor be struck from the Roll of Solicitors,
2) The respondent solicitor pay to the Law Society the costs of the proceedings before the disciplinary tribunal and the costs of the High Court proceedings, to be taxed in default of agreement.
-
Robert Sweeney
Robert Sweeney, First Floor, Crossview House, High Road, Letterkenny, Co Donegal
Date of Order02/11/2015In the matter of Robert Sweeney, a solicitor previously practising as Robert Sweeney, First Floor, Crossview House, High Road, Letterkenny, Co Donegal, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2011 [10658/DT189/13 and High Court record 2014 no 131 SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Robert Sweeney (respondent solicitor)
On 24 July 2014, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he had:
1) Allowed a shortfall of client funds in his practice of €168,816, as of 31 May 2012,
2) Allowed around 90 client ledger debit balances totalling €143,996, as of 31 May 2012,
3) Allowed undischarged stamp duty to remain in the office account, totalling €1,120,
4) Allowed further shortfalls on the client ledger client caused by the transfer of excess amounts for fees of €23,700,
5) Failed to keep books of account in accordance with the requirements of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations,
6) For purchases completed prior to 31 May 2012, allowed a minimum of 151 cases of unstamped deeds with a minimum of €371,949 of unpaid stamp duty,
7) Misled the committee at its meeting on 17 October 2012 with regard to the progress that was being made in respect to stamping the 151 unstamped deeds,
8) Lodged sales deposits to the office account in respect of two sales totalling €19,350, as set out in paragraph 3.4 of the report of 22 November 2012,
9) Lodged clients’ moneys in the office account, in breach of the regulations, as set out in the investigating accountant’s report of 14 June 2012.
The tribunal ordered that the matter should go forward to the High Court and, on 2 November 2015, in proceedings entitled 2014 no 131 SA, the President of the High Court ordered on consent that:
1) The name of the respondent solicitor shall be struck from the Roll of Solicitors,
2) The respondent solicitor pay the costs of the Society before the disciplinary tribunal and the costs of the High Court proceedings, such costs to be taxed in default of agreement.
-
Robert Sweeney
Robert Sweeney, First Floor, Crossview House, High Road, Letterkenny, Co Donegal
Date of Order02/11/2015In the matter of Robert Sweeney, a solicitor previously practising as Robert Sweeney, First Floor, Crossview House, High Road, Letterkenny, Co Donegal, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2011 [10658/DT130/14; 10658/DT27/15; 10658/DT32/15; 10658/DT39/15; High Court record 2015 no 117 SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Robert Sweeney (respondent solicitor)
On 30 June 2015, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in four separate referrals from the Society to the disciplinary tribunal as follows:
10658/DT130/14
1) Allowed a deficit of client funds in the practice of €27,190 as of 31 October 2013,
2) Allowed a deficit of at least €107,700 of clients’ funds in the practice as of 30 January 2014,
3) Failed to account to his client for the sum of €25,000 received as a deposit, as set out at paragraph 4.3 and paragraph 5.3 of the investigation report of 19 December 2013,
4) Misled the Regulation of Practice Committee at its meeting on 22 January 2014 by indicating that the bank draft in relation to the sale deposit had either been lost or mislaid, when it subsequently transpired that same had been lodged to the solicitor’s personal AIB bank account on 12 November 2012,
5) Misled the Regulation of Practice Committee at its meeting on 22 January 2014 by indicating that the proceeds of a sale were in the solicitor’s client account, when it subsequently transpired that part of the sale moneys, namely a deposit of €43,000 ,had been lodged to the solicitor’s personal AIB bank account on 11 October 2013,
6) In five different instances, lodged €129,200 of clients’ moneys to the solicitor’s personal bank account. in breach of regulation 4,
7) Failed to stamp 38 deeds, as set out in appendix 2 of the investigation report of 19 December 2013,
8) Submitted deeds for stamping with an updated deed, notwithstanding the fact that he was in funds to stamp the deed on closing, as set out in paragraph 5.7 of the investigation report of 19 December 2013,
9) Used client funds to pay stamp duty penalties, as set out in paragraph 4.4 of the investigation report of 19 December 2013,
10) Failed to provide vouching documentation for a payment of €15,000, as set out in paragraph 4.10 of the investigation report, and subsequently gave an incorrect explanation as to the source of such funds to the Regulation of Practice Committee at its meeting on 22 January 2014,
11) Requisitioned client account cheques for registration fees, but never forwarded the said cheques to the Property Registration Authority and never registered the documentation,
12) Transferred professional fees twice, causing a shortfall in relation to a client purchase file of €785.
10658/DT27/15
1) Failed to comply in a timely manner or at all with an undertaking dated 31 October 2012 to the complainant in respect of a property at Clondalkin, Dublin 22, owned by a named client,
2) Failed to comply in a timely manner or at all with an undertaking dated 21 December 2010 to the complainant in respect of a property at Loughlinstown, Co Dublin, owned by named clients,
3) Failed to respond adequately or at all to correspondence from the complainant in respect of one or more of the above undertakings,
4) Failed to respond adequately or at all to correspondence from the Society in respect of one or more of the above undertakings.
10658/DT32/15
1) Failed to comply in a timely manner or at all with an undertaking dated 24 June 2010 to the complainant in respect of his named client,
2) Failed to respond adequately or at all to correspondence from the complainant in respect of the above,
3) Failed to respond adequately or at all to correspondence from the Society in respect of the above.
10658/DT39/15
1) Failed to comply in a timely manner or at all with the following undertakings: undertaking dated 21 June 2010 in relation to property in Menlough, Co Galway, and his named clients (complaint one); undertaking dated 21 October 2009 in respect of property in Bray, Co Wicklow, in respect of named clients (complaint two); undertaking dated 11 June 2010 in relation to property at Kells, Co Meath, and in respect of his named clients (complaint three); undertaking of 1 March 2011 in respect of property in Kinsealy, Co Dublin, and in respect of his named client (complaint four); undertaking dated 21 September 2010 in respect of property at Blackrock, Co Dublin, in respect of his named client (complaint five); undertaking of 2 March 2011 in relation to property at Sallynoggin, Co Dublin, in respect of his named client (complaint six); undertaking of 29 October 2010 in relation to property at the Tenters, Dublin 8, in respect of his named clients (complaint seven); undertaking of 23 March 2011 in relation to property at Trim, Co Meath, in respect of his named client (complaint eight); undertaking of 23 August 2010 in relation to property at Dublin 7 in respect of his named clients (complaint nine),
2) Failed to respond adequately or at all to correspondence with the Society in respect of one or more of the above undertakings.
The tribunal ordered that the four matters should go forward to the High Court and, on 2 November 2015, in proceedings entitled 2015 no 117 SA, the President of the High Court ordered on consent that:
1) The name of the respondent solicitor be struck from the Roll of Solicitors, and
2) The respondent solicitor pay the whole of the costs of the Society, including witnesses’ expenses, to be taxed in default of agreement.
-
Alexander Gibbons
Gibbons & Co, 2 Riverside, Kent Street, Clonakilty, Co Cork
Date of Order19/10/2015In the matter of Alexander Gibbons, a solicitor formerly practising as Gibbons & Co, 2 Riverside, Kent Street, Clonakilty, Co Cork, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2011 [5839/DT119/12; 5839/DT147/12; 5839/DT172/12; 5839/DT108/13; 5839/DT09/13; 5839/DT10/13; 5839/DT 52/14; High Court record 2015 89 SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Alexander Gibbons (respondent solicitor)
On 11 November 2014, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal heard seven complaints against the respondent solicitor and found him guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor, in that he:
5839/DT119/12
Failed to comply, within 21 days of the meeting of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee on 2 June 2011 or at all up to the date of swearing of the affidavit, with the direction of the committee on 4 February 2011 that he make a contribution of €500 towards the Law Society's costs.
5839/DT147/12
1) Allowed a deficit on his client account of €430,958 as at 31 January 2011, which deficit increased to €557,184 as of 22 July 2011,
2) Engaged in a process of teeming and lading to conceal the misappropriation of funds from the client account,
3) Wrongfully withdrew €57,163 from the client bank account between 1 February 2011 and 31 May 2011 and used such funds for his own purposes,
4) Wrongfully withdrew from the client ledger an amount of €87,063 for his benefit between November 2009 and April 2010,
5) Lodged €15,372 from the sale of shares belonging to an estate to the office account, thereby creating a credit balance of €15,372 in the office account,
6) Wrongfully lodged a client cheque for €257,007 to the office account on 5 July 2010 and did not rectify this until 29 October 2010,
7) Allowed deeds to remain unstamped with a liability of €63,000 and €7,800, which liabilities were on the client ledger,
8) Concealed the deficiency of €123,434 as of 31 January 2010 from his reporting accountant by transferring funds from two probate ledgers,
9) Made 11 different withdrawals from the client account between 22 March 2010 and 23 December 2010, mainly in round sum figures, leading to a deficit on the client account in relation to these withdrawals of €102,935,
10) Made three of these withdrawals to pay an employee and two other third-party creditors,
11) Since 31 January 2011, made further payments totalling €57,163 out of the client account, which included payments to four third-party creditors,
12) Took money from the client ledger account of a named client to make further payments to three further third-party creditors,
13) Since the first inspection, created a further debit balance on his own ledger account of €64,000 In the period from 1 December 2011 to 22 July 2012,
14) Since the first inspection, allowed the creation of a further ten debit balances totalling €10,664 as of 22 July 2011.
5839/DT172/12
1) Failed to comply with an undertaking dated 26 August 2008 furnished to KBC on behalf of named borrowers and the premises in Co Cork in a timely manner or at all,
2) Failed to attend a meeting of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee on 25 October 2011, despite being required to do so.
5839/DT08/13
1) Failed to comply with an undertaking dated 29 May 2003 furnished to Bank of Ireland in respect of named borrowers and the premises in Co Cork in a timely manner or at all,
2) Failed to respond to the Society's correspondence and, in particular, the Society's letters of 18 February 2011 and 14 March 2011 within the time specified, within a timely manner, or at all,
3) Failed to attend the meeting of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee on 25 October 2011, despite being required to do so by letters dated 10 October 2011 and 18 October 2011.
5839/DT09/13
1) Failed to comply with an undertaking dated 23 November 2006 furnished to Bank of Ireland in respect of a named client and property at Co Cork in a timely manner or at all,
2) Failed to reply to the Society's correspondence and, in particular, the Society's correspondence of 21 September 2010 and 27 June 2011 within the time specified, in a timely manner, or at all,
3) Failed to attend the meeting of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee on 25 October 2011, despite being required to do so by letters dated 10 October 2011 and 18 October 2011.
5839/DT10/13
1) Failed to comply with an undertaking furnished to Bank of Ireland Mortgages on 18 April 2008 in respect of a named borrower at Co Cork in a timely manner or at all,
2) Failed to attend the meeting of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee on 25 October 2011, despite being required to do so by letters dated 10 October 2011 and 18 October 2011.
5839/DT52/13
1) Failed to comply with undertakings listed at paragraph 3 of the Society's affidavit, sworn 28 March 2013, given to the complainants on behalf of named borrowers,
2) Failed to respond satisfactorily to the Society's correspondence and, in particular, letters of 12 October 2010, 30 November 2010, 5 December 2010, 15 February 2011 and 1 March 2011 within the time specified, in a timely manner ,or at all,
3) Failed to attend the meeting of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee on 25 October 2011, despite being required to do so by letters dated 10 October 2011 and 18 October 2011.
The tribunal recommended that the matters be sent forward to the High Court and, on 19 October 2015, the High Court ordered that:
1) The name of the respondent solicitor be struck off the Roll of Solicitors,
2) The respondent solicitor pay the Society the costs of and incidental to the proceedings and the costs of the Society before the tribunal, including witness expenses, to be taxed in default of agreement.
-
Alexander Gibbons
Gibbons & Co, 2 Riverside, Kent Street, Clonakilty, Co Cork
Date of Order19/10/2015In the matter of Alexander Gibbons, a solicitor formerly practising as Gibbons & Co, 2 Riverside, Kent Street, Clonakilty, Co Cork, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2011 [5839/DT111/11 and High Court record 2015 89 SA]
Named applicant
Alexander Gibbons (respondent solicitor)
On 10 January 2013, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:
1) Misled the applicant from the beginning,
2) Lied about the terms of the contract,
3) Dealt with the applicant’s moneys in a completely dishonest manner,
4) Failed to provide proper title to the properties, having being given more than sufficient moneys to complete the transaction.
The tribunal recommended that the matters be sent forward to the High Court and, on 19 October 2015, the High Court ordered that:
1) The name of the respondent solicitor be struck off the Roll of Solicitors,
2) The respondent solicitor pay the Society the costs of and incidental to the proceedings and the costs of the Society before the tribunal, including witness expenses, to be taxed in default of agreement.
-
Alexander Gibbons
Gibbons & Co, 2 Riverside, Kent Street, Clonakilty, Co Cork
Date of Order19/10/2015In the matter of Alexander Gibbons, a solicitor formerly practising as Gibbons & Co, 2 Riverside, Kent Street, Clonakilty, Co Cork, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2011 [5839/DT112/11 and High Court record 2015 89 SA]
Named applicant
Alexander Gibbons (respondent solicitor)
On 10 January 2013, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he failed to disclose the true terms of the contract so as to conceal his own dishonest dealings.
The tribunal recommended that the matters be sent forward to the High Court and, on 19 October 2015, the High Court ordered that:
1) The name of the respondent solicitor be struck off the Roll of Solicitors,
2) The respondent solicitor pay the Society the costs of and incidental to the proceedings and the costs of the Society before the tribunal, including witness expenses, to be taxed in default of agreement.
-
Brendan MacNamara
Mountrath Road, Portlaoise, Co Laois
Date of Order20/07/2015In the matter of Brendan MacNamara, solicitor, Mountrath Road, Portlaoise, Co Laois, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2011 [10447/DT134/11 and High Court record 2015 no 64 SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Brendan MacNamara (respondent solicitor)
On 4 March 2015, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he failed to comply with a solicitor’s undertaking to Bank of Ireland dated 7 January 2007 in respect of a named client, so that the bank was left with no security in respect of an advance of €170,000 to the said client.
The tribunal ordered that the matter go forward to the High Court and, on 20 July 2015, the High Court made the following orders on consent:
1) That the name of the respondent solicitor shall be struck from the Roll of Solicitors,
2) That the respondent solicitor pay the whole of the applicant’s costs of the proceedings before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, to include witness expenses, with taxation in default of agreement,
3) That the respondent solicitor pay to the applicant the costs of the High Court proceedings to be taxed in default of agreement.
-
Brendan MacNamara
Mountrath Road, Portlaoise, Co Laois
Date of Order20/07/2015In the matter of Brendan MacNamara, solicitor, Mountrath Road, Portlaoise, Co Laois, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2011 [10447/DT131/11 and High Court record 2015 no 69 SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Brendan MacNamara (respondent solicitor)
On 4 March 2015, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:
1) Permitted client ledger debit balances of €4,200 and €1,512 to arise on the client account, resulting in a deficit of €5,712, in breach of regulation 7(2),
2) Updated a deed to 1 May 2006 instead of December 2004 and then presented the updated deed to Revenue for stamping,
3) Received party-and-party costs in a personal injuries action but failed to pay third party outlays until after the Society’s investigation.
The tribunal ordered that the matter go forward to the High Court and, on 20 July 2015, the High Court made the following orders on consent:
1) That the name of the respondent solicitor shall be struck from the Roll of Solicitors,
2) That the respondent solicitor pay the whole of the applicant’s costs of the proceedings before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, to include witness expenses, with taxation in default of agreement,
3) That the respondent solicitor pay to the applicant the costs of the High Court proceedings, to be taxed in default of agreement.
-
Raymond St John O’Neill
Raymond St J O’Neill & Co, 27/29 Washington Street, Cork
Date of Order20/07/2015In the matter of Raymond St John O’Neill, a solicitor practising under the style and title of Raymond St J O’Neill & Co, 27/29 Washington Street, Cork, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2011 [3138/DT143/11; 3138/DT58/14; High Court record 2015 no 61 SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Raymond St John O’Neill (respondent solicitor)
On 4 November 2014, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:
1) Caused or allowed fees to be transferred to the office account in respect of named client matters other than as authorised by the regulations and, in particular, regulations 11 and 7(1)(a)(iii),
2) Caused or allowed the misapplication of stamp duty funds in the client matter of a named client in the amount of €11,800, including the transfer of in or about €2,965 to the office ledger,
3) Caused or allowed the transfer of €5,917 from the client ledger of a named client to clear a debit balance on the ledger account of a named client, in breach of regulation 9,
4) Caused or allowed the transfer of €3,400 from the client ledger of a named client to partially clear a debit balance on the ledger account of another named client, in breach of regulation 9,
5) In the course of acting for a named client in the purchase of a property, caused or allowed an underpayment to the Revenue Commissioners of stamp duty of in or about €11,800 and possible interest and penalty,
6) Caused or allowed the misapplication of stamp duty funds in the client matter of named clients in the amount of €24,750,
7) Caused or allowed the transfer of €8,247 from the client ledger of named clients to partially clear a debit balance on the ledger account of a named client, in breach of regulation 9,
8) In the course of acting for named clients in the purchase of property, caused or allowed an underpayment to the Revenue Commissioners of stamp duty of in or about €24,750 and possible interest and penalty,
9) Caused or allowed funds for wages to be transferred from the client ledger account of a named client to the office account, in breach of regulation 7, over a continued period of time from January 2010 to November 2010,
10) Caused or allowed debit balances to arise on the client’s ledger account of a named client, in breach of regulation 7(2)(a),
11) Caused or allowed the transfer of €6,001 from the client ledger of a named client to clear a debit balance on the ledger account of a named client, in breach of regulation 9,
12) Caused or allowed wages totalling in or about €2,712 to be discharged from the client account on 12 November 2010 and on 6 December 2010, in breach of regulation 7(2)(b),
13) Caused or allowed credit balances totalling €30,946 to arise on the office ledger as at 30 November 2010, in breach of regulation 10(5),
14) Caused or allowed a debit balance to arise on the ledger account of named clients, in breach of regulation 7(2)(a), which debit balance was cleared by a transfer of funds from other clients’ ledger accounts, in breach of regulation 9,
15) Caused or allowed a debit balance to arise on the ledger account of a named client, in breach of regulation 7(2)(a), which debit balance was cleared by a transfer of funds from other clients’ ledger accounts, in breach of regulation 9,
16) In the course of acting for a named client in the purchase of property, caused or allowed an updated deed to be submitted to the Revenue Commissioners for stamping,
17) On or about 25 October 2013, updated a deed and underpaid the stamp duty that would have been due correctly on the deed by €147,000.
The tribunal ordered that the matter go forward to the High Court and, on 20 July 2015, the High Court ordered that:
1) The respondent solicitor 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 of and under the direct control and supervision of a solicitor of at least ten years’ standing, to be approved in advance by the Society,
2) The respondent solicitor pay the Society the costs of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal proceedings when taxed or ascertained,
3) The respondent solicitor pay the Society the costs of the High Court proceedings when taxed or ascertained.
-
Peter Kenny
Kenny Associates, College Street, Carlow, Co Carlow
Date of Order20/07/2015In the matter of Peter Kenny, a solicitor formerly practising as Kenny Associates, College Street, Carlow, Co Carlow, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2011 [8864/DT109/14 and High Court record 2015 no 70 SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Peter Kenny (respondent solicitor)
On 4 March 2015, 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 totalling €369,460 as at 18 October 2013,
2) Breached regulation (7)(1)(a) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations, as amended, by creating debit balances of €124,665.36 as at 18 October 2013,
3) Breached regulation 7(1) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations by withdrawing moneys on account of fees without the consent of the client,
4) Breached regulation 11 of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations by failing to furnish bills of costs to clients and by the withdrawal of moneys not due to the respondent solicitor,
5) Breached regulation 10(5) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations by the creation of credit balances on the office account of €274,042 as at 18 October 2013,
6) Breached regulation 12 of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations by the failure to maintain such relevant supporting documents that could vouch moneys taken as solicitor/client fees,
7) Breached regulation 12 of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations, in that the client ledger listing did not properly detail the full liabilities to clients because of the entries made for fee notes that had not been delivered to the client or agreed with them,
8) Had substantial noncompliance with section 68 of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act 1994, in that clients were not informed of the party-and-party costs recovered, nor were they given full account details of all moneys spent on their behalf.
The tribunal ordered that the matter go forward to the High Court and, on 20 July 2015, the President of the High Court ordered that:
1) The name of the respondent solicitor shall be struck from the Roll of Solicitors,
2) The Society do recover the costs of the High Court proceedings and the costs of the proceedings before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal as against the respondent when taxed or ascertained.
-
Peter Kenny
Kenny Associates, College Street, Carlow, Co Carlow
Date of Order20/07/2015In the matter of Peter Kenny, a solicitor formerly practising as Kenny Associates, College Street, Carlow, Co Carlow, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2011 [8864/DT61/14 and High Court record 2015 no 71 SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Peter Kenny (respondent solicitor)
On 4 March 2015, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:
1) Failed expeditiously, within a reasonable time, or at all to discharge fees properly due to the complainant in respect of his work carried out on behalf of the respondent solicitor’s former named clients,
2) Improperly transferred fees and outlays received from third-party solicitors from the client account, which were properly due to the complainant, to the respondent solicitor’s office account,
3) Failed to reply adequately or at all to the Society’s correspondence and, in particular, letters dated 17 December 2013, 14 January 2014, 31 January 2014, 7 February 2014 and 10 March 2014 respectively.
The tribunal ordered that the matter go forward to the High Court and, on 20 July 2015, the President of 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 the sum of €4,600 to the complainant,
3) The Society recover the costs of the High Court proceedings and the costs of the proceedings before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal as against the respondent when taxed or ascertained.
-
Elizabeth M Cazabon
Cazabon Solicitors, Gray Office Park, Galway Retail Park, Headford, Co Galway
Date of Order20/07/2015In the matter of Elizabeth M Cazabon, a solicitor of Cazabon Solicitors, Gray Office Park, Galway Retail Park, Headford, Co Galway, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2011 [8142/DT05/14, 8142/DT22/14, 8142/DT30/14, 8142/DT78/14, 8142/DT45/14 and High Court record 2015 no 63 sa]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Elizabeth Cazabon (respondent solicitor)
On 14 April 2015, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal heard five complaints against the respondent solicitor and found her guilty of misconduct in her practice as a solicitor in the following matters:
8142/DT05/14
1) Failed to comply with three undertakings furnished to the complainant on 8 August 2002, 29 November 2004, and 28 April 2005 in respect of a named property in Galway and her client and borrower in a timely manner or at all,
2) Failed to respond to the Society’s correspondence and, in particular, the Society’s letters to her of 8 November 2012, 29 November 2012, 4 January 2013, 22 January 2013, 12 February 2013, and 20 February 2013 within the time provided in a timely manner or at all,
3) Failed to comply with the direction of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee at its meeting on 19 February 2013 that she pay a contribution of €500 towards the costs of the Society.
8142/DT22/14
1) Failed to ensure that there was furnished to the Society an accountant’s report for the year ended 31 March 2013 within six months of that date, in breach of regulation 21(1) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations 2001 (SI 421/2001),
2) Through her conduct, showed disregard for her statutory obligation to comply with the Solicitors Accounts Regulations and showed disregard for the Society’s statutory obligation to monitor compliance with the regulations for the protection of clients and the public.
8142/DT30/14
1) Failed to comply with an undertaking furnished to the complainants on 22 January 2007 in respect of a property at Tuam, Co Galway, and her clients and borrowers in a timely manner or at all,
2) Failed to respond to the Society’s correspondence and, in particular, the Society’s letters of 12 May 2013, 19 April 2013, 2 May 2013, 22 May 2013, 5 June 2013, 9 July 2013 and 25 October 2013 in a timely manner, within the time prescribed in the letter, or at all.
8142/DT78/14
1) Failed to respond to her client’s request for information in connection with the registration of lands transferred to him some years previously,
2) Failed to respond to the Society’s correspondence and, in particular, the Society’s letters of 10 July 2013, 1 August 2013, 28 August 2013, 26 September 2013, 31 October 2013, 19 November 2013, and 17 December 2013 in a timely manner, within the time provided, or at all,
3) Failed to comply with the direction made by the Complaints and Client Relations Committee at their meeting of 12 December 2013 that she pay a contribution of €500 towards the Society’s costs,
4) Failed to comply with the direction of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee made at its meeting of 17 December 2013 that she furnish a full written response to the complainant no later than 31 January 2014,
5) Failed to attend the meeting of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee on 27 February 2014, despite being required to do so.
8142/DT45/14
1) Failed to hand over her former clients’ files to the complainant, their new solicitor, despite being requested to do so, in a timely manner or at all,
2) Failed to respond to the Society’s correspondence and, in particular, the Society’s letters of 11 October 2011, 6 December 2011, 3 January 2012, 13 January 2012, 23 February 2012, and 18 September 2012 in a timely manner, within the time provided in those letters, or at all.
Having made findings of misconduct in respect of the five matters, the tribunal referred the matter forward to the High Court and, on 20 July 2015, the President of the High Court ordered that:
1) The name of the respondent solicitor shall be struck from the Roll of Solicitors,
2) The Society do recover the costs of the proceedings in the High Court and the costs of the proceedings before the disciplinary tribunal, to be taxed by a taxing master of the High Court in default of agreement.
-
Christopher Lynch
Christopher Lynch Solicitors, 99 O’Connell Street, Limerick
Date of Order07/07/2015In the matter of Christopher Lynch, a solicitor previously practising as Christopher Lynch Solicitors at 99 O’Connell Street, Limerick, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2011 [8386/DT72/13 and High Court record 2014 no 85SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Christopher Lynch (respondent solicitor)
On 25 March 2014 and 6 November 2014, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal sat to consider this matter. They found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that, up to the date of the referral of the matter to the tribunal, he had:
1) Created debit balances totalling €55,256.66 on the client account, in breach of regulation 7(2)(a) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations,
2) Created a shortfall of €166,169.31 on the client account of the practice, as of 7 August 2012, by lodging client moneys to the office account and by failing to pay outlays out correctly from client funds received, in breach of regulations 7(1)(a)(iii), 8(ii) and 11(3) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations.
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal referred the matter forward to the President of the High Court and, on 7 July 2014, the president ordered that:
1) The respondent solicitor be suspended from practice for a period of 12 months,
2) The respondent solicitor, after the expiration of the suspension period, be restricted from practising in the area of civil litigation for such period as the court may provide,
3) The respondent solicitor, after the expiration of the suspension period, not be permitted to act 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 Society,
4) That the respondent solicitor pay the whole of the costs of the Society, including witnesses’ expenses, to be taxed by a taxing master of the High Court in default of agreement.
The order of the tribunal made on 25 March 2014 and the report of the tribunal were amended on 6 November 2014, and this amendment was noted by the High Court on 22 June 2015, and the order made on 7 July 2014 was confirmed. The amendments made did not affect the actual findings of misconduct or recommendations as to sanction.
-
Paul Lambert
Merrion Legal, Solicitors & Community Trademark Agents, Suite 12, Butlers Court, Sir John Rogerson’s Quay, Dublin 2
Date of Order02/07/2015In the matter of Paul Lambert, a solicitor practising as Merrion Legal, Solicitors & Community Trademark Agents, Suite 12, Butlers Court, Sir John Rogerson’s Quay, Dublin 2, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2011 [8776/DT62/11 and High Court record no 5SA/2015]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Paul Lambert (respondent solicitor)
On 22 July 2014, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:
1) Failed to ensure compliance with Merrion Legal Services’ undertaking dated 17 November 2006 to the complainant bank to register a first legal charge in favour of the complainant over a named property,
2) Failed to reply adequately to the complainant’s letters dated 30 September 2009, 8 March 2010, and 16 February 2010,
3) Failed to reply adequately to the Society’s correspondence dated 7 May 2010, 26 May 2010, 28 June 2010, 15 October 2010, 9 December 2010, 17 December 2010, and 5 January 2011,
4) Breached section 3(d) of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act 1960, as substituted by section 7(d) of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act 2002, when he allowed a solicitor to practise as a solicitor in Merrion Legal Services when he knew or ought to have known upon reasonable enquiry that a practising certificate was not in force in respect of that solicitor, in breach of section 56 of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act 1994.
The tribunal ordered that the matter should go forward to the High Court and, on 2 July 2015, the High Court ordered that:
1) The name of the respondent solicitor be struck from the Roll of Solicitors,
2) The respondent solicitor do pay to the Society its costs of the within proceedings and of the proceedings before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal when taxed and ascertained in default of agreement.
-
Paul Madden
Paul Madden & Company, Solicitors, Fitzpatrick Square, Clones, Co Monaghan
Date of Order22/06/2015In the matter of Paul Madden, a solicitor formerly practising as Paul Madden & Company, Solicitors, Fitzpatrick Square, Clones, Co Monaghan, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2011 [10035/DT205/13 and High Court record 2015 no 55 SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Paul Madden (respondent solicitor)
On 11 March 2015, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:
1) Caused or allowed an estimated deficit to arise on the client account in the sum of in or about €1,422,067 as at 11 September 2013,
2) Caused or allowed a deficit in respect of the client account of a named client in the sum of in or about €242,624 as at 11 September 2013,
3) Caused or allowed a deficit in respect of the client account of a named client in the sum of in or about €126,841as at 11 September 2013,
4) Caused or allowed a deficit in respect of the client account of a named client in the sum of in or about €193,500 as at 11 September 2013,
5) Caused or allowed a deficit in respect of the client account of a named client in the sum of in or about €176,744 as at 11 September 2013,
6) Caused or allowed a deficit in respect of the client account of a named client in the sum of in or about €175,000 as at 11 September 2013,
7) Caused or allowed a deficit in respect of the client account of a named client of approximately €77,986 as at 11 September 2013,
8) Caused or allowed a deficit in respect of the client account of a named client in the estimated sum of in or about €62,302 as at 11 September 2013,
9) Caused or allowed a deficit in respect of the client account of a named client in the sum of in or about €60,000 as at 11 September 2013,
10) Caused or allowed a deficit in respect of the client account of a named client in the sum of in or about €56,858 as at 11 September 2013,
11) Caused or allowed a deficit in respect of the client account of a named client in the sum of in or about €38,550 as at 11 September 2013,
12) Caused or allowed a deficit in respect of the client account of a named client in the sum of in or about €36,982 as at 11 September 2013,
13) Caused or allowed a deficit in respect of the client account of a named client in the estimated sum of in or about €27,500 as at 11 September 2013,
14) Caused or allowed a deficit in respect of the client account of a named client in the sum of in or about €25,000 as at 11 September 2013,
15) Caused or allowed a deficit in respect of the client account of a named client in the sum of in or about €25,395 as at 11 September 2013,
16) Caused or allowed a deficit in respect of the client account of a named client in the sum of in or about €25,000 as at 11 September 2013,
17) Caused or allowed a deficit in respect of the client account of a named client in the sum of in or about €16,625 as at 11 September 2013,
18) Caused or allowed a deficit in respect of the client account of a named client in the sum of in or about €11,833 as at 11 September 2013,
19) Caused or allowed a deficit in respect of the client account of a named client in the sum of in or about €12,010 as at 11 September 2013,
20) Caused or allowed a deficit in respect of the client account of a named client in the sum of in or about €7,965 as at 11 September 2013,
21) Caused or allowed a deficit in respect of the client account of a named client in the sum of in or about €7,500,
22) Caused or allowed a deficit in respect of the client account of a named client in the sum of in or about €5,481 as at 11 September 2013;
23) Caused or allowed a deficit in respect of the client account of a named client in the sum of in or about €4,425 as at 11 September 2013,
24) Caused or allowed a deficit in respect of the client account of a named client in the sum of in or about €5,000 as at 11 September 2013,
25) Caused or allowed a deficit in respect of the client account of a named client in the sum of in or about €1,500 as at 11 September 2013,
26) Misappropriated clients’ money by (a) transferring around €577,912 to the solicitor’s office account as purported professional fees and for his own use, (b) using around €716,380 to finance other unrelated client matters through a series of teeming and lading, (c) paying €25,000 to his wife, and (d) using around €103,330, which cannot be accounted for.
27) Made numerous misrepresentations to Mary Devereux, investigating accountant, in respect of her report dated 12 July 2010 in relation to the deficit on the client account of a named client of €156,414.64,
28) Made material misrepresentations to Damien Colton, investigating accountant, in respect of the interim investigation reportdated 8 August 2011, in respect of his named client, to conceal a deficit on the client account at that time,
29) Made a material misrepresentation to the Regulation of Practice Committee at its meeting on 12 October 2011, in respect of a named client, to conceal the deficit on the client account,
30) Made material misrepresentations to Damien Colton, investigating accountant, during the course of his investigation on29-30 August and 2 September 2013 in respect of a fictitious client,
31) Created a fictitious client file, including fictitious correspondence and attendance notes in respect of a fictitious client,
32) Misappropriated client funds of €156,414 belonging to a named client to payvarious personal expenses, including some or all of the following: (a) MBNA personal credit card bill of €13,000 on 8 May 2006, (b) purchase of a grand piano for €19,800 on 26 May 2006, (c) further payment of an MBNA personal credit card bill of €15,000 on 3 August 2006, (d) in all, making 13 transactions between 8 May 2006 and 12 May 2007, thereby expending all client funds belonging to a named client,
33) Conducted an extensive practice of teeming and lading between client accounts to mask and conceal the deficit on the client account,
34) Made a material misrepresentation to the Regulation of Practice Committee in respect of the reimbursement of the client account and also the non-disclosure of the estimated deficit of €1.4 million on the client account.
The tribunal ordered that the matter go forward to the High Court and, on 22 June 2015, the President of 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 the whole of the Society’s costs and witness expenses in the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal proceedings, to be taxed in default of agreement,
3) The respondent solicitor pay to the Society the costs of the High Court proceedings, to be taxed in default of agreement.
-
Paul Madden
Paul Madden & Company, Solicitors, Fitzpatrick Square, Clones, Co Monaghan
Date of Order22/06/2015In the matter of Paul Madden, a solicitor formerly practising as Paul Madden & Company, Solicitors, Fitzpatrick Square, Clones, Co Monaghan, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2011 [10035/DT96/14 and High Court record 2015 no 52 SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Paul Madden (respondent solicitor)
On 11 March 2015, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he failed to comply expeditiously, within a reasonable time, or at all with an undertaking given by him to AIB Bank on behalf of a named client over property at Ardee, Co Louth, by undertaking dated 10 August 2004.
The tribunal ordered that the matter go forward to the High Court and, on 22 June 2015, the President of 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 the whole of the Society’s costs and witness expenses in the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal proceedings, to be taxed in default of agreement,
3) The respondent solicitor pay to the Society the costs of the High Court proceedings, to be taxed in default of agreement.
-
Paul Madden
Paul Madden & Company, Solicitors, Fitzpatrick Square, Clones, Co Monaghan
Date of Order22/06/2015In the matter of Paul Madden, a solicitor formerly practising as Paul Madden & Company, Solicitors, Fitzpatrick Square, Clones, Co Monaghan, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2011 [10035/DT98/14 and High Court record 2015 no 53 SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Paul Madden (respondent solicitor)
On 11 March 2015, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:
1) Failed to comply expeditiously, within a reasonable time, or at all with an undertaking given by him in respect of named clients over property at Clones, Co Monaghan, to the complainant building society/bank dated 15 February 2007,
2) Failed to comply expeditiously, within a reasonable time, or at all with an undertaking given by him on behalf of a named client over property at Clones, Co Monaghan, to the complainant building society bank dated 5 March 2007,
3) Failed to comply expeditiously, within a reasonable time, or at all with an undertaking given by him on behalf of named clients over property at Aghaboy, Co Monaghan, to the complainant building society/bank by undertaking dated 26 July 2007,
4) Failed to comply expeditiously, within a reasonable time, or at all with an undertaking given by him on behalf of named clients over property at Clones, Co Monaghan to the complainant building society/bank by undertaking dated 3 December 2007,
5) Failed to comply expeditiously, within a reasonable time, or at all with an undertaking given by him on behalf of named clients over property at Clones, Co Monaghan, to the complainant building society/bank dated 13 December 2007,
6) Failed to comply expeditiously, within a reasonable time, or at all with an undertaking given by him on behalf of a named client over property at Newbliss, Co Monaghan, to the complainant building society/bank dated 26 May 2008.
The tribunal ordered that the matter go forward to the High Court and, on 22 June 2015, the President of 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 the whole of the Society’s costs and witness expenses in the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal proceedings, to be taxed in default of agreement,
3) The respondent solicitor pay to the Society the costs of the High Court proceedings, to be taxed in default of agreement.
-
Paul Madden
Paul Madden & Company, Solicitors, Fitzpatrick Square, Clones, Co Monaghan
Date of Order22/06/2015In the matter of Paul Madden, a solicitor formerly practising as Paul Madden & Company, Solicitors, Fitzpatrick Square, Clones, Co Monaghan, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2011 [10035/DT104/14 and High Court record 2015 no 54 SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Paul Madden (respondent solicitor)
On 11 March 2015, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he failed to comply expeditiously, within a reasonable time, or at all with an undertaking given by him on behalf of a named client over property at Carrick-on-Shannon, Co Leitrim, to KBC Homeloans by undertaking dated 2 November 2008.
The tribunal ordered that the matter go forward to the High Court and, on 22 June 2015, the President of 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 the whole of the Society’s costs and witness expenses in the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal proceedings, to be taxed in default of agreement,
3) The respondent solicitor pay to the Society the costs of the High Court proceedings, to be taxed in default of agreement.
-
Kevin M O'Gara
Unit 4, Level 1, the Reeks Gateway, Killarney, Co Kerry
Date of Order08/06/2015In the matter of Kevin M O'Gara, solicitor, formerly practising as Kevin O'Gara, Unit 4, Level 1, the Reeks Gateway, Killarney, Co Kerry, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2011 [8391/DT129/13 and High Court record 2015 no 25 SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Kevin M O'Gara (respondent solicitor)
On 4 December 2014, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:
First complaint
1) Failed to complete three conveyancing transactions,
2) Deducted fees from moneys received for stamp duty,
3) Failed to reply to multiple correspondence from the Society about the complaint,
4) Failed to comply with a direction of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee on 14 September 2011 that he should furnish a full update in relation to the matter within 21 days,
5) Failed to attend a meeting of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee on 14 December 2011, despite being required to attend;
6) Failed to comply with a further direction of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee, as set out in detail in a letter from the Society to the respondent solicitor dated 16 December 2011,
7) Failed to attend a meeting of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee on 28 February 2012, despite being required to attend,
8) Failed to attend a further meeting of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee on 3 April 2012, despite being required to attend,
9) Failed to attend a further meeting of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee on 15 May 2012, despite being required to attend,
10) Failed to attend a further meeting of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee on 26 June 2012, despite being required to attend.
Second complaint
1) Failed to reply to multiple letters from the Society in relation to the complaint,
2) Failed to process a claim as instructed by a named client,
3) Failed to comply with a direction of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee that he should furnish a full update in relation to the matter within 21 days,
4) Failed to comply with a further direction of the committee, made on 14 December 2011, that he should, on or before 15 January 2012, furnish the ledger card, his letter pursuant to section 68 of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act 1994, and a copy of the bill of costs,
5) Failed to furnish the information sought by a named client’s new solicitors,
6) Failed to attend a meeting of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee on 28 February 2012, despite being required to do so,
7) Failed to attend a meeting of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee on 15 May 2012, despite being required to attend,
8) Failed to attend a meeting of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee on 26 June 2012, despite being required to attend.
Third and fourth complaints
1) Failed to comply with an undertaking dated 22 August 2008 relating to a property in Killarney in respect of named clients,
2) Failed to comply with an undertaking dated 10 December 2007 relating to a property at Killarney in respect of a named client,
3) Failed to reply to numerous letters from the Society,
4) Failed to comply with a direction of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee made on 14 September 2011 that, in respect of the undertaking of 22 August 2008, he furnish a full update together with the ledger card within 21 days,
5) Failed to comply with a direction of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee made on 14 September 2011 that, in respect of the undertaking of 10 December 2007, he should furnish a full update together with the ledger card within 21 days,
6) Failed to respond to a copy of a letter in relation to each of these two undertakings from a named client to the Society dated 6 October 2011 when subsequently furnished by the Society to him,
7) Failed to attend a meeting of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee on 14 December 2011, despite being required to attend,
8) Failed to comply with a direction of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee on 14 December 2011 that, in relation to the update previously required, the committee directed that the respondent solicitor should furnish detailed information on or before 20 January 2012 in relation to the title of the properties that was the subject matter of the two undertakings,
9) Failed to attend the meeting of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee on 3 April 2012, despite being required to attend,
10) Failed to attend the meeting of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee on 16 May 2012, despite being required to do so,
11) Failed to attend the meeting of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee on 26 June 2012, despite being required to attend.
Fifth complaint
1) Failed to comply with an undertaking in respect of a named client dated 4 November 2010,
2) Failed to reply to numerous correspondence from the Society,
3) Failed to attend the meeting of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee on 3 April 2012, despite being required to attend,
4) Failed to comply with a direction of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee on 3 April 2012 that he furnish detailed information on the title that was the subject matter of the complaint,
5) Failed to attend the meeting of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee on 15 May 2012, despite being required to attend,
6) Failed to attend the meeting of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee on 26 June 2012, despite being required to attend.
Five further complaints on behalf of EBS Limited
1) Failed to comply with an undertaking dated 27 November 2006 in respect of a named client,
2) Failed to comply with an undertaking dated 11 May 2009 in respect of a named client,
3) Failed to comply with an undertaking dated 24 March 2006 in respect of a named client,
4) Failed to comply with an undertaking dated 19 May 2006 in respect of a named client,
5) Failed to comply with an undertaking dated 25 April 2006 in respect of a named client,
6) Failed to reply to multiple correspondence from the Society,
7) Failed to attend a meeting of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee on 3 April 2012, despite being required to attend,
8) Failed to comply with a direction of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee made in respect of each of the five outstanding undertakings on 3 April 2012,
9) Failed to attend a meeting of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee on 15 May 2012, despite being required to attend,
10) Failed to attend a meeting of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee on 26 June 2012, despite being required to attend.
Eleventh complaint
1) Failed to comply with an undertaking dated 11 December 2008 to Listowel Credit Union Limited in respect of named clients,
2) Failed to reply to numerous correspondence from the Society about the complaint,
3) Failed to comply with a direction of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee to provide details of the precise state of the transaction within 21 days to the committee or at all,
4) Failed to attend a meeting of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee on 3 April 2012, despite being required to attend,
5) Failed to attend a meeting of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee on 15 May 2012, despite being required to attend,
6) Failed to attend a meeting of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee on 26 June 2012, despite being required to attend.
The tribunal ordered that the matter go forward to the High Court and, on 8 June 2015, the President of the High Court made the following orders:
1) That the name of the respondent solicitor shall be struck from the Roll of Solicitors,
2) That the respondent pay to the Society the costs of the High Court proceedings and the costs of the proceedings before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, including witness expenses, to be taxed in default of agreement.
-
Heather Perrin
Heather Perrin, Solicitor, 54 Fairview Strand, Fairview, Dublin 3
Date of Order20/04/2015In the matter of Heather Perrin, a former solicitor, formerly practising as Heather Perrin, Solicitor, 54 Fairview Strand, Fairview, Dublin 3, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2011 [4732/DT158/13 and High Court record 2015 no 33SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Heather Perrin (respondent)
On 18 November 2014, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent guilty of professional misconduct in that she:
1) Was convicted before Dublin Circuit Criminal Court of an offence of making a gain or causing a loss by deception, contrary to section 6 of the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act 2001 and, on 28 November 2012, was sentenced to a term of two-and-a-half years’ imprisonment, to date from 28 November 2012,
2) Was convicted by the Dublin Circuit Criminal Court of an offence of false accounting, contrary to section 10(1)(c) and (3) of the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act 2001 and, on 13 March 2013, was sentenced to a term of two years’ imprisonment, to date from 22 February 2013.
The tribunal ordered that the matter go forward to the High Court and, on 20 April 2015, the President of the High Court made the following order:
1) An order striking the name of the respondent off the Roll of Solicitors,
2) An order that the respondent pay whole of the costs of the Society, to be taxed by a taxing master of the High Court in default of agreement.
The respondent's name had previously been struck off the Roll of Solicitors by order of the High Court on 3 February 2014.
-
James J Maher
James Maher & Co, Solicitors, 1 The Bookend, Essex Quay, Dublin 8
Date of Order16/03/2015In the matter of James J Maher, solicitor, practising as James Maher & Co, Solicitors, 1 The Bookend, Essex Quay, Dublin 8, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2008 [6676/DT82/12 and High Court record 2015/4SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
James J Maher (respondent solicitor)
On 2 October 2014, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:
1) Misappropriated circa €242,219.99 of client moneys by paying these moneys to a third party,
2) Failed to disclose the said misappropriations until the Society initiated an inspection of his practice,
3) Caused or permitted significant non-offsettable debit balances to arise on client ledger accounts, in breach of regulation 7(2)(a) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations 2001.
The tribunal ordered that the matter go forward to the High Court and, on 16 March 2015, the President of the High Court ordered:
1) That the respondent remain suspended from practice until such time as he secures a superior who will employ him and who is approved by the Society,
2) Thereafter, the respondent 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 Society,
3) That the respondent solicitor be prohibited from signing any cheques or authorising any bank payment, either solely or jointly over any client account,
4) That a copy of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal report be furnished to any prospective legal practitioner wishing to employ the respondent solicitor,
5) That the respondent solicitor pay the sum of €5,000 as a contribution towards the whole of the costs of the Society, to be paid from any surplus that should arise after all client moneys have been returned,
6) The court makes no order as to costs of the High Court application. -
Niall O'Kelly
Niall O’Kelly, Solicitors, 52 Fortfield Park, Terenure, Dublin 6W
Date of Order09/03/2015In the matter of Niall O’Kelly, a solicitor previously practising as Niall O’Kelly, Solicitors, 52 Fortfield Park, Terenure, Dublin 6W, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2011 [5202/DT145/13 and High Court record 2015 no 2SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Niall O’Kelly (respondent solicitor)
On 9 October 2014, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of professional misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:
1) Failed to comply with an undertaking furnished to EBS Building Society dated 28 August 2003 in respect of his named client and property at Firhouse, Dublin 24, in a timely manner or at all,
2) Failed to comply with an undertaking furnished to EBS Building Society on 2 July 2001 in respect of his named client and property at Phibblestown, Dublin 15, in a timely manner or at all,
3) Failed to comply with an undertaking dated 30 May 2003 furnished to EBS Building Society in respect of his named clients and property at Ballymoney, Co Wexford, in a timely manner or at all,
4) Failed to comply with an undertaking dated 2 October 2002 furnished to EBS Building Society in respect of his named client and property in Dublin 8 in a timely manner or at all,
5) Failed to respond to the Society’s correspondence of 23 February 2012 and 30 March 2012 within the time specified,
6) Failed to comply with the High Court order made on 21 May 2012 in a timely manner or at all.
The tribunal ordered that the matter go forward to the High Court and, on 9 March 2015, the President of the High Court made the following order:
1) That the name of the respondent solicitor be struck off the Roll of Solicitors,
2) That the respondent solicitor pay the costs of the Society and the costs of the proceedings before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, to be taxed in default of agreement.
The solicitor was previously struck of the Roll of Solicitors by order of the High Court made on 20 October 2014 in proceedings 2014 no 116SA.
-
J Finbarr O'Gorman
Finbarr O’Gorman Solicitors, Mayfield House, Hollyfort Road, Gorey, Co Wexford
Date of Order09/02/2015In the matter of J Finbarr O’Gorman, a solicitor practising as Finbarr O’Gorman Solicitors at Mayfield House, Hollyfort Road, Gorey, Co Wexford, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2011 [7672/DT45/13, 7672/DT46/13, 7672/DT47/13, 7672/DT48/13, 7672/DT64/13, 7672/DT83/13]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
J Finbarr O’Gorman (respondent solicitor)
On 29 May 2014, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal heard six complaints against the above solicitor and found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:
7672/DT45/13
1) Failed to comply with an undertaking dated 26 September 2008 furnished to Bank of Ireland Mortgages in respect of his named client and properties at Ballinakill, Co Laois, in a timely manner or at all,
2) Failed to attend the meeting of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee on 13 March 2012 and 2 May 2012, despite being required to do so.
7672/DT46/13
1) Failed to comply with an undertaking dated 9 May 2005 furnished to Bank of Ireland Mortgages in respect of named borrowers and property at Gorey, Co Wexford, in a timely manner or at all,
2) Failed to attend the meetings of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee on 13 March 2012 and 2 May 2012, despite being required to do so.
7672/DT47/13
1) Failed to comply with an undertaking dated 7 September 2005 furnished to Bank of Ireland Mortgages in respect of named borrowers and property at Tinahely, Co Wicklow, in a timely manner or at all,
2) Failed to attend the meeting of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee on 13 March 2012 and 2 May 2012, despite being required to do so.
7672/DT48/13
1) Failed to comply with an undertaking dated 8 October 2002 furnished to Bank of Ireland Mortgages in respect of named borrowers and property at Gorey, Co Wexford, in a timely manner or at all,
2) Failed to attend a meeting of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee on 2 May 2012, despite being required to do so.
7672/DT64/13
1) Failed to comply with an undertaking dated 6 June 2008 furnished to Bank of Ireland Mortgages in respect of his named clients and property at Ferns, Co Wexford, in a timely manner or at all,
2) Failed to attend a meeting of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee on 13 March 2012 and 2 May 2012, despite being required to do so.
7672/DT83/13
1) Failed to comply with an undertaking furnished to Bank of Scotland in respect of named borrowers and property at Maynooth, Co Kildare, in a timely manner or at all,
2) Failed to comply with an undertaking furnished on 22 October 2004 to Bank of Scotland in respect of named borrowers and property at Ballinteer, Dublin 16, in a timely manner or at all,
3) Failed to attend the meeting of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee on 13 March 2012 and 2 May 2013, despite being required to do so.
Having made findings of misconduct in respect of the six matters, the tribunal referred the matter forward to the High Court and, on 9 February 2015, the President of the High Court ordered that:
1) The name of the respondent solicitor be struck off the Roll of Solicitors,
2) The respondent solicitor do pay the Society the costs of and incidental to the proceedings and the costs of the Society before the tribunal, including witnesses expenses, to be taxed in default of agreement.
-
Oliver Hanrahan
Hanrahan Rynne Solicitors, 3B Riverside Business Park, Ennis, Co Clare
Date of Order26/01/2015In the matter of Oliver Hanrahan, solicitor, formerly practising as Hanrahan Rynne Solicitors, 3B Riverside Business Park, Ennis, Co Clare, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2011 [9381/DT132/13 and High Court record 2014 no 149 SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Oliver Hanrahan (respondent solicitor)
On 18 June 2014, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:
1) Failed to comply expeditiously, within a reasonable time, or at all with an undertaking given by him on behalf of named clients over property at Ennistymon, Co Clare, to ACC Bank Plc on 23 May 2005,
2) Failed to reply to the complainant’s correspondence and, in particular, letters dated 23 January 2008, 23 February 2010, 18 April 2011, 1 September 2011, 4 November 2011, and 6 December 2011 respectively,
3) Failed to comply with the directions of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee meeting on 4 September 2012,
4) Failed to comply with the directions of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee meeting on 16 October 2012,
5) Failed to comply with the directions of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee meeting on 11 December 2012,
6) Failed to reply adequately or at all to the Society’s correspondence and, in particular, letters dated 5 January 2012, 24 January 2012, 9 March 2012, 5 June 2012, 31 July 2012, 21 August 2012, 5 September 2012, 19 October 2012 and 14 December 2012.
The tribunal ordered that the matter go forward to the High Court and, on 26 January 2015, the President of the High Court ordered that the name of the respondent solicitor shall be struck from the Roll of Solicitors.
-
Oliver Hanrahan
Hanrahan Rynne Solicitors, 3B Riverside Business Park, Ennis, Co Clare
Date of Order26/01/2015In the matter of Oliver Hanrahan, solicitor, formerly practising as Hanrahan Rynne Solicitors, 3B Riverside Business Park, Ennis, Co Clare, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2011 [9381/DT12/14 and High Court record 2014 no 150 SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Oliver Hanrahan (respondent solicitor)
On 18 June 2014, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:
1) Failed to comply expeditiously, within a reasonable time, or at all with an undertaking given by him in respect of named clients over property at Clarecastle, Co Clare, to Bank of Ireland Mortgages on 21 April 2008,
2) Failed to respond adequately or at all to the complainant’s correspondence in respect of his undertaking given on behalf of named clients over property at Clarecastle, Co Clare, to Bank of Ireland Mortgages on 21 April 2008 and, in particular, letters dated 23 February 2010, 1 March 2010, 29 June 2010, 23 September 2010 and 24 May 2011 respectively,
3) Failed to comply with the directions of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee meeting of 26 June 2012, which directed him to file a report on all outstanding undertakings/complaints with the Society by 23 July 2012,
4) Through his failure to comply with the directions of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee meeting of 26 June 2012, caused the Society to re-enter a section 10 application to the President of the High Court on 23 July 2012,
5) Failed to comply with the directions of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee on 16 October 2012 to furnish documentation and information in respect of complaints within 21 days to the Society,
6) Failed to comply with the directions of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee at its meeting on 11 December 2012, despite a stay of four months being imposed,
7) Failed to comply expeditiously, within a reasonable time, or at all with an undertaking given by him in respect of named clients over property at Thurles, Tipperary South, given to Bank of Ireland Mortgages on 18 August 2005,
8) Failed to reply adequately or at all to the complainant’s correspondence in respect of an undertaking given by him on behalf of named clients over property at Thurles, Tipperary South, given to Bank of Ireland Mortgages on 18 August 2005 and, in particular, letters dated 30 June 2006, 29 December 2006, 5 February 2008, 26 February 2008, 18 March 2009, 8 April 2009, 23 February 2010, 1 March 2010, 29 June 2010, 23 September 2010, 24 May 2011 and 15 June 2011 respectively,
9) Failed to comply expeditiously, within a reasonable time, or at all with an undertaking given by him in respect of named clients over property at Clybaun, Co Galway, given to Bank of Ireland Mortgages on 11 November 2005,
10) Failed to reply adequately or at all to the complainant’s correspondence in respect of an undertaking given by him on behalf of named clients over property at Clybaun, Co Galway, given to Bank of Ireland Mortgages on 11 November 2005 and, in particular, letters dated 28 November 2006, 29 May 2007, 27 November 2007, 3 December 2008, 30 December 2008, 23 February 2010, 1 March 2010, 23 September 2010, 24 May 2011 and 15 June 2011 respectively.
The tribunal ordered that the matter go forward to the High Court and, on 26 January 2015, the President of the High Court ordered that the name of the respondent solicitor shall be struck from the Roll of Solicitors.
-
Oliver Hanrahan
Hanrahan Rynne Solicitors, 3B Riverside Business Park, Ennis, Co Clare
Date of Order26/01/2015In the matter of Oliver Hanrahan, solicitor, formerly practising as Hanrahan Rynne Solicitors, 3B Riverside Business Park, Ennis, Co Clare, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2011 [9381/DT131/13 and High Court record 2014 no 148 SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Oliver Hanrahan (respondent solicitor)
On 18 June 2014, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:
1) Failed expeditiously, within a reasonable time, or at all to comply with an undertaking given by him in respect of named clients over property at Lisnagry, Co Clare, to EBS Building Society Ltd on 15 September 2004,
2) Failed to respond adequately or at all to the complainant’s correspondence in respect of his undertaking given on behalf of named clients over property at Lisnagry, Co Clare, to EBS Building Society Ltd on 15 September 2004 and, in particular, letters dated 24 May 2010, 27 September 2010, 6 May 2011, 25 October 2011, 21 November 2011 and 12 December 2011 respectively,
3) Failed to comply with the directions of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee meeting of 4 September 2012 in respect of an undertaking given by him on behalf of named clients over property at Lisnagry, Co Clare, to EBS Building Society Ltd on 15 September 2004,
4) Failed to comply adequately or at all with the directions of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee meeting of 16 October 2012 in respect of an undertaking given by him on behalf of named clients over property at Lisnagry, Co Clare, to EBS Building Society Ltd on 15 September 2004,
5) Failed to comply adequately or at all with the directions of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee meeting of 11 December 2012, despite being granted a stay in respect of an undertaking given by him on behalf of named clients over property at Lisnagry, Co Clare, to EBS Building Society Ltd on 15 September 2004,
6) Failed to comply expeditiously, within a reasonable time, or at all with an undertaking given by him on behalf of named clients over property at Killaloe, Co Clare, to EBS Building Society Ltd on 15 September 2004,
7) Failed to respond adequately or at all to the complainant’s correspondence in respect of his undertaking given on behalf of named clients over property at Killaloe, Co Clare, to EBS Building Society Ltd on 15 September 2004 and, in particular, letters dated 24 May 2010, 27 September 2010, 6 May 2011, 25 October 2011, 21 November 2011 and 12 December 2011 respectively,
8) Failed to comply with the directions of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee meeting of 4 September 2012 in respect of an undertaking given by him on behalf of named clients over property at Killaloe, Co Clare, to EBS Building Society Ltd on 15 September 2004,
9) Failed to comply adequately or at all with the directions of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee meeting of 16 October 2012 in respect of an undertaking given by him on behalf of named clients over property at Killaloe, Co Clare, to EBS Building Society Ltd on 15 September 2004,
10) Failed to comply adequately or at all with the directions of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee meeting of 11 December 2012, despite being granted a stay in respect of an undertaking given by him on behalf of named clients over property at Killaloe, Co Clare, to EBS Building Society Ltd on 15 September 2004,
11) Failed to comply expeditiously, within a reasonable time, or at all with an undertaking given by him on behalf of named clients over property at Ennis, Co Clare, to EBS Ltd on 9 November 2007,
12) Failed to respond adequately or at all to the complainant’s correspondence in respect of his undertaking given on behalf of named clients over property at Ennis, Co Clare, to EBS Ltd on 9 November 2007 and, in particular, letters dated 24 May 2010, 27 September 2010, 6 May 2011, 25 October 2011, 21 November 2011 and 12 December 2011 respectively,
13) Failed to comply with the directions of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee meeting of 4 September 2012 in respect of an undertaking given by him on behalf of named clients over property at Ennis, Co Clare, to EBS Ltd on 9 November 2007,
14) Failed to comply adequately or at all with the directions of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee meeting of 16 October 2012 in respect of an undertaking given by him on behalf of named clients over property at Ennis, Co Clare, to EBS Ltd on 9 November 2007,
15) Failed to comply adequately or at all with the directions of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee meeting of 11 December 2012, despite being granted a stay in respect of an undertaking given by him on behalf of named clients over property at Ennis, Co Clare, to EBS Ltd on 9 November 2007.
The tribunal ordered that the matter go forward to the High Court and, on 26 January 2015, the President of the High Court ordered that the name of the respondent solicitor shall be struck from the Roll of Solicitors.
-
James M Sweeney
14 New Cabra Road, Phibsborough, Dublin 7
Date of Order19/01/2015In the matter of James M Sweeney, a solicitor formerly practising as James M Sweeney at 14 New Cabra Road, Phibsborough, Dublin 7, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2011 [3572/DT110/13 and High Court record 2014 no 155SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
James M Sweeney (respondent solicitor)
On 11 March 2014, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in that he had:
1) Misappropriated €180,000 of client moneys in relation to the purchase of a property at Dublin 1 on behalf of a named client,
2) Breached regulation 4(1) of the regulations by not paying client moneys received by him into the client account,
3) Did not complete the conveyancing transaction for his client,
4) In addition to the payment of €172,000 out of the Society’s compensation fund, caused a further sum of €5,888 to be paid out of the fund in order to complete the transaction, and
5) Failed to attend a meeting of the Regulation of Practice Committee when required to do so.
The tribunal ordered that the Society bring such findings of the tribunal in respect of the respondent solicitor before the High Court and, on 19 January, the President of the High Court ordered:
1) That the name of the respondent solicitor should be struck off the Roll of Solicitors and
2) The respondent solicitor pay the whole of the costs of the Society, to be taxed by a taxing master of the High Court in default of agreement.
The solicitor had previously been struck off the Roll of Solicitors by order of the High Court on 21 May 2012.
-
John Martin Carr
Rhatigan & Co, Solicitors, Liosbaun House, Tuam Road, Galway City, Galway
Date of Order12/01/2015In the matter of John Martin Carr, solicitor, formerly practising in the firm of Rhatigan & Co, Solicitors, Liosbaun House, Tuam Road, Galway City, Galway, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2011 [4214/DT97/13 and High Court record 2014 no 95SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
John Martin Carr (respondent solicitor)
On 30 April 2014, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:
1) Failed to comply with an undertaking expeditiously, within a reasonable time, or at all given by him in respect of a named client to the Bank of Ireland Mortgages under letter of undertaking dated 19 November 2008,
2) Gave an undertaking on behalf of a named client to Bank of Ireland Mortgages on 19 November 2008, signing same and misrepresenting himself as a partner when he was in fact not a partner in the firm of William Davis & Co, Solicitors,
3) Gave an undertaking on behalf of a named client to Bank of Ireland Mortgages on 19 November 2008 when he did not hold a practising certificate at the time of giving the undertaking,
4) Failed to reply adequately or at all to the first complainant’s correspondence, in particular letters dated 25 November 2011 and 18 March 2011 respectively,
5) Failed to reply adequately or at all to the Society’s correspondence, in particular letters dated 16 September 2011, 28 October 2011, 28 November 2011, 14 December 2011, 16 January 2012 and 16 February 2012 respectively in respect of the first complainant,
6) Failed to comply expeditiously, within a reasonable time, or at all with an undertaking given by him to Springboard Mortgages Ltd on behalf of named clients,
7) Gave an undertaking dated 21 November 2008 to Springboard Mortgages Ltd on behalf of named clients, misrepresenting himself as a partner when he was not a partner in the firm of William Davis & Co, Solicitors,
8) Gave an undertaking on behalf of named clients to Springboard Mortgages Ltd on 21 November 2008 when he did not hold a valid practising certificate at the material time of giving the undertaking,
9) Failed to reply adequately or at all to the second named complainant’s correspondence, in particular letters dated 14 July 2011 and 7 September 2011 respectively,
10) Failed to respond to the Society’s correspondence and, in particular letters dated 28 September 2011, 26 October 2011, 7 December 2011, 16 January 2012 and 16 February 2012 respectively in respect of the second complaint.
The tribunal ordered that the matter go forward to the High Court and, on 12 January 2015, the President of the High Court ordered that the name of the respondent solicitor be struck off the Roll of Solicitors.
-
John Martin Carr
Rhatigan & Co, Solicitors, Liosbaun House, Tuam Road, Galway City, Galway
Date of Order12/01/2015In the matter of John Martin Carr, solicitor, formerly practising in the firm of Rhatigan & Co, Solicitors, Liosbaun House, Tuam Road, Galway City, Galway, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2011 [4214/DT142/12 and High Court record 2014 no 110 SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
John Martin Carr (respondent solicitor)
On 25 July 2013, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:
1) Failed to comply expeditiously, within a reasonable time, or at all with an undertaking given by him dated 10 May 2006 to ACC Bank plc,
2) Failed to comply expeditiously, within a reasonable time, or at all with an undertaking given by him dated 26 November 2006 to ACC Bank plc,
3) Failed to reply adequately or at all to the complainant’s correspondence, in particular letters dated 26 August 2010, 27 September 2010, 13 December 2010 and 7 June 2011 respectively,
4) Failed to respond adequately or at all to the Society’s correspondence and, in particular, letters dated 15 June 2011, 1 November 2011, 7 December 2011, 5 March 2012, 20 March 2012 and 3 April 2012 respectively,
5) Failed to comply with the direction of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee meeting dated 2 May 2012 to pay a contribution towards the cost of the Society’s investigations in the sum of €550.
The tribunal ordered that the matter go forward to the High Court and, on 12 January 2015, the President of the High Court ordered that the name of the respondent solicitor be struck off the Roll of Solicitors.
-
John Martin Carr
Rhatigan & Co, Solicitors, Liosbaun House, Tuam Road, Galway City, Galway
Date of Order12/01/2015In the matter of John Martin Carr, solicitor, formerly practising in the firm of Rhatigan & Co, Solicitors, Liosbaun House, Tuam Road, Galway City, Galway, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2011 [4214/DT123/12 and High Court record 2014 no 109 SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
John Martin Carr (respondent solicitor)
On 25 July 2013, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:
1) Failed to comply expeditiously, within a reasonable time, or at all with an undertaking given by him on behalf of his clients to AIB Bank plc, dated 20 February 2007,
2) Misled AIB Bank plc by stating in the signed undertaking dated 20 February 2007 that he was a partner of the firm when this was not the case and he is prohibited from practising as a partner,
3) Failed to respond to the Society’s correspondence, causing the Society to issue an application to the High Court pursuant to section 10A of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act 1994 (as amended by substitution).
The tribunal ordered that the matter go forward to the High Court and, on 12 January 2015, the President of the High Court ordered that the name of the respondent solicitor be struck off the Roll of Solicitors.
-
Greg (otherwise John G) Casey
Casey & Co, North Main Street, Bandon, Co Cork
Date of Order12/01/2015In the matter of Greg (otherwise John G) Casey, formerly practising in the solicitors’ firm of Casey & Co, North Main Street, Bandon, Co Cork, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2011 [5355/DT06/09 and 2014 no 158 SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Greg (otherwise John G) Casey (respondent solicitor)
On 3 July 2014, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:
1) Failed to act on the complainant’s instructions to obtain an injunction and/or compensation due to the implementation of the European Union ban on drift-net fishing for tuna,
2) Retained papers and files and refused to return these to the complainant and/or the Irish Tuna Association to enable them to instruct new solicitors to carry out the work that the respondent solicitor failed to do,
3) Failed to adequately answer correspondence and telephone calls from the complainant and/or the Irish Tuna Association in relation to the case from the receipt of instructions in 2002 until the complaint was lodged with the Society,
4) Failed to adequately answer correspondence from the Law Society in relation to this matter and, in particular, letters from the Society dated 15 July 2005, 28 July 2005, 9 August 2005, 17 August 2005, 13 September 2005, 28 September 2005, 6 October 2005 and 12 October 2005 respectively,
5) Failed to comply with the requirements of the notice issued pursuant to section 10 of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act 1994, dated 29 March 2007, requiring delivery to the Society within ten days of service all documents relating to the complaint of the complainant.
The tribunal ordered that the matter go forward to the High Court, and the President of the High Court, on 12 January 2015, made the following orders:
1) That the name of the respondent solicitor shall be struck from the Roll of Solicitors,
2) That the Society do recover the costs of the High Court proceedings and the costs of the proceedings before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal as against the respondent, to be taxed in default of agreement.
-
David Walsh
David Walsh & Co, Solicitors, 12 Mount Street, Mullingar, Co Westmeath
Date of Order12/01/2015In the matter of David Walsh, solicitor, formerly practising as David Walsh & Co, Solicitors, at 12 Mount Street, Mullingar, Co Westmeath, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2011 [4550/DT145/12 and High Court record 2014 no 135 SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
David Walsh (respondent solicitor)
On 1 July 2014, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he failed to use his best endeavours to secure the discharge of senior counsel’s fees expeditiously or within a reasonable time, in a matter where he himself had been paid his professional fees in full.
The tribunal ordered that the matter go forward to the High Court and, on 12 January 2015, the President of the High Court – noting the undertaking by the respondent solicitor not to seek an extension of time to appeal any of the strike-off orders previously made (the court having previously struck the name of the respondent solicitor off the Roll of Solicitors on seven occasions on 27 May 2014) – ordered that:
1) The court does not make a strike-off order against the respondent solicitor,
2) The court makes no order as to costs.
-
David Walsh
David Walsh & Co, Solicitors, 12 Mount Street, Mullingar, Co Westmeath
Date of Order12/01/2015In the matter of David Walsh, solicitor, formerly practising as David Walsh & Co, Solicitors, at 12 Mount Street, Mullingar, Co Westmeath, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2011 [4550/DT168/13 and High Court record 2014 no 139 SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
David Walsh (respondent solicitor)
On 16 July 2014, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:
1) Failed to comply expeditiously, within a reasonable time, or at all with an undertaking in respect of named clients, over property in Co Westmeath, given by him to the complainant, dated 5 January 2001 and 28 June 2004,
2) Failed to reply adequately or at all to the complainant’s correspondence in respect of his undertakings dated 5 January 2001 and 20 July 2004, given on behalf of named clients over property in Co Westmeath to the complainant and, in particular, letters dated 8 July 2005, 6 January 2006, 7 July 2006, 28 July 2006, 2 March 2010, 7 March 2011 and 23 March 2011 respectively,
3) Failed to comply expeditiously, within a reasonable time, or at all with an undertaking in respect of a named client over property in Co Westmeath, given to the complainant on 17 August 2006,
4) Failed to reply adequately or at all to the complainant’s correspondence in respect of his undertaking dated 17 August 2006, given on behalf of a named client over property in Co Westmeath to the complainant and, in particular, letters dated 14 September 2009, 14 December 2009, 2 March 2010, 12 November 2010, 7 March 2011 and 23 March 2011 respectively,
5) Failed to comply expeditiously, within a reasonable time, or at all with an undertaking in respect of named clients over property in Co Westmeath given by him to the complainant, dated 22 August 2007,
6) Failed to reply adequately or at all to the complainant’s correspondence in respect of an undertaking dated 22 August 2007 on behalf of named clients given to the complainant over property in Co Westmeath and, in particular, letters dated 22 January 2010, 12 February 2010, 2 March 2010, 7 March 2011 and 23 March 2011 respectively,
7) Failed to comply expeditiously, within a reasonable time, or at all with an undertaking in respect of a named client over property at Mullingar, Co Westmeath, given to the complainant on 13 June 2006,
8) Failed to reply adequately or at all to the complainant’s correspondence in respect of his undertaking dated 13 June 2006, given on behalf of a named client to the complainant and, in particular, letters dated 2 March 2010, 27 October 2010 and 23 March 2011 respectively,
9) Failed to comply expeditiously, within a reasonable time, or at all with an undertaking in respect of named clients over property at Co Westmeath given to the complainant, dated 13 April 2006,
10) Failed to reply adequately or at all to the complainant’s correspondence in respect of his undertaking dated 13 April 2006 on behalf of named clients given to the complainant and, in particular, letters dated 20 April 2006, 19 July 2006, 21 July 2008, 22 July 2008, 10 August 2009, 28 January 2010, 2 July 2010, 11 August 2010, 16 August 2010, 28 October 2010, 3 March 2011, 7 July 2011, 3 October 2011, 22 May 2012 and 25 May 2012 respectively,
11) Failed to comply expeditiously, within a reasonable time, or at all to comply with an undertaking in respect of a named client over property in Co Kilkenny given by him to the complainant, dated 13 July 2009,
12) Failed to reply adequately or at all to the correspondence of the complainant in respect of his undertaking dated 13 July 2009 on behalf of a named client given to the complainant and, in particular, letters dated 24 July 2009, 30 July 2009, 26 January 2010, 28 March 2011, 2 August 2011, 26 January 2012 and 25 May 2012 respectively,
13) Failed to comply expeditiously, within a reasonable time, or at all with an undertaking in respect of a named client over property in Co Carlow given by him to the complainant, dated 25 August 2009,
14) Failed to reply adequately or at all to the complainant’s correspondence in respect of an undertaking dated 25 August 2009 on behalf of a named client given by him to the complainant and, in particular, letters dated 31 August 2009, 28 March 2011, 4 July 2011, 12 August 2011, 17 November 2011, 28 March 2012 and 25 May 2012 respectively.
The tribunal ordered that the matter go forward to the High Court and, on 12 January 2015, the President of the High Court – noting the undertaking by the respondent solicitor not to seek an extension of time to appeal any of the strike-off orders previously made (the court having previously struck the name of the respondent solicitor off the Roll of Solicitors on seven occasions on 27 May 2014) – ordered that:
1) The court does not make a strike-off order against the respondent solicitor,
2) The court makes no order as to costs.
-
David Walsh
David Walsh & Co, Solicitors, 12 Mount Street, Mullingar, Co Westmeath
Date of Order12/01/2015In the matter of David Walsh, solicitor, formerly practising as David Walsh & Co, Solicitors, at 12 Mount Street, Mullingar, Co Westmeath, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2011 [4550/DT115/13 and High Court record 2014 no 134 SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
David Walsh (respondent solicitor)
On 1 July 2014, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:
1) Failed to comply expeditiously, within a reasonable time, or at all with an undertaking given by him on behalf of a named client over property in Co. Westmeath, by letter of undertaking dated 10 May 2005,
2) Failed to reply adequately or at all to the complainant’s correspondence and, in particular, letters dated 11 January 2012, 15 February 2012, 15 March 2012 and 16 May 2012 respectively.
The tribunal ordered that the matter go forward to the High Court and, on 12 January 2015, the President of the High Court – noting the undertaking by the respondent solicitor not to seek an extension of time to appeal any of the strike-off orders previously made (the court having previously struck the name of the respondent solicitor off the Roll of Solicitors on seven occasions on 27 May 2014) – ordered that:
1) The court does not make a strike-off order against the respondent solicitor,
2) The court makes no order as to costs.
-
David Walsh
David Walsh & Co, Solicitors, 12 Mount Street, Mullingar, Co Westmeath
Date of Order12/01/2015In the matter of David Walsh, solicitor, formerly practising as David Walsh & Co, Solicitors, at 12 Mount Street, Mullingar, Co Westmeath, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2011 [4550/DT134/12 and High Court record 2014 no 137 SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
David Walsh (respondent solicitor)
On 7 November 2013 and 18 February 2014, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:
1) Failed to honour expeditiously, within a reasonable time, or at all an undertaking given by him to the first complainant in letter dated 13 June 2002, whereby he undertook to discharge a loan in the sum of €26,000 plus interest accrued thereon out of the sale of his client’s property situated in Co Westmeath,
2) Failed to honour expeditiously, within a reasonable time, or at all an undertaking dated 19 May 2004 given by him to his former client, whereby he undertook to forward to his former client the sum of €20,000 upon the closing of the sale of a property in Co Westmeath on behalf of a construction company,
3) Gave multiple undertakings over the same property in Co Westmeath to the first complainant in 2002, a named bank in 2003, and his former client in 2004,
4) Gave an undertaking to his former client on 19 May 2004 without disclosing the prior undertakings to the first complainant in 2002 and a named bank on 13 June 2003,
5) Failed to protect the interests of his client, the second complainant, by failing to ensure that he was independently advised at the time of settling the proceedings taken against the respondent solicitor by a named bank.
The tribunal ordered that the matter go forward to the High Court and, on 12 January 2015, the President of the High Court – noting the undertaking by the respondent solicitor not to seek an extension of time to appeal any of the strike-off orders previously made (the court having previously struck the name of the respondent solicitor off the Roll of Solicitors on seven occasions on 27 May 2014) – ordered that:
1) The court does not make a strike-off order against the respondent solicitor,
2) The court makes no order as to costs.
-
David Walsh
David Walsh & Co, Solicitors, 12 Mount Street, Mullingar, Co Westmeath
Date of Order12/01/2015In the matter of David Walsh, solicitor, formerly practising as David Walsh & Co, Solicitors, at 12 Mount Street, Mullingar, Co Westmeath, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2011 [4550/DT116/13 and High Court record 2014 no 136 SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
David Walsh (respondent solicitor)
On 1 July 2014, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he failed to comply expeditiously, within a reasonable time, or at all with an agreement given by his firm to pay the complainant’s firm the sum of €1,200 plus VAT following the transmission of a named file from the complainant’s firm to the respondent solicitor’s firm.
The tribunal ordered that the matter go forward to the High Court and, on 12 January 2015, the President of the High Court – noting the undertaking by the respondent solicitor not to seek an extension of time to appeal any of the strike-off orders previously made (the court having previously struck the name of the respondent solicitor off the Roll of Solicitors on seven occasions on 27 May 2014) – ordered that:
1) The court does not make a strike-off order against the respondent solicitor,
2) The court makes no order as to costs.
-
David Walsh
David Walsh & Co, Solicitors, 12 Mount Street, Mullingar, Co Westmeath
Date of Order12/01/2015In the matter of David Walsh, solicitor, formerly practising as David Walsh & Co, Solicitors, at 12 Mount Street, Mullingar, Co Westmeath, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2011 [4550/DT118/13 and High Court record 2014 no 133 SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
David Walsh (respondent solicitor)
On 16 July 2014, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:
1) Failed expeditiously, within a reasonable time, or at all to register the complainant’s unencumbered ownership of a property in Co Westmeath,
2) Failed to respond to the complainant’s queries.
The tribunal ordered that the matter go forward to the High Court and, on 12 January 2015, the President of the High Court – noting the undertaking by the respondent solicitor not to seek an extension of time to appeal any of the strike-off orders previously made (the court having previously struck the name of the respondent solicitor off the Roll of Solicitors on seven occasions on 27 May 2014) – ordered that:
1) The court does not make a strike-off order against the respondent solicitor,
2) The court makes no order as to costs.
-
Ambrose Steen
Tullamore, Co Offaly
Date of Order03/11/2014In the matter of Ambrose Steen, solicitor, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2011 [2851/DT55/13, 2851/DT149/13, 2851/DT164/13, 2851/DT171/13 and 2851/DT07/14 and High Court record 2014 no 129 SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Ambrose Steen (respondent solicitor)
2851/DT55/13
On 19 June 2014, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of professional misconduct in his practice as a solicitor, in that he had:
1) Failed to comply with an undertaking furnished to EBS dated 19 March 2002 in respect of his named clients and property at Navan, Co Meath, in a timely manner or at all,
2) Failed to respond to the Society’s letters of 8 December 2011 and 5 January 2012 in a timely manner or at all.
2851/DT149/13
On 19 June 2014, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of professional misconduct in his practice as a solicitor, in that he:
1) Failed to comply with an undertaking furnished to ICS Building Society on 9 June 1998 in respect of his named clients and property at Navan, Co Meath, in a timely manner or at all,
2) Failed to respond to the Society’s letters of 20 December 2011 in a timely manner or at all.
2851/DT164/13
On 19 June 2014, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of professional misconduct in his practice as a solicitor, in that he:
1) Failed to comply with an undertaking furnished to Bank of Ireland on 17 May 2002 in respect of his named clients and property at Navan, Co Meath, in a timely manner or at all,
2) Failed to respond to the Society’s letters of 24 October 2011 and 14 December 2011 in a timely manner or at all.
2851/DT171/13
On 19 June 2014, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of professional misconduct in his practice as a solicitor, in that he:
1) Failed to comply with an undertaking furnished to Bank of Ireland on 10 January 2002 in respect of his named client and property at Kilcloon, Co. Meath, in a timely manner or at all,
2) Failed to respond to the Society’s letter of 20 December 2011 in a timely manner or at all.
2851/DT07/14
On 19 June 2014, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of professional misconduct in his practice as a solicitor, in that he:
1) Failed to comply with an undertaking furnished to Bank of Ireland on 10 January 2002 in respect of his named client and property at Kilcloon, Co Meath, in a timely manner or at all,
2) Failed to respond to the Society’s letters of 24 October 2011 and 24 December 2011 in a timely manner or at all.
The tribunal referred the matters forward to the President of the High Court and, on 3 November 2014, the President of the High Court ordered that the respondent solicitor’s name be struck off the Roll of Solicitors and ordered that the respondent solicitor pay the whole of the costs of the Society, to be taxed by a taxing master of the High Court in default of agreement.
-
Niall O'Kelly
Niall O’Kelly Solicitors, 52 Fortfield Park, Terenure, Dublin 6W
Date of Order20/10/2014In the matter of Niall O’Kelly, a solicitor previously practising as Niall O’Kelly Solicitors, 52 Fortfield Park, Terenure, Dublin 6W, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2011 [5202/DT156/12, 5202/DT11/13 and High Court 2014 no 116SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Niall O’Kelly (respondent solicitor)
5202/DT156/12
On 13 February 2014, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of professional misconduct in his practice as a solicitor, in that he:
1) Failed to protect his client’s interest in relation to her proposed case against a builder relating to repairs to her home by allowing this claim to become statute barred,
2) Failed to act on his client’s instructions in relation to the purchase of the freehold of a property in Dublin 8, despite being paid to do so,
3) Failed to comply with the directions given by the Complaints and Client Relations Committee at its meeting on 7 July 2010,
4) Failed to respond to the Society’s correspondence of 30 March 2010, 30 April 2010, 12 July 2010, and 5 October 2010 in a timely manner or at all,
5) Failed to comply with the statutory notice served pursuant to section 10 of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act 1994 on 5 October 2010 in a timely manner or at all,
6) Failed to comply with an order made by the President of the High Court on 20 December 2010 that he deliver to the Society all files and documents in his possession in relation to this complaint and that he respond appropriately to the Society’s correspondence within seven days of the making of the order,
7) Failed to attend the meeting of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee on 26 June 2012, despite being required to do so.
5202/DT11/13
On 13 February 2014, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of professional misconduct in his practice as a solicitor, in that he:
1) Failed to comply in a timely manner or at all with an undertaking furnished to the complainants on 1 April 2003 in respect of his named clients and borrowers and a property in Walkinstown,
2) Failed to respond in a timely manner or at all to the Society’s correspondence and, in particular, the Society’s letters of 19 December 2011, 18 January 2012, 7 March 2012, and 4 April 2012 within the time specified,
3) Failed to attend the meeting of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee on 2 May 2012, despite being required to do so.
The tribunal referred both matters forward to the President of the High Court, and, on 20 October 2014, the President of the High Court ordered that the respondent solicitor’s name be struck off the Roll of Solicitors and ordered that the respondent solicitor pay the whole of the costs of the Society, to be taxed by a taxing master of the High Court in default of agreement.
-
Fergus Appelbe
Appelbe & Co, Solicitors, 34 South Main Street, Bandon, Co Cork
Date of Order13/10/2014In the matter of Fergus Appelbe, solicitor, formerly practising in the firm of PJ O’Driscoll, 41 South Main Street, Bandon, Co Cork, and now practising as Appelbe & Co, Solicitors, 34 South Main Street, Bandon, Co Cork, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2011 [2398/DT104/11 and High Court record 2014 no 101 SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Fergus Appelbe (respondent solicitor)
On 17 February 2014, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor, in that he:
1) Failed to stamp deeds in respect of named properties at Cork in March 2005 or at an appropriate time,
2) Altered a deed in or about January/February 2010 so as to falsely show the said properties being transferred to the respondent solicitor and his wife for €500,000 instead of €3.285 million, and
3) Updated or caused to be updated the said deed, thereby avoiding interest and penalties for late stamping,
4) Falsely represented to the Revenue Commissioners that the original transfer was to the respondent solicitor and his wife,
5) Falsely represented to the Revenue Commissioners that the warehouse section of the property had been transferred to a named company for a consideration of €300,000 in February 2010 and/or falsely executed such a deed, and/or
6) Falsely represented to the Revenue Commissioners that the balance of the property had been transferred into the sole name of the respondent solicitor’s wife with no stamp duty implications in February 2010, and/or
7) Failed to stamp a deed in November 2005 or at the appropriate time in respect of the purchase by the respondent solicitor’s daughter of lands and a garage at Bandon, Co Cork, and/or
8) Updated or caused to be updated the said deed in relation to his daughter in the purchase of this property, thereby avoiding interest and penalties for late stamping of the deed, and
9) Gave undertakings to both Bank of Ireland and Allied Irish Banks at the same time in respect of named lands in Bandon, Co Cork.
The tribunal ordered that the matter go forward to the High Court, and the President of the High Court made the following orders on 13 October 2014:
1) That the respondent solicitor not be permitted to practise as a sole practitioner or in partnership and that he only be permitted to practise as an assistant solicitor in the employment and under the direct control and supervision of a solicitor of at least ten years’ standing to be approved in advance by the Society,
2) That the respondent solicitor be precluded from acting as a solicitor on his own behalf and/or on behalf of his immediate family and/or any company in which he or they are directors and/or shareholders,
3) That the respondent solicitor pay the Society the whole of its costs, including witness expenses for the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal proceedings, to be taxed in default of agreement,
4) That the respondent solicitor pay the Society the costs of the High Court proceedings, to be taxed in default of agreement.
-
Jacqueline M Durcan
Durcan’s Solicitors, No 1 Hazel Grove, Spencer Park, Castlebar, Co Mayo
Date of Order28/07/2014In the matter of Jacqueline M Durcan, solicitor, formerly practising as Durcan’s Solicitors, No 1 Hazel Grove, Spencer Park, Castlebar, Co Mayo, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2008 [7083/DT14/12 and 2014 no 80 SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Jacqueline M Durcan (respondent solicitor)
On 17 September 2013 and 25 March 2014, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in her practice as a solicitor in that she:
a) Caused/allowed a deficit of €259,816 in the client account as of 11 March 2011 to exist,
b) Caused/allowed funds of €90,000 from the client account to be used to finance/pay for interest and penalties on clients’ unstamped and updated deeds,
c) Caused/allowed funds of €24,500 from the client account to be used to part finance/pay the firm’s PI insurance cost, at €25,223 for 2010,
d) Caused/allowed funds of €51,500 from the client account to be used to finance/pay stamp duty arising from the purchase of the respondent solicitor’s principal private residence,
e) Caused/allowed funds of €42,500 from the client account to be used to finance/pay the firm’s PI insurance for 2011, and
f) Caused/allowed funds from the client account to be used as general working capital for her practice.
The tribunal ordered that the matter go forward to the High Court, and the President of the High Court, on 28 July 2014, made the following orders by consent:
a) That the name of the respondent solicitor shall be struck from the Roll of Solicitors,
b) That the Society do recover the costs of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal proceedings as against the respondent when taxed or ascertained,
c) That the Society do recover the costs of the costs of the High Court application against the respondent when taxed or ascertained.
-
Declan McEvoy
William Early Solicitors, 1 Haymarket, Carlow, and JM McEvoy & Co, Solicitors, The Avenue, Gorey, Co Wexford
Date of Order14/07/2014In the matter of Declan McEvoy, solicitor, formerly practising as principal of William Early Solicitors, 1 Haymarket, Carlow, and JM McEvoy & Co, Solicitors, The Avenue, Gorey, Co Wexford, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2011 [6228/DT186/12; 6228/DT187/12 and High Court record no 2014/84 SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Declan McEvoy (respondent solicitor)
On 21 November 2013, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he, in relation to the Wexford practice:
a) On or around 31 July 2011, permitted a deficit of in or around €133,000 to arise on the client account, which was due or partly due to the withdrawal of client moneys from one or more client accounts without authority and not for the benefit of clients, in contravention of regulation 7(1) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations 2001-2006 (SI 421 of 2001 as amended),
b) In or around the period September 2010 to 31 July 2011, withdrew moneys from client accounts other than as permitted, in contravention of regulation 8(4) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations,
c) In or around 31 July 2011, failed to maintain, as part of his accounting records, proper books of account that showed the true financial position in relation to his transactions with clients moneys and/or with moneys transacted by him through the client account, in breach of regulation 12(1) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations.
In relation to the Carlow practice:
a) As of 31 July 2011, permitted a deficit of in or around €501,878 to arise in the client account, which was due or partly due to the withdrawal of clients moneys from one or more client accounts without authority and not for the benefit of clients, in breach of regulation 7(1) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations,
b) Withdrew moneys from the client account other than moneys permitted and in breach of regulation 8(4) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations,
c) As of 31 July 2011, permitted debit balances to occur on the client side of client ledger accounts of in or around the sum of €525,302, in breach of regulation 7(2)(a) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations,
d) Failed to maintain proper books of account, in breach of regulation 12(1) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations.
The tribunal ordered that the matter go forward to the High Court and the President of the High Court, on 14 July 2014, made the following orders:
a) That the name of the respondent solicitor be struck from the Roll of Solicitors,
b) That the respondent solicitor make restitution to the Society, being the amount in respect of payments made by the compensation fund arising from the respondent solicitor’s practice,
c) That the Society do recover the costs of the proceedings before the High Court and the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal as against the respondent solicitor when taxed or ascertained.
-
John JA Rynne
Rynne Hanrahan & Associates, Abbington House, 4 Limerick Road, Ennis, Co Clare, and Hanrahan Rynne Solicitors, 3B Riverside Business Park, Ennis, Co Clare
Date of Order30/06/2014In the matter of John JA Rynne, solicitor, formerly practising as Rynne Hanrahan & Associates, Abbington House, 4 Limerick Road, Ennis, Co Clare, and in the firm of Hanrahan Rynne Solicitors, 3B Riverside Business Park, Ennis, Co Clare, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2011 [7318/DT87/13 and High Court record 2014 no 77 SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
John Rynne (respondent solicitor)
On 4 March 2014, 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 a closing accountant’s report, as required by regulation 26(2) of the regulations, in a timely manner or at all.
The tribunal ordered that the matter go forward to the High Court, and the President of the High Court, on 30 June 2014, made the following orders:
1) That the name of the respondent solicitor shall be struck from the Roll of Solicitors,
2) That the respondent do pay to the applicant the costs of the proceedings before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, to include witness expenses, to be taxed in default of agreement,
3) That the respondent do pay to the applicant the costs of the High Court proceedings, to be taxed in default of agreement.
-
John JA Rynne
Rynne Hanrahan & Associates, Abbington House, 4 Limerick Road, Ennis, Co Clare, and Hanrahan Rynne Solicitors, 3B Riverside Business Park, Ennis, Co Clare
Date of Order30/06/2014In the matter of John JA Rynne, solicitor, formerly practising as Rynne Hanrahan & Associates, Abbington House, 4 Limerick Road, Ennis, Co Clare, and in the firm of Hanrahan Rynne Solicitors, 3B Riverside Business Park, Ennis, Co Clare, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2011 [7318/DT37/13 and High Court record 2014 no 74 SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
John Rynne (respondent solicitor)
On 4 March 2014, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:
1) Failed to forward all files and documents to the complainant expeditiously, within a reasonable time, or at all, leaving his client unable to complete registration of a property at Inagh, Co Clare,
2) Failed to account for the sum of €2,500 to the complainant in a timely manner or at all,
3) Failed to respond adequately or at all to the Society’s correspondence and, in particular, letters dated 17 September 2012 and 21 September 2012 respectively,
4) Failed to attend a meeting of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee on 16 October 2012, despite being required to do so.
The tribunal ordered that the matter go forward to the High Court, and the President of the High Court, on 30 June 2014, made the following orders:
1) That the name of the respondent solicitor shall be struck from the Roll of Solicitors,
2) That the respondent do pay to the applicant the costs of the proceedings before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, to include witness expenses, to be taxed in default of agreement,
3) That the respondent do pay to the applicant the costs of the High Court proceedings, to be taxed in default of agreement.
-
John JA Rynne
Rynne Hanrahan & Associates, Abbington House, 4 Limerick Road, Ennis, Co Clare, and Hanrahan Rynne Solicitors, 3B Riverside Business Park, Ennis, Co Clare
Date of Order30/06/2014In the matter of John JA Rynne, solicitor, formerly practising as Rynne Hanrahan & Associates, Abbington House, 4 Limerick Road, Ennis, Co Clare, and in the firm of Hanrahan Rynne Solicitors, 3B Riverside Business Park, Ennis, Co Clare, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2011 [7318/DT38/13 and High Court record 2014 no 75 SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
John Rynne (respondent solicitor)
On 4 March 2014, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:
1) Failed to comply with a direction of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee meeting made on 22 March 2012 that he refund to the complainants the fees and outlays paid by the complainants of €1993.50,
2) Failed to pay a costs levy to the Society of €450 as directed by the Complaints and Client Relations Committee meeting on 9 February 2012.
The tribunal ordered that the matter go forward to the High Court, and the President of the High Court, on 30 June 2014, made the following orders:
1) That the name of the respondent solicitor shall be struck from the Roll of Solicitors,
2) That the respondent do pay to the applicant the costs of the proceedings before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, to include witness expenses, to be taxed in default of agreement,
3) That the respondent do pay to the applicant the costs of the High Court proceedings, to be taxed in default of agreement.
-
John JA Rynne
Rynne Hanrahan & Associates, Abbington House, 4 Limerick Road, Ennis, Co Clare, and Hanrahan Rynne Solicitors, 3B Riverside Business Park, Ennis, Co Clare
Date of Order30/06/2014In the matter of John JA Rynne, solicitor, formerly practising as Rynne Hanrahan & Associates, Abbington House, 4 Limerick Road, Ennis, Co Clare, and in the firm of Hanrahan Rynne Solicitors, 3B Riverside Business Park, Ennis, Co Clare, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2011 [7318/DT81/13 and High Court record 2014 no 71 SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
John Rynne (respondent solicitor)
On 27 March 2014, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:
1) Failed within a reasonable time, expeditiously, or at all to comply with an undertaking dated 2 April 2003 given by him to the complainant, on behalf of a named client, over property at Ennis, Co Clare,
2) Failed to respond adequately or at all to the Society’s correspondence in relation to the complaint of a named client and, in particular, letters dated 13 March 2012, 11 April 2012, and 25 April 2012 respectively,
3) Failed to comply expeditiously, within a reasonable time, or at all with a direction of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee meeting on 15 May 2012, as extended to 4 September 2012, in respect of a named client,
4) Failed to attend a meeting of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee in respect of the complainant’s complaint regarding a named client on 26 June 2012, despite being required to do so,
5) Failed to attend a meeting of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee in respect of the complainant’s complaint regarding a named client on 4 September 2012, despite being required to do so;
6) Failed to attend a meeting of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee in respect of the complainant’s complaint regarding a named client on 16 October 2012, despite being required to do so;
7) Failed within a reasonable time, expeditiously, or at all to comply with an undertaking dated 20 May 2004 given by him to the complainant, on behalf of a named client, over property at Sixmilebridge, Co Clare,
8) Failed to respond adequately or at all to the Society’s correspondence in relation to the complaint of a named client and, in particular, letters dated 13 March 2012, 11 April 2012, and 25 April 2012 respectively,
9) Failed to comply expeditiously, within a reasonable time, or at all with a direction of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee meeting on 15 May 2012, as extended to 4 September 2012, in respect of a named client,
10) Failed to attend a meeting of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee in respect of the complainant’s complaint regarding a named client on 26 June 2012, despite being required to do so,
11) Failed to attend a meeting of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee in respect of the complainant’s complaint regarding a named client on 4 September 2012, despite being required to do so,
12) Failed to attend a meeting of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee in respect of the complainant’s complaint regarding a named client on 16 October 2012, despite being required to do so;
13) Failed within a reasonable time, expeditiously, or at all to comply with an undertaking dated 6 August 2004 given by him to the complainant, on behalf of named clients, over property at Quin, Co Clare,
14) Failed to respond adequately or at all to the Society’s correspondence in relation to the complaint of named clients and, in particular, letters dated 13 March 2012, 11 April 2012 and 25 April 2012 respectively,
15) Failed to comply expeditiously, within a reasonable time, or at all with a direction of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee meeting on 15 May 2012, as extended to 4 September 2012, in respect of named clients,
16) Failed to attend a meeting of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee in respect of the complainant’s complaint regarding named clients on 26 June 2012, despite being required to do so,
17) Failed to attend a meeting of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee in respect of the complainant’s complaint regarding named clients on 4 September 2012, despite being required to do so,
18) Failed to attend a meeting of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee in respect of the complainant’s complaint regarding named clients on 16 October 2012, despite being required to do so,
19) Failed within a reasonable time, expeditiously, or at all to comply with an undertaking dated 27 September 2007 given by him to the complainant, on behalf of a named client, over property at Ennis, Co Clare,
20) Failed to respond adequately or at all to the Society’s correspondence in relation to the complaint of a named client and, in particular, letters dated 13 March 2012, 11 April 2012, and 25 April 2012 respectively,
21) Failed to comply expeditiously, within a reasonable time, or at all with a direction of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee meeting on 15 May 2012, as extended to 4 September 2012, in respect of a named client,
22) Failed to attend a meeting of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee in respect of the complainant’s complaint regarding a named client on 26 June 2012, despite being required to do so,
23) Failed to attend a meeting of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee in respect of the complainant’s complaint regarding a named client on 4 September 2012, despite being required to do so,
24) Failed to attend a meeting of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee in respect of the complainant’s complaint on 16 October 2012, despite being required to do so,
25) Failed within a reasonable time, expeditiously, or at all to comply with an undertaking dated 18 October 2007 given by him to the complainant, on behalf of named clients, over property at Ennis, Co Clare,
26) Failed to respond adequately or at all to the Society’s correspondence in relation to the complaint of named clients and, in particular, letters dated 13 March 2012, 11 April 2012, and 25 April 2012 respectively,
27) Failed to comply expeditiously, within a reasonable time or at all with a direction of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee meeting on 15 May 2012, as extended to 4 September 2012, in respect of named clients,
28) Failed to attend a meeting of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee in respect of the complainant’s complaint regarding named clients on 26 June 2012, despite being required to do so,
29) Failed to attend a meeting of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee in respect of the complainant’s complaint regarding named clients on 4 September 2012, despite being required to do so,
30) Failed to attend a meeting of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee in respect of the complainant’s complaint on 16 October 2012, despite being required to do so,
31) Failed within a reasonable time, expeditiously, or at all to comply with an undertaking dated 20 July 2010 given by him to the complainant, on behalf of a named client, over property at Inagh, Co Clare,
32) Failed to respond adequately or at all to the Society’s correspondence in relation to the complaint of a named client and, in particular, letters dated 13 March 2012, 11 April 2012, and 25 April 2012 respectively,
33) Failed to comply expeditiously, within a reasonable time, or at all with a direction of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee meeting on 15 May 2012, as extended to 4 September 2012, in respect of a named client,
34) Failed to attend a meeting of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee in respect of the complainant’s complaint regarding a named client on 26 June 2012, despite being required to do so,
35) Failed to attend a meeting of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee in respect of the complainant’s complaint regarding a named client on 4 September 2012, despite being required to do so,
36) Failed to attend a meeting of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee in respect of the complainant’s complaint regarding a named client on 16 October 2012, despite being required to do so.
The tribunal ordered that the matter go forward to the High Court, and the President of the High Court, on 30 June 2014, made the following orders:
1) That the name of the respondent solicitor shall be struck from the Roll of Solicitors,
2) That the respondent do pay to the applicant the costs of the proceedings before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, to include witness expenses, to be taxed in default of agreement,
3) That the respondent do pay to the applicant the costs of the High Court proceedings, to be taxed in default of agreement.
-
John JA Rynne
Rynne Hanrahan & Associates, Abbington House, 4 Limerick Road, Ennis, Co Clare, and Hanrahan Rynne Solicitors, 3B Riverside Business Park, Ennis, Co Clare
Date of Order30/06/2014In the matter of John JA Rynne, solicitor, formerly practising as Rynne Hanrahan & Associates, Abbington House, 4 Limerick Road, Ennis, Co Clare, and in the firm of Hanrahan Rynne Solicitors, 3B Riverside Business Park, Ennis, Co Clare, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2011 [7318/DT82/13 and High Court record 2014 no 76 SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
John Rynne (respondent solicitor)
On 4 March 2014, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:
1) Failed to comply expeditiously, within a reasonable time, or at all with an undertaking dated 24 June 2000, given by him to the complainant, on behalf of a named client, in respect of property at Cork,
2) Failed to respond adequately or at all to the complainant’s correspondence concerning a named client and his undertaking to the complainant dated 24 June 2000 and, in particular, letters dated 5 July 2006, 5 July 2007, 3 January 2008, 28 February 2008, 13 March 2008, 3 March 2010, 29 June 2010, 23 September 2010 and 24 May 2011 respectively,
3) Failed to comply adequately or at all with directions made by the Complaints and Client Relations Committee at its meeting on 15 May 2012 in respect of an undertaking given on behalf of a named client to the complainant, dated 24 June 2000,
4) Failed to attend before the Complaints and Client Relations Committee at its meetings of 26 June 2012, 4 September 2012, and 16 October 2012 respectively in respect of an undertaking given on behalf of a named client to the complainant, dated 24 June 2000, despite being required to do so,
5) Failed expeditiously, within a reasonable time, or at all to honour an undertaking given by him to the complainant, in respect of a named client, over property at Ennis, Co Clare, under cover of undertaking dated 11 August 2006,
6) Failed to reply adequately or at all to the complainant’s correspondence concerning a named client and his undertaking to the complainant dated 11 August 2006, in particular, letters dated 19 August 2009, 16 November 2009, 15 February 2010, 3 March 2010, 29 June 2010, 23 September 2010 and 24 May 2011,
7) Failed to comply with the directions of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee made at its meeting on 15 May 2012 adequately or at all in respect of the matter of a named client.
The tribunal ordered that the matter go forward to the High Court, and the President of the High Court, on 30 June 2014, made the following orders:
1) That the name of the respondent solicitor shall be struck from the Roll of Solicitors,
2) That the respondent do pay to the applicant the costs of the proceedings before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, to include witness expenses, to be taxed in default of agreement,
3) That the respondent do pay to the applicant the costs of the High Court proceedings, to be taxed in default of agreement.
-
John JA Rynne
Rynne Hanrahan & Associates, Abbington House, 4 Limerick Road, Ennis, Co Clare, and Hanrahan Rynne Solicitors, 3B Riverside Business Park, Ennis, Co Clare
Date of Order30/06/2014In the matter of John JA Rynne, solicitor, formerly practising as Rynne Hanrahan & Associates, Abbington House, 4 Limerick Road, Ennis, Co Clare, and in the firm of Hanrahan Rynne Solicitors, 3B Riverside Business Park, Ennis, Co Clare, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2011 [7318/DT114/13 and High Court record 2014 no 78 SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
John Rynne (respondent solicitor)
On 4 March 2014, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:
1) Failed expeditiously, within a reasonable time, or at all to account for moneys paid by the complainant to him,
2) Failed expeditiously, within a reasonable time, or at all to account for the whereabouts of the original title deeds to the complainant’s property at Ennistymon, Co Clare,
3) Failed expeditiously, within a reasonable time, or at all to stamp and register title deeds to the complainant’s property at Ennistymon, Co Clare,
4) Failed to carry out his client’s instructions,
5) Failed to attend Complaints and Client Relations Committee meetings, despite being required to do so and, in particular, 14 December 2011, 28 February 2012, 3 April 2012, and 16 October 2012,
6) Failed to respond adequately or at all to the Society’s correspondence and, in particular, letters dated 7 March 2011, 11 April 2011, 22 May 2011, 3 August 2011, 22 August 2011, 6 September 2011, 12 October 2011, 18 October 2011, 20 October 2011, and 25 October 2011,
7) Breached an order made by the High Court on 5 December 2011 to attend a meeting of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee on 14 December 2011.
The tribunal ordered that the matter go forward to the High Court, and the President of the High Court, on 30 June 2014, made the following orders:
1) That the name of the respondent solicitor shall be struck from the Roll of Solicitors,
2) That the respondent do pay to the applicant the costs of the proceedings before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, to include witness expenses, to be taxed in default of agreement,
3) That the respondent do pay to the applicant the costs of the High Court proceedings, to be taxed in default of agreement.
-
Angela Farrell
Farrell Solicitors, 28 North Great George’s Street, Dublin 1
Date of Order24/06/2014In the matter of Angela Farrell, a solicitor formerly practising as Farrell Solicitors, 28 North Great George’s Street, Dublin 1, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2011 [6102/DT112/13 and 2014 no 57SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Angela Farrell (respondent solicitor)
On 11 February 2014, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in her practice as a solicitor in that she:
1) Failed utterly to protect the interests of her named client by allowing a judgment to be obtained against her client and registered against her client’s property in respect of costs,
2) Failed to hand over the client’s file to her client’s new solicitors in a timely manner or at all, despite being requested and instructed by them to do so,
3) Failed to respond to correspondence received from the complainant,
4) Failed to respond to the Society’s correspondence and, in particular, to the Society’s letters of 31 October 2012, 19 November 2012, 10 January 2013, 26 February 2013 in a timely manner or at all,
5) Failed to comply in a timely manner or at all with the direction of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee made at its meeting on 25 April 2013 to make the file available to the complainant within seven days.
The tribunal ordered that the matter would go forward to the President of the High Court with a recommendation that the solicitor’s name be struck off the Roll of Solicitors and, on 24 June 2014, the President of the High Court made the following orders:
1) That the name of the respondent solicitor shall be struck from the Roll of Solicitors,
2) That the respondent solicitor do make restitution in the sum of €40,600 to her client,
3) That the respondent solicitor do pay to the Society the costs of the proceedings in the High Court and the costs of the proceedings before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal including witnesses expenses, to be taxed in default of agreement.
-
David Walsh
David Walsh & Co, Solicitors, 12 Mount Street, Mullingar, Co Westmeath
Date of Order27/05/2014In the matter of David Walsh, solicitor, formerly practising as David Walsh & Co, Solicitors, at 12 Mount Street, Mullingar, Co Westmeath, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2011 [4550/DT141/12 and 2014 no 40 SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
David Walsh (respondent solicitor)
On 5 December 2013, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he failed to comply with a direction of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee meeting of 9 February 2012 to refund fees totalling €20,470 plus VAT to the complainant.
The tribunal ordered that the matter go forward to the High Court and, on 27 May 2014, the President of the High Court made the following orders:
1) That the name of the respondent solicitor shall be struck from the Roll of Solicitors,
2) That the respondent solicitor pay the sum of €18,970 plus VAT as restitution to the complainant,
3) That the respondent do pay the Society the costs of the proceedings before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal only, to include witness expenses, to be taxed in default of agreement.
-
David Walsh
David Walsh & Co, Solicitors, 12 Mount Street, Mullingar, Co Westmeath
Date of Order27/05/2014In the matter of David Walsh, solicitor, formerly practising as David Walsh & Co, Solicitors, at 12 Mount Street, Mullingar, Co Westmeath, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2011 [4550/DT41/10 and 2014 no 37 SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
David Walsh (respondent solicitor)
On 30 July 2013, 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 of in or about €26,039 to arise on his client account as at 31 October 2006,
2) Caused or allowed debit balances of €3,160, €2,500, €73, €100 and €650 to arise on five clients’ ledger accounts as at 31 October 2006,
3) Caused or allowed debit balances to arise on a personal account of the respondent solicitor in the clients’ ledger in the amounts of €10,000 on 26 October 2006, €10,612.54 on 15 February 2006, and €142,000 on 29 October 2004,
4) Failed to ensure the stamping of a deed of transfer to named clients with reasonable expedition, which deed (dated 4 July 2006) was not sent to the Revenue Commissioners prior to the investigation carried out in March/April 2007,
5) Improperly caused or allowed €175 of clients’ money (made up of €125 received to pay for searches and €50 received to pay other specified outlay) to be drawn from the clients’ ledger account of named clients to the office account on or about 22 May 2006, and failed to ensure that the searches were carried out at closing in or about May 2006 or at any time prior to the investigation of his practice in March/April 2007, despite having informed his clients in a section 68(1) letter that searches would be carried out on the day of closing,
6) Improperly caused or allowed clients’ money, which included €250 received to pay for searches in two purchases, plus €125 received to pay for searches in a remortgage, to be drawn from the clients’ ledger account of named clients to the office account in March and July 2006, and failed to ensure that the searches were carried out in the case of the two purchases and remortgage at closing in 2006 or at any time prior to the investigation carried out in March/April 2007, despite his clients being informed in section 68(1) letters on the files for the three matters that searches would be carried out on the day of closing,
7) Improperly caused or allowed clients’ money of €380 to be drawn from the clients’ ledger account of named clients to the office account in 2003, out of a total sum of €755 that had been received to pay registration fees of €625, searches of €80, and other specified outlay of €50, and failed to ensure that the searches were carried out at closing in 2003 or at any time prior to the investigation carried out in March/April 2007, despite having informed his clients in a section 68(1) letter in March 2003 that searches would be carried out on the day of closing,
8) Improperly caused or allowed clients’ money of €625, belonging to named clients that had been received to pay outlay, including searches of €75, to be incorrectly transferred from their clients’ ledger account as part of a larger amount to the clients’ ledger account of named clients on or about 16 December 2004, and failed to ensure that the searches were carried out at closing in 2004 or at any time prior to the investigation carried out in March/April 2007, despite having informed his clients in a section 68(1) letter in November 2004 that searches would be carried out on the day of closing,
9) Improperly caused or allowed clients’ money of €500 to be drawn from the clients’ ledger account of named clients to the office account in April 2005, out of money received to pay outlay in May 2003 in the case of named clients and out of clients’ money received to pay outlay in the case of named clients that had been received into the client account in November 2004,
10) Improperly caused or allowed clients’ money of €385 to be drawn from the client’s ledger account of named clients to the office account in March/April 2003, out of a sum of €760 that had been received to pay outlay, including searches of €85, and failed to ensure that the searches were carried out at closing in 2003 or at any time prior to the investigation carried out in March/April 2007,
11) Failed to ensure the stamping of a deed of transfer to named clients with reasonable expedition, which deed (dated 27 May 2003) was not sent to the Revenue Commissioners prior to the investigation in March/April 2007,
12) Improperly caused or allowed client’s money of €380 to be drawn from a named clients’ ledger account to the office account in November 2003, out of the sum of €790 that had been received to pay outlay, including search fees of €80, and failed to ensure that the searches were carried out at closing in 2003 or at any time prior to the investigation carried out in March/April 2007,
13) Failed to ensure the stamping of a deed of transfer to a named client with reasonable expedition, which deed (dated 15 May 2005) was not sent to the Revenue Commissioners prior to the investigation carried out in March/April 2007,
14) Improperly caused or allowed clients’ money of €366.63, which had been received to pay outlay, to be drawn from the clients’ ledger account of named clients to the office account in April 2003,
15) Failed to ensure the stamping of a deed of transfer to named clients with reasonable expedition, which deed (dated 24 January 2001) was not sent to the Revenue Commissioners until 18 May 2007, causing penalties/interest of in or about €6,680 to arise,
16) Improperly caused or allowed clients’ money of €135, which had been received to pay outlay, including searches of €85, to be drawn to the office account from the clients’ ledger account of named clients in June 2006, and failed to ensure that the searches were carried out in or about June 2006 at the drawdown of the mortgage or at any time prior to the investigation carried out in March/April 2007, despite having informed his clients in a section 68(1) letter in May 2006 that searches would be carried out on the day of closing,
17) Improperly caused or allowed client’s money of €315 to be drawn from a named clients’ ledger account to the office account in October 2005 and May 2006, out of client’s money received to pay outlay, including searches of €80, and failed to ensure that the searches were carried out at closing in or about April 2006 or at any time prior to the investigation carried out in March/April 2007, despite having informed his client in a section 68(1) letter in June 2005 that he would carry out searches on the day of closing,
18) Improperly caused or allowed clients’ money of €300 to be drawn from the clients’ ledger account of a named client to the office account in July and September 2006, out of clients’ money received to pay outlay including searches of €125, and failed to ensure that a search against named borrowers was carried out at closing in or about August 2006 or at any time prior to the investigation carried out in March/April 2007,
19) Improperly caused or allowed clients’ money of €242 to be drawn from the clients’ ledger account of named clients to the office account in September 2006, out of clients’ money received to pay outlay including search fees of €85, and failed to ensure that the searches were carried out at closing/drawdown of the mortgage in or about May 2006 or at any time prior to the investigation carried out in March/April 2007, despite having informed his clients in a section 68(1) letter in March 2006 that searches would be carried out on the day of closing,
20) In the course of acting for named clients in a purchase of a house, caused or allowed a deed to be updated from in or about August 2005 to February 2006, thereby avoiding possible interest and penalties on the stamp duty,
21) Improperly caused or allowed €532.93 of clients’ money to be drawn from the clients’ ledger account of named clients to the office account in two tranches in March 2006 and September 2006, out of clients’ money received to pay searches and other outlay, and failed to ensure that a search against the clients/borrowers was carried out at closing of the purchase of a house in or about August 2005 or at any time prior to the investigation carried out in March/April 2007,
22) Failed to maintain the deed generated in the course of a purchase of a site by named clients in or about February 2005 on the relevant matter file when the deed had not been submitted to the Revenue or for registration, in breach of regulation 20(1)(h), and failed to locate and provide the deed for examination during the investigation carried out in March/April 2007,
23) Caused or allowed a total of €3,602.25, which included clients’ money of up to €1,575 received to pay outlay, to be drawn to the office account from the clients’ ledger account of named clients, and could only provide a bill of costs dated 4 February 2005 for a total of €1,633.50 during the investigation carried out in March/April 2007 in support of the €3,602.25, and also failed to carry out searches at closing of the purchase of a site in 2005 or at any time prior to the investigation carried out in March/April 2007 for these clients,
24) Failed to ensure that the deed arising in the purchase of a site by named clients in or about February 2005 was stamped prior to the investigation carried out in March/April 2007,
25) In the course of acting for named clients in a purchase of a house, caused or allowed a deed to be updated from in or about February 2005 to 11 May 2007, thereby avoiding possible interest and penalties on the stamp duty,
26) Improperly caused or allowed clients’ money of €590, out of a total of €1,125 received to pay registration fees of €950, search fees of €100, and other specified outlay of €75, to be drawn from the clients’ ledger account of named clients to the office account in two tranches during August/September 2005, and failed to ensure that searches were carried out in the case of named clients at closing in or about July 2005 or at any time prior to the investigation carried out in March/April 2007, despite his clients being informed in a section 68(1) letter in March 2005 that searches would be carried out on the day of closing,
27) Improperly caused or allowed clients’ money of €202.47, which had been received to pay outlay, to be drawn from the clients’ ledger account of a named client in September 2005 and failed to ensure that a search against the client/borrower was carried out at closing in or about September 2005 or at any time prior to the investigation carried out in March/April 2007,
28) Improperly caused or allowed clients’ money of €225, received to pay outlay, including search fees of €75, to be drawn to the office account in August 2006 from the clients’ ledger account of a named client in a remortgage matter, and failed to ensure that the searches were carried out at closing/drawdown of the mortgage in or about August 2006 or at any time prior to the investigation carried out in March/April 2007, despite his client being informed in a section 68(1) letter in June 2006 that searches would be carried out on the day of closing,
29) In the course of acting for a named client in a purchase and a mortgage in 2002/2003, improperly drew clients’ money in the net sum of €855.35, which included €85 received for searches, from client account to the office account, and failed to ensure that the searches were carried out in 2002/2003 or at any time prior to the investigation in March/April 2007,
30) Improperly caused or allowed clients’ money of €1,143.95 to be drawn from the clients’ ledger account of named clients to the office account in or about August/September 2006, out of money that had been partly received to pay for searches and failed to ensure that the searches were carried out at closing in or about September 2006 or at any time prior to the investigation carried out in March April 2007, despite his clients being informed in a section 68(1) letter in May 2006 that searches would be carried out on the day of closing,
31) Caused or allowed a purchase deed to be updated from on or about 29 September 2006 to 14 December 2006 in the course of acting for named clients, with the result that possible interest and penalty on the stamp duty of €24,600 was avoided,
32) Improperly caused or allowed clients’ money in the net sum of €100, which included €75 received to pay for searches, to be drawn from the clients’ ledger account of named clients to the office account during 2002/2003, and failed to ensure that searches were carried out at closing in or about June 2002 or at any time prior to the investigation carried out in March April 2007,
33) Improperly caused or allowed clients’ money of €150 to be drawn from the clients’ ledger account of a named client to the office account during 2005/2006, out of client’s money received to pay outlay, including €75 for searches, and failed to carry out the searches at closing in or about 2005 or at any time prior to the investigation carried out in March April 2007, despite his client being informed in a section 68(1) letter dated 2 November 2006 that searches would be carried out on the day of closing,
34) Caused or allowed title deeds to be furnished to lending institutions that had advanced mortgage loans to named clients without having carried out any or all required up to date searches,
35) Provided incorrect or inaccurate information to the Society during the investigation on 21 March 2007, when he stated that up-to-date searches were done prior to sending the title deeds to the relevant lending institution,
36) In the course of acting for named clients, caused or allowed the purchase deed to be updated from on or about 5 December 2005 to 10 April 2006, with the result that possible interest and penalty on the stamp duty was avoided,
37) Failed to ensure that searches were carried out in the case of named clients at closing in or about December 2005 or at any time prior to the investigation carried out in March/ April 2007,
38) Caused or allowed fees to be debited to the office ledger when costs were transferred from the client account to the office account instead of when bills of costs were issued, contrary to regulation 10(4),
39) Caused or allowed client account cheques to be made payable to banks that did not specify the name of the person into whose account each of the cheques were to be lodged or to whom drafts were to be made payable, contrary to regulation 8(3),
40) Failed to maintain proper books of account, in breach of regulation 12.
The tribunal ordered that the matter go forward to the High Court and, on 27 May 2014, the President of the High Court made the following orders:
1) That the name of the respondent solicitor shall be struck from the Roll of Solicitors,
2) That the respondent do pay the Society the costs of the proceedings before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal only, to include witness expenses, to be taxed in default of agreement.
-
David Walsh
David Walsh & Co, Solicitors, 12 Mount Street, Mullingar, Co Westmeath
Date of Order27/05/2014In the matter of David Walsh, solicitor, formerly practising as David Walsh & Co, Solicitors, at 12 Mount Street, Mullingar, Co Westmeath, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2011 [4550/DT20/12 and 2014 no 39 SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
David Walsh (respondent solicitor)
On 30 July 2013, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:
1) Failed to maintain supporting documentation to vouch the transfer of moneys of named clients in the amount of €110,000 approximately to the office account, in breach of regulation 12(1),
2) Prior to the investigation of his practice, failed to discharge outlays received totalling €8,368 from a named client,
3) Prior to the investigation of his practice, failed to discharge outlays received totalling €13,129 from a named client,
4) Failed to maintain books of account that showed the true financial position in relation to transactions with clients’ moneys, in breach of regulation 12(2);
5) Withdrew funds for fees from the client account other than as authorised by the regulations and, in particular, regulation 7(1)(a)(iii),
6) Caused or allowed debit balances to arise on the clients’ ledger accounts, in breach of regulation 7(2)(a),
7) Breached regulation 7(4)(d) by failing to pay interest due to clients,
8) Breached regulation 10(2) by failing to pay all moneys received in respect of fees into either client or office bank accounts,
9) Breached regulation 4 by failing to pay clients moneys received into clients account,
10) Breached regulation 20(1 (b) by failing to maintain individual client’s ledger for each client and each client matter,
11) Breached regulation 8(2) by taking costs from the client account in cash.
The tribunal ordered that the matter go forward to the High Court and, on 27 May 2014, the President of the High Court made the following orders:
1) That the name of the respondent solicitor shall be struck from the Roll of Solicitors,
2) That the respondent do pay the Society the costs of the proceedings before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal only, to include witness expenses, to be taxed in default of agreement.
-
David Walsh
David Walsh & Co, Solicitors, 12 Mount Street, Mullingar, Co Westmeath
Date of Order27/05/2014In the matter of David Walsh, solicitor, formerly practising as David Walsh & Co, Solicitors, at 12 Mount Street, Mullingar, Co Westmeath, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2011 [4550/DT04/12and 2014 no 38 SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
David Walsh (respondent solicitor)
On 12 September 2013, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:
1) Failed to honour an agreement expeditiously, within a reasonable time, or at all to pay a proportion of professional fees recovered in respect of a personal injury action for a named client,
2) By omission, misrepresented or allowed to be misrepresented the position in relation to the recovery of the costs for a named client from the defendant’s insurers,
3) Failed to reply adequately or at all to the complainant’s correspondence and, in particular, letters dated 21 February 2009, 30 October 2009, 19 January 2010, 28 January 2010, 4 February 2010, 17 February 2010, 26 February 2010, 3 March 2010 and 30 March 2010,
4) Failed to honour an agreement expeditiously, within a reasonable time, or at all to pay an agreed portion of the professional fees recovered in respect of a personal injury action for a named client,
5) By omission, misrepresented or allowed to be misrepresented the position in relation to the recovery of costs for a named client from the Defendant’s insurers.
The tribunal ordered that the matter go forward to the High Court and, on 27 May 2014, the President of the High Court made the following orders:
1) That the name of the respondent solicitor shall be struck from the Roll of Solicitors,
2) That the respondent solicitor pay the sum of €25,208 inclusive of VAT as restitution to the Complainant,
3) That the respondent do pay the Society the costs of the proceedings before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal only, to include witness expenses to be taxed in default of agreement.
-
David Walsh
David Walsh & Co, Solicitors, 12 Mount Street, Mullingar, Co Westmeath
Date of Order27/05/2014In the matter of David Walsh, solicitor, formerly practising as David Walsh & Co, Solicitors, at 12 Mount Street, Mullingar, Co Westmeath, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2011 [4550/DT68/11 and 2014 no 36 SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
David Walsh (respondent solicitor)
On 12 September 2013, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:
1) Failed to honour an undertaking dated 29 April 2004 and an extension thereof given on behalf of named clients over property at Mullingar, Co Westmeath, expeditiously, within a reasonable time, or at all,
2) Failed to honour an undertaking and an extension thereof given on behalf of named clients over property at Carrigallen, Co Leitrim, dated 14 October 2004, expeditiously, within reasonable time, or at all,
3) Failed to honour an undertaking and an extension thereof given on behalf of named clients over property at Mullingar, Co Westmeath, dated 17 January 2006, expeditiously, within a reasonable time, or at all,
4) Failed to respond adequately or in some cases at all to the complainant’s correspondence, in particular, letters dated 6 January 2010, 12 August, 2010, 19 August 2010 (email), 14 September 2010, 23 September 2010, 28 September 2010, and 5 October 2010 respectively.
The tribunal ordered that the matter go forward to the High Court and, on 27 May 2014, the President of the High Court made the following orders:
1) That the name of the respondent solicitor shall be struck from the Roll of Solicitors;
2) That the respondent do pay the Society the costs of the proceedings before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal only, to include witness expenses, to be taxed in default of agreement.
-
David Walsh
David Walsh & Co, Solicitors, 12 Mount Street, Mullingar, Co Westmeath
Date of Order27/05/2014In the matter of David Walsh, solicitor, formerly practising as David Walsh & Co, Solicitors, at 12 Mount Street, Mullingar, Co Westmeath, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2011 [4550/DT124/12 and 2014 no 70 SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
David Walsh (respondent solicitor)
On 18 February 2014, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he failed to comply with the undertaking given to the complainant dated 26 April 2005 on behalf of a named client over property at Mullingar, Co Westmeath, expeditiously, within a reasonable time, or at all.
The tribunal ordered that the matter go forward to the High Court and, on 27 May 2014, the President of the High Court made the following orders:
1) That the name of the respondent solicitor shall be struck from the Roll of Solicitors,
2) That the respondent do pay the Society the costs of the proceedings before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal only, to include witness expenses, to be taxed in default of agreement.
-
David Walsh
David Walsh & Co, Solicitors, 12 Mount Street, Mullingar, Co Westmeath
Date of Order27/05/2014In the matter of David Walsh, solicitor, formerly practising as David Walsh & Co, Solicitors, at 12 Mount Street, Mullingar, Co Westmeath, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2011 [4550/DT143/12 and 2014 no 41 SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
David Walsh (respondent solicitor)
On 30 July 2013, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he failed to comply with a direction made by the Complaints and Client Relations Committee at its meeting on 4 February 2011 to refund the fees he had deducted from a named estate in a timely manner or at all.
The tribunal ordered that the matter go forward to the High Court and, on 27 May 2014, the President of the High Court made the following orders:
1) That the name of the respondent solicitor shall be struck from the Roll of Solicitors,
2) That the respondent solicitor pay the sum of €24,411 as restitution to the complainant,
3) That the respondent do pay the Society the costs of proceedings before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal only, to include witness expenses, to be taxed in default of agreement.
-
Elizabeth McGrath
O’Connell McGrath Solicitors, 5 Athlunkard Street, Limerick
Date of Order28/04/2014In the matter of Elizabeth McGrath,a solicitor formerly practising as O’Connell McGrath Solicitors, 5 Athlunkard Street, Limerick, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2011 [11016/DT118/12 and High Court record 2014 no 23SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Elizabeth McGrath (respondent solicitor)
On 8 October 2013, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in her practice as a solicitor in that she:
1) Allowed a minimum deficit of €80,000 on her client account as of 30 September 2011,
2) Allowed this minimum deficit to increase to €91,026.84 as of 20 December 2011,
3) Allowed client ledger debit balances amounting to €66,565.49 to arise as of 30 September 2011,
4) Made payments of €40,082.28 from the client account for wages and drawings and other business expenses up to 30 September 2011,
5) Made further payments of €4,714.11 in respect of wages, drawings and office expenses from the client account in October 2011,
6) Made further payments of €4,411.74 in respect of wages and other drawings from other office expenses drawn from the client account in November 2011,
7) Retained €16,450 in the client account in respect of stamp duty that should have been paid in March 2010 and left the deed unstamped,
8) Transferred one round sum amount of €12,500 to the office account in respect of costs and disbursed the VAT element of some costs from the client account.
The tribunal recommended that the matter be sent forward to the High Court and, on 28 April 2014, the President of the High Court ordered that the name of the respondent solicitor should be struck from the Roll of Solicitors and that the respondent solicitor pay the Society the costs of the proceedings before the disciplinary tribunal and the costs of the High Court proceedings, to be taxed in default of agreement.
-
Daniel Downes
O’Dea & Company, Solicitors, 1st Floor, Hardiman House, Eyre Square, Galway
Date of Order28/04/2014In the matter of Daniel Downes, a solicitor formerly practising as O’Dea & Company, Solicitors, at 1st Floor, Hardiman House, Eyre Square, Galway, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2011 [4298/DT150/12 and High Court record 2014 no 52 SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Daniel Downes (respondent solicitor)
On 21 January 2014, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:
1) Allowed a deficit in his client account as of 1 May 2012 totalling €69,938,
2) Allowed deficits in his client account as of 31 December 2010 and 30 June 2011 of €31,388 and €32,497 respectively,
3) Allowed debit balances of €67,710 to occur on the client ledger account as of 1 May 2012,
4) Cancelled a payment to a barrister in the client ledger and transferred part of the amount involved to the office account as fees,
5) Allowed round sum of lodgements to be made to the office account at times when the office account was under pressure,
6) Failed to keep adequate books of account.
The tribunal ordered that the matter go forward to the High Court and, on 28 April 2014, 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 the costs of the proceedings before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, to be taxed in default of agreement,
3) The respondent solicitor pay the applicant the costs of the High Court proceedings, to be taxed in default of agreement.
-
Aiden Barry
Aiden Barry Solicitor, Roche House, 8 Bank Place, Limerick, Co Limerick
Date of Order28/04/2014In the matter of Aiden Barry, solicitor, formerly practising as Aiden Barry Solicitor, Roche House, 8 Bank Place, Limerick, Co Limerick, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2011 [7243/DT59/13 and High Court record 2014 no 47 SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Aiden Barry (respondent solicitor)
On 7 January 2014, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:
a) Failed expeditiously, within a reasonable time or at all, to register a charge on a property and transfer €50,000 to a third party in accordance with the instructions of the complainant,
b) Caused or allowed the complainant to be exposed to civil litigation for the payment of the €50,000 plus damages, interest and costs,
c) Failed to respond adequately or at all to the Society’s correspondence, in particular, letters dated 21t February 2012, 8 March 2012 and 21 March 2012 respectively,
d) Through his failure to respond to the Society’s correspondence, caused the Society to have to make an application to the High Court pursuant to section 10(A) of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act 1994 (as amended by substitution) for orders requiring him to respond to the Society’s correspondence and attend before the Complaints and Client Relations Committee meeting on 15 May 2012,
e) Breached an order made by the President of the High Court on 30 April 2012 directing him to attend a meeting of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee on 15 May 2012 by not so attending,
f) Failed expeditiously, within a reasonable time or at all, to honour an agreement made with the complainant whereby he agreed to pay the outstanding sum of €50,000 to a specified third party, as set out in his email to the Society of 14 May 2012 and advised to the President of the High Court on 11 June 2012,
g) Failed without reasonable excuse to attend a meeting of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee on 3 April 2012, as required by letter from the Society dated 26 March 2012.
The tribunal ordered that the matter go forward to the High Court, and the President of the High Court, on 28 April 2014, made the following orders:
a) That the name of the respondent solicitor shall be struck from the Roll of Solicitors,
b) That the respondent pay the Society the costs of the High Court proceedings and the costs of the proceedings before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, to include witness expenses to be taxed in default of agreement.
-
Aiden Barry
Aiden Barry Solicitor, Roche House, 8 Bank Place, Limerick, Co Limerick
Date of Order28/04/2014In the matter of Aiden Barry, solicitor, formerly practising as Aiden Barry Solicitor, Roche House, 8 Bank Place, Limerick, Co Limerick, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2011 [7243/DT58/13 and High Court record 2014 no 46 SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Aiden Barry (respondent solicitor)
On 7 January 2014, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:
a) Failed expeditiously, within a reasonable time or at all, to pay stamp duty on behalf of the complainants in relation to the purchase of a site in Co Clare, despite being put in funds to do so,
b) Failed expeditiously, within a reasonable time or at all, to register the interest of the complainants on the property in Co Clare,
c) Misrepresented in an email of 26 April 2012 that he had a certificate from the Revenue Commissioners, but it was lost and a new certificate would be reissued, where this was not the position as confirmed in an email of 25 June 2012,
d) Failed expeditiously, within a reasonable time or at all, to comply with the directions of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee made at its meeting on 15 May 2012,
e) Failed expeditiously, within a reasonable time or at all, to comply with the directions of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee made at its meeting on 26 June 2012,
f) Failed to respond to correspondence from the Society either in a timely manner or at all, in particular, letters dated 16 March 2012, 17 May 2012, 2 July 2012 and 10 September 2012,
g) Failed to attend a meeting of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee on 15 May 2012 as required by letter from the Society dated 9 May 2012,
h) Failed to attend a meeting of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee on 16 October 2012 as directed by the committee on 4 September 2012.
The tribunal ordered that the matter go forward to the High Court, and the President of the High Court, on 28 April 2014, made the following orders:
a) That the name of the respondent solicitor shall be struck from the Roll of Solicitors,
b) That the respondent pay the Society the costs of the High Court proceedings and the costs of the proceedings before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, to include witness expenses to be taxed in default of agreement.
-
Aiden Barry
Aiden Barry Solicitor, Roche House, 8 Bank Place, Limerick, Co Limerick
Date of Order28/04/2014In the matter of Aiden Barry, solicitor, formerly practising as Aiden Barry Solicitor, Roche House, 8 Bank Place, Limerick, Co Limerick, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2011 [7243/DT96/13 and High Court record 2014 no 50 SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Aiden Barry (respondent solicitor)
On 7 January 2014, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:
a) Failed to refund the sum of €18,000 to a named client in a timely fashion or at all,
b) Failed to account to a named client in a timely fashion or at all,
c) Failed to respond adequately or at all to the Society’s correspondence, in particular letters dated 7 November 2011, 23 November 2011, 7 December 2011, 20 December 2011, 14 February 2012, 29 February 2012, 14 March 2012, 2 April 2012, 19 April 2012 and 24 April 2012 respectively,
d) Failed to attend a meeting of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee on 11 September 2012, despite being required to do so,
e) Failed to respond in a timely fashion to requests from a named client and his new solicitor to hand over the files,
f) Released monies held for the payment of stamp duty to a named client, despite having given an undertaking to the complainant’s lending institution.
The tribunal ordered that the matter go forward to the High Court, and the President of the High Court, on 28 April 2014, made the following orders:
a) That the name of the respondent solicitor shall be struck from the Roll of Solicitors,
b) That the respondent pay the Society the costs of the High Court proceedings and the costs of the proceedings before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, to include witness expenses to be taxed in default of agreement.
-
Aiden Barry
Aiden Barry Solicitor, Roche House, 8 Bank Place, Limerick, Co Limerick
Date of Order28/04/2014In the matter of Aiden Barry, solicitor, formerly practising as Aiden Barry Solicitor, Roche House, 8 Bank Place, Limerick, Co Limerick, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2011 [7243/DT65/13 and High Court record 2014 no 49 SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Aiden Barry (respondent solicitor)
On 7 January 2014, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:
a) Failed to comply expeditiously, within a reasonable time or at all, with an undertaking given by him to the complainant on behalf of his named clients over property in Co Clare, dated 4 March 2004,
b) Failed to respond adequately or at all to the correspondence of the complainant and, in particular, letters dated 14 March 2005, 12 September 2005, 13 March 2006, 3 April 2006 and 30 March 2010 respectively.
The tribunal ordered that the matter go forward to the High Court, and the President of the High Court, on 28 April 2014, made the following orders:
a) That the name of the respondent solicitor shall be struck from the Roll of Solicitors,
b) That the respondent pay the Society the costs of the High Court proceedings and the costs of the proceedings before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, to include witness expenses to be taxed in default of agreement.
-
Aiden Barry
Aiden Barry Solicitor, Roche House, 8 Bank Place, Limerick, Co Limerick
Date of Order28/04/2014In the matter of Aiden Barry, solicitor, formerly practising as Aiden Barry Solicitor, Roche House, 8 Bank Place, Limerick, Co Limerick, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2011 [7243/DT60/13 and High Court record 2014 no 48 SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Aiden Barry (respondent solicitor)
On 7 January 2014, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:
a) Failed, within a reasonable time or at all, to expeditiously comply with the totality of directions made by the Complaints and Client Relations Committee at a meeting on 10 July 2012 and 26 July 2012, respectively, to furnish documentation and information regarding the transaction of the sale of the complainants’ share of a named business,
b) Failed to provide a proper account and breakdown to the complainants in respect of the sale of their share of a named business expeditiously, within a reasonable time or at all, despite being requested to do so.
The tribunal ordered that the matter go forward to the High Court, and the President of the High Court, on 28 April 2014, made the following orders:
a) That the name of the respondent solicitor shall be struck from the Roll of Solicitors,
b) That the respondent pay the Society the costs of the High Court proceedings and the costs of the proceedings before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, to include witness expenses to be taxed in default of agreement.
-
Cindy McCarthy Yates
McCarthy Solicitors, 5 The Old Market, Market Street, Bandon, Co Cork
Date of Order18/04/2014In the matter of Cindy McCarthy Yates, a solicitor practising under the style and title of McCarthy Solicitors at 5 The Old Market, Market Street, Bandon, Co Cork, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2011 [12313/DT13/13, 12313/DT14/13, 12313/DT15/13 and High Court record 2014 no 51 SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Cindy McCarthy Yates (respondent solicitor)
12313/DT13/13
On 21 February 2014, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of professional misconduct in her practice as a solicitor in that she:
1) Failed to comply with an undertaking furnished to the complainants on 10 September 2010 in connection with property in Co Cork and the named borrowers in a timely manner or at all,
2) Failed to attend a meeting of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee on 5 June 2012, despite being required to do so.
12313/DT14/13
On 21 February 2014, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of professional misconduct in her practice as a solicitor in that she:
1) Failed to comply with an undertaking furnished to the complainants on 13 August 2010 in respect of property in Co Cork and her named clients and borrowers in a timely manner or at all,
2) Failed to respond to the Society’s letters of 23 November 2011, 14 December 2011, 27 January 2012, 20 February 2012, 2 March 2012 and 27 March 2012 in a timely manner or at all,
3) Did not attend the Complaints and Client Relations Committee meeting on 5 June 2012, despite being required to do so.
12313/DT15/13
On 21 February 2014, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of professional misconduct in her practice as a solicitor in that she:
1) Failed to comply with an undertaking furnished to the Complainants on 26 March 2009 in respect of her named clients and property in Co Cork in a timely manner or at all,
2) Failed to attend the Complaints and Client Relations Committee meeting on 5 June 2012, despite being required to do so.
The tribunal ordered that the matters go forward to the High Court and, on 18 April 2014, 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 the costs of the proceedings before the disciplinary tribunal and the costs of the High Court proceedings, to be taxed in default of agreement.
-
Denise McNulty
Denise McNulty & Co, Solicitors, Zion Court, Zion Church Grounds, Rathgar, Dublin 6
Date of Order20/03/2014In the matter of Denise McNulty, solicitor, practising as Denise McNulty & Co, Solicitors, Zion Court, Zion Church Grounds, Rathgar, Dublin 6, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2011 [4457/DT113/13 and High Court record 2014 no 26SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Denise McNulty (respondent solicitor)
On 16 January 2014, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty in her practice as a solicitor in that she:
1) Created a deficit in client funds of €194,007 as at 31 December 2012 by dishonestly and wrongly misappropriating client funds for her benefit,
2) Created a further deficit in client funds of €25,076 as at 11 April 2013 – the total apparent deficit in client funds as at 11 April 2013 was €219,083 – by dishonestly and wrongly misappropriating client funds for her benefit, in particular:
a) Misappropriated client moneys of €49,900 by transferring client moneys to the office bank account without the clients approval, in breach of regulation 7(1)(a)(iii) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations,
b) Misappropriated client moneys of €18,500 by transferring client moneys to the office bank account without the clients approval, in breach of regulation 7(1)(a)(iii) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations,
c) Misappropriated the proceeds of a sale in the amount of €25,000 by lodging same directly to the office bank account, in breach of regulation 4(1) and regulation 6(4) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations,
d) Misappropriated the proceeds of a sale’s deposit in the amount of €36,000 by lodging same directly to the office bank account, in breach of regulation 4(1) and regulation 6(4) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations,
e) Misappropriated client moneys by transferring client moneys to the office bank account of €3,655.80 over and above the amount due in relation to professional fees, in breach of regulation 7(1)(a)(iii) and regulation 11(3) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations,
f) Misappropriated the proceeds of a sale’s deposit in the amount of €16,500 by lodging same directly to the office bank account, in breach of regulation 4(1) and regulation 6(4) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations,
g) Misappropriated client moneys by lodging undischarged outlays totalling €1,615 to a personal bank account, in breach of regulation 4(1), regulation 4(2) and regulation 6(1) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations,
h) Misappropriated client moneys by lodging settlement moneys of €6,050 directly to the office bank account, in breach of regulation 4(1) and regulation 6(4) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations,
i) Misappropriated client moneys by lodging estate moneys of €1,659.85 directly to the office bank account, in breach of regulation 4(1) and regulation 6(4) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations,
j) Misappropriated client moneys by lodging undischarged outlay of €2,096 directly to the office bank account, in breach of regulation 4(1), regulation 4(2) and regulation 6(1) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations,
k) Misappropriated the proceeds of a sale’s deposit in the amount of €9,200 by lodging same directly to the office bank account, in breach of regulation 4(1) and regulation 6(4) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations,
l) Misappropriated the proceeds of the balance of the booking deposit in the amount of €1,601.50, in breach of regulation 4(1) and regulation 6(4) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations – there was no evidence available to identify where the money was lodged,
m) Misappropriated client moneys by transferring part of the sales proceeds of €28,527.54 to the office bank account without the client’s approval, in breach of regulation 7(1)(a)(iii) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations,
n) Misappropriated client moneys by transferring €3,750 to the office bank account without the client’s approval, in breach of regulation 7(1)(a)(iii) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations,
3) Sought to conceal the said deficit by falsifying the books of account through numerous instances of ‘teeming and lading’,
4) Misled the Society at the commencement of the investigation by representing there was no deficit in client moneys;
5) Misled her reporting accountant by representing that €51,500 paid into the client account was introduced as capital from her own personal funds to regularise the deficit, when the moneys were in fact taken out of settlement moneys in relation to other clients,
6) Swore a false affidavit on 22 February 2013 to the effect that there was no deficit in the accounts of her practice and that there was no dishonesty involved in the management of her practice,
7) Circumvented the signing arrangements, whereby her reporting accountant had to be a cheque signatory in addition to the respondent solicitor, by misappropriating €3,000 by way of online banking from client moneys on 19 February 2013, subsequent to the changing of the bank mandate,
8) Dishonestly ‘updated’ the execution date on the stamping of a deed in a named client matter by approximately nine months,
9) Dishonestly ‘updated’ the execution date on the stamping of a deed in a named client matter by approximately two months,
10) Deducted professional fees from stakeholder funds in the matters relating to named clients, as set out in the Society’s investigating accountant’s report and another named client as also set out in that report – this is also in breach of regulation 11(3) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations, as the moneys withdrawn were not properly payable to the solicitor at the time of withdrawal,
11) Breached regulation 10(2) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations by failing to pay moneys received in relation to professional fees into client or office account, instead lodging same to a personal account,
12) Breached regulation 10(4) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations by failure to record as a debit on the office side of the relevant clients’ ledger account the amount of professional fees in a matter referred to in the Society’s grounding affidavit,
13) Breached regulation 10(5) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations by allowing credit balances to arise on the office ledger, as set out in the Society’s investigating accountant’s report,
14) Breached regulation 12 of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations by failing to maintain proper books of account at all times that show the true financial position in relation to the solicitor’s transactions with client moneys,
15) Breached regulation 12(4) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations by failing to record each transaction with clients’ moneys and with any other moneys through the client account in the books of account, as set out in the Society’s investigating accountant’s report,
16) Breached regulation 12(3)(a) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations by failing to maintain separate ledger cards for each matter dealt with, as set out in the Society’s investigating accountant’s report.
The tribunal ordered that the matter go forward to the High Court and, on 10 March 2014, the President of the High Court ordered:
1) That the respondent solicitor not be permitted to practise as a sole practitioner or in partnership,
2) That the respondent solicitor 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,
3) That the respondent solicitor will never have signing rights either solely or jointly over any client account,
4) That the respondent solicitor pay the sum of €5,000 to the compensation fund,
5) That the respondent solicitor pay the whole of the Society’s costs of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal proceedings, with taxation in default of agreement
6) That the respondent solicitor pay the costs of the application in the High Court.
-
Gregory F O'Neill
Greg O’Neill, Solicitors, Suite 109, The Capel Building, Mary’s Abbey, Dublin 7
Date of Order03/03/2014In the matter of Gregory F O’Neill, solicitor, formerly practising as Greg O’Neill, Solicitors, Suite 109, The Capel Building, Mary’s Abbey, Dublin 7, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2011 [3365/DT123/11 and 2014 no 3 SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Gregory F O’Neill (respondent solicitor)
On 19 September 2013, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor, in that he:
a) Failed to discharge expeditiously, within a reasonable time or at all, the complainant’s fees of €1,000, given on behalf of a named client of the respondent solicitor in a personal injuries/loss of earnings claim, despite having been paid the costs by the defendant’s insurance company,
b) Failed to respond adequately or at all to the complainant’s correspondence and, in particular, letters dated 4 November 2010, 20 January 2011 and 8 February 2011,
c) Failed to respond adequately or at all to the Society’s correspondence and, in particular, letters dated 23 February 2011, 16 March 2011,
d) Failed to attend a meeting of the committee on 2 June 2011, despite being required to do so.
The tribunal ordered that the matter go forward to the High Court, and the President of the High Court, on 3 March 2014, made the following orders:
a) That the name of the respondent solicitor shall be struck from the Roll of Solicitors,
b) That the respondent do pay the Society the costs of the High Court proceedings and the costs of the proceedings before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, to include witness expenses, to be taxed in default of agreement.
-
Gregory F O'Neill
Greg O’Neill Solicitors, Suite 109, The Capel Building, Mary’s Abbey, Dublin 7
Date of Order03/03/2014In the matter of Gregory F O’Neill, solicitor, formerly practising as Greg O’Neill Solicitors, Suite 109, The Capel Building, Mary’s Abbey, Dublin 7, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2011 [3365/DT34/12 and High Court record 2014 no 7SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Greg O’Neill (respondent solicitor)
On 19 September 2013, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of professional misconduct 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 (SI 421 of 2001).
The tribunal ordered that the matter go forward to the President of the High Court and, on 3 March 2014, the President of the High Court ordered that the solicitor’s name be struck from the Roll of Solicitors and that the respondent solicitor pay the costs of the Society’s proceedings before the disciplinary tribunal and the cost of the High Court proceedings, to be taxed in default of agreement.
-
Gregory F O'Neill
Suite 109, The Capel Building, Mary’s Abbey, Dublin 7
Date of Order03/03/2014In the matter of Gregory F O’Neill, solicitor, formerly practising as Greg O’Neill, Solicitors, Suite 109, The Capel Building, Mary’s Abbey, Dublin 7, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2011 [3365/DT127/11 and 2014 no 6 SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Gregory F O’Neill (respondent solicitor)
On 19 September 2013, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor, in that he failed to comply with a direction of the committee dated 18 January 2011, whereby he was directed (and to which he subsequently agreed) to refund the sum of €1,235 to the complainant within 28 days.
The tribunal ordered that the matter go forward to the High Court, and the President of the High Court, on 3 March 2014, made the following orders:
a) That the name of the respondent solicitor shall be struck from the Roll of Solicitors,
b) That the respondent solicitor do pay the sum of €1,235 as restitution to a named client,
c) That the respondent do pay to the Society the costs of the High Court proceedings and the costs of the proceedings before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, to include witness expenses, to be taxed in default of agreement.
-
Gregory F O'Neill
Greg O’Neill, Solicitors, Suite 109, The Capel Building, Mary's Abbey, Dublin 7
Date of Order03/03/2014In the matter of Gregory F O’Neill, solicitor, formerly practising as Greg O’Neill, Solicitors, Suite 109, The Capel Building, Mary’s Abbey, Dublin 7, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2011 [3365/DT126/11 and 2014 no 11 SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Gregory F O’Neill (respondent solicitor)
On 19 September 2013, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor, in that he failed to comply with a direction of the committee meeting on 4 February 2011, whereby he was to compensate the complainant in the sum of €3,000.
The tribunal ordered that the matter go forward to the High Court, and the President of the High Court, on 3 March 2014, made the following orders:
a) That the name of the respondent solicitor shall be struck from the Roll of Solicitors,
b) That the respondent solicitor do pay the sum of €3,000 as restitution to named clients,
c) That the respondent do pay the Society the costs of the High Court proceedings and the costs of the proceedings before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, to include witness expenses, to be taxed in default of agreement.
-
Gregory F O'Neill
Greg O’Neill, Solicitors, Suite 109, The Capel Building, Mary’s Abbey, Dublin 7
Date of Order03/03/2014In the matter of Gregory F O’Neill, solicitor, formerly practising as Greg O’Neill, Solicitors, Suite 109, The Capel Building, Mary’s Abbey, Dublin 7, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2011 [3365/DT124/11 and 2014 no 4 SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Gregory F O’Neill (respondent solicitor)
On 19 September 2013, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor, in that he:
a) Failed to pay over expeditiously, within a reasonable time or at all, the balance of settlement compensation to the complainant, despite having been paid by the defendant’s insurance company,
b) Failed to respond adequately or at all to the complainant’s correspondence and, in particular, emails dated 20 December 2010, 26 January 2011 and 22 March 2011,
c) Failed to respond adequately or at all to the Society’s correspondence, dated 13 April 2011.
The tribunal ordered that the matter go forward to the High Court, and the President of the High Court, on 3 March 2014, made the following orders:
a) That the name of the respondent solicitor shall be struck from the Roll of Solicitors,
b) That the respondent do pay the Society the costs of the High Court proceedings and the costs of the proceedings before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, to include witness expenses, to be taxed in default of agreement.
-
Gregory F O'Neill
Greg O’Neill, Solicitors, Suite 109, The Capel Building, Mary’s Abbey, Dublin 7
Date of Order03/03/2014In the matter of Gregory F O’Neill, solicitor, formerly practising as Greg O’Neill, Solicitors, Suite 109, The Capel Building, Mary’s Abbey, Dublin 7, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2011 [3365/DT125/11 and 2014 no 5 SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Gregory F O’Neill (respondent solicitor)
On 19 September 2013, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor, in that he failed to comply within a reasonable time or at all with a direction of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee whereby he was (a) to furnish an apology to the complainant, (b) waive any entitlement to fees, and (c) pay compensation of €3,000 to the complainant.
The tribunal ordered that the matter go forward to the High Court, and the President of the High Court, on 3 March 2014, made the following orders:
a) That the name of the respondent solicitor shall be struck from the Roll of Solicitors,
b) That the respondent solicitor pay the sum of €3,000 as restitution to a named client,
c) That the respondent do pay the Society the costs of the High Court proceedings and the costs of the proceedings before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, to include witness expenses, to be taxed in default of agreement.
-
Gregory F O'Neill
Greg O’Neill, Solicitors, Suite 109, The Capel Building, Mary’s Abbey, Dublin 7
Date of Order03/03/2014In the matter of Gregory F O’Neill, solicitor, formerly practising as Greg O’Neill, Solicitors, Suite 109, The Capel Building, Mary’s Abbey, Dublin 7, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2011 [3365/DT146/12 and 2014 no 2 SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Gregory F O’Neill (respondent solicitor)
On 19 September 2013, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor, in that he failed to comply with the direction of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee meeting made on 9 February 2012 to refund fees to a named client within 28 days from the date of that direction.
The tribunal ordered that the matter go forward to the High Court, and the President of the High Court, on 3 March 2014, made the following orders:
a) That the name of the respondent solicitor shall be struck from the Roll of Solicitors,
b) That the respondent do pay to the Society the costs of the High Court proceedings and the costs of the proceedings before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, to include witness expenses, to be taxed in default of agreement.
-
Gregory F O'Neill
Greg O’Neill Solicitors, Suite 109, The Capel Building, Mary’s Abbey, Dublin 7
Date of Order03/03/2014In the matter of Gregory F O’Neill, solicitor, formerly practising as Greg O’Neill Solicitors, Suite 109, The Capel Building, Mary’s Abbey, Dublin 7, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2011 [3365/DT176/10 and High Court record 2014 no 7SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Greg O’Neill (respondent solicitor)
On 19 September 2013, 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 an accountant’s report for the year ended 31 December 2009 within six months of that date, in breach of regulation 21(1) of the Solicitors’ Accounts Regulations 2001 (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 ordered that the matter go forward to the President of the High Court and, on 3 March 2014, the President of the High Court ordered that the solicitor’s name be struck from the Roll of Solicitors and that the respondent solicitor pay the costs of the Society’s proceedings before the disciplinary tribunal and the cost of the High Court proceedings, to be taxed in default of agreement.
-
James O'Mahony
James O’Mahony, Solicitors, 16 Stoneybatter, Dublin 7
Date of Order31/01/2014In the matter of James O’Mahony, a solicitor previously practising as James O’Mahony, Solicitors, at 16 Stoneybatter, Dublin 7, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2011 [4831/DT109/12; 4831/DT110/12; 4831/DT111/12; 4831/DT112/12 and High Court record 2013 no 102SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
James O’Mahony (respondent solicitor)
4831/DT109/12
On 9 April 2013 and 10 September 2013, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal sat to consider an application against the respondent solicitor and found him guilty of misconduct, in that he failed to comply with an undertaking furnished to EBS Building Society, dated 12 March 1996, in respect of his named clients and a property at Ennis, Co Clare, in a timely manner or at all.
4831/DT110/12
On 9 April 2013 and 10 September 2013, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal sat to consider an application against the respondent solicitor and found him guilty of misconduct, in that he failed to comply with an undertaking furnished to EBS Building Society, dated 14 August 2002, in respect of his named clients and property at Dunboyne, Co Meath, in a timely manner or at all.
4831/DT111/12
On 9 April 2013 and 10 September 2013, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal sat to consider an application against the respondent solicitor and found him guilty of professional misconduct, in that he failed to comply with an undertaking furnished to EBS Building Society, dated 18 April 2008, in respect of his named clients and a property at Stoneybatter, Dublin 7, in a timely manner or at all.
4831/DT112/12
On 9 April 2013 and 10 September 2013, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal sat to consider an application against the respondent solicitor and found him guilty of professional misconduct, in that he failed to comply with an undertaking furnished to EBS Building Society on 29 July 2001 in respect of his named clients and property at Leopardstown, Dublin 18, in a timely manner or at all.
The tribunal in the four matters ordered that the matters should go forward to the President of the High Court and, on 31 January 2014, the President of the High Court ordered that the respondent solicitor be struck off the Roll of Solicitors and that he pay the Society its costs when taxed and ascertained.
-
James O'Mahony
James O’Mahony, Solicitors, 16 Stoneybatter, Dublin 7
Date of Order31/01/2014In the matter of James O’Mahony, a solicitor previously practising as James O’Mahony, Solicitors, at 16 Stoneybatter, Dublin 7, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2011 [4831/DT152/10 and High Court 2013 no 86SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
James O’Mahony (respondent solicitor)
On 22 February 2011, 21 June 2011, 13 October 2011, 1 March 2012, 6 November 2012, 28 February 2013 and 24 July 2013, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal sat to consider an application against the respondent solicitor and found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor, in that he:
a) 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 2001 (SI 421 of 2001) in a timely manner or at all,
b) 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 ordered that the matter be brought before the President of the High Court and, on 31 January 2014, the President of the High Court ordered that the respondent solicitor be struck off the Roll of Solicitors and the respondent solicitor do pay the costs of the Society when taxed and ascertained.
-
John Kilraine
Kilraine & Company, Solicitors, Nile Lodge Corner, Galway
Date of Order13/01/2014In the matter of John Kilraine, a solicitor previously practising as Kilraine & Company, Solicitors, at Nile Lodge Corner, Galway, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2011 [6868/DT81/12 and 2013 no 103SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
John Kilraine (respondent solicitor)
On 28 February 2013, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:
a) Misappropriated client moneys over a period of two years,
b) Misappropriated trust moneys from the client account in the file of a named client totalling €63,812,
c) Improperly cleared out the client account in June 2007 and left an overdraft thereon,
d) Improperly cleared out the client account again by 6 May 2008,
e) Allowed a deficit of €110,005 on the client account as of 8 June 2007,
f) Allowed a minimum deficit of €154,407.45 on the client account as of 6 May 2008,
g) Failed to stamp a deed, notwithstanding that €51,450 was received from clients in December 2007 for that purpose,
h) Failed to keep proper books of account, having failed to write up same post 28 February 2006.
The tribunal directed the Society to bring the matter forward to the President of the High Court and the President of the High Court, on 13 January 2014, ordered that the name of the respondent solicitor be struck from the Roll of Solicitors.
-
Michele O'Keeffe
Michele O’Keeffe & Company, 1 Cornmarket Street, Ennis, Co Clare
Date of Order13/01/2014In the matter of Michele O’Keeffe, a solicitor previously practising as Michele O’Keeffe & Company, 1 Cornmarket Street, Ennis, Co Clare, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2011 [8246/DT151/12 and 2013 no 109SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Michele O’Keeffe (respondent solicitor)
On 10 October 2013, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in her practice as a solicitor in that she:
a) Allowed a deficit of €339,499 in her practice as of 30 January 2012,
b) Allowed a situation where interest and penalties in the region of €40,000 could be levied on unstamped deeds,
c) Wrote client account cheques for €80,345 for personal and office expenses between 9 December 2011 and 20 January 2012,
d) Allowed debit balances of €39,072 on the client ledger balances,
e) Misapplied funds of €55,442 on a probate file,
f) Allowed outstanding lodgements of €9,915 on the client account, which covered debit balances on the client ledger, in circumstances where the cheques were written on the office account but were not paid,
g) Diverted €15,000 of a loan cheque of €170,000 to cover deficits on two ledger accounts,
h) Failed to account for a deposit received of €25,000 in a conveyancing transaction,
i) Allowed stamp duty of €36,000 received in July 2003 to be directed to other uses, including paying a Law Society levy of €6,000 arising from an investigation in March 2011;
j) Paid stamp duty of €6,590 and penalties from an unrelated client ledger on unstamped deeds discovered during a previous investigation,
k) Paid €8,955 stamp duty and penalties from an unrelated client ledger on unstamped deeds discovered during a previous investigation in July 2009,
l) Diverted €4,000 of a receipt of €75,486 in a probate file to a ledger account that had a debit balance,
m) Allowed a further €33,500 of unrelated payments to be made on the same probate file,
n) Left unstamped deeds with a liability in excess of €50,000 and estimated interest and penalties of €40,000.
The tribunal directed the matters be referred forward to the President of the High Court and the President of the High Court, on 13 January 2014, ordered that:
a) The name of the respondent solicitor be struck off the Roll of Solicitors,
b) The respondent solicitor make restitution to the compensation fund in respect of all sums paid out by the fund in respect of her former practice, totalling €358,410.42, and
c) The Society recover the costs of all the proceedings, to be taxed in default of agreement.
-
Ruairi O’Ceallaigh
Sean O’Ceallaigh, Solicitors
Date of Order13/01/2014In the matter of Ruairi O’Ceallaigh, a solicitor formerly practising in the firm of Sean O’Ceallaigh, Solicitors, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2011 [9022/DT120/12 and 2013 no 115SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Ruairi O’Ceallaigh (respondent solicitor)
On 23 May 2013 and 15 October 2013, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal sat to consider a case against the respondent solicitor. The tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:
a) Instructed a solicitor in his practice to furnish an undertaking to ACC Bank dated 3 May 2007 in respect of a named property for the solicitor’s private borrowing, and failed to ensure that same was complied with in a timely manner or at all,
b) Instructed a solicitor in his practice to furnish an undertaking to ACC Bank dated 3 May 2007 in respect of a further property for the solicitor’s private borrowing, and failed to ensure that same was complied with in a timely manner or at all.
The tribunal directed the Society to bring the matter before the President of the High Court and, on 13 January 2014, the president made an order striking the name of the respondent solicitor off the Roll of Solicitors and made an order for the costs of the proceedings to be taxed in default of agreement.
-
Mark Cronin
Cronin Kenneally & Company and Cronin Mungovan, The Square, Macroom, Co Cork
Date of Order14/10/2013In the matter of Mark Cronin, solicitor, formerly practising as Cronin Kenneally & Company and as Cronin Mungovan, The Square, Macroom, Co Cork, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2011 [10550/DT127/12 and 2013 no 85 SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Mark Cronin (respondent solicitor)
On 6 June 2013, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:
a) Allowed a deficit in client moneys of €249,364 as of 24 January 2012,
b) Misappropriated €48,500, being the balance of a deposit in a conveyancing transaction, set out in paragraph 4.2 of the Society’s report of 26 January 2012,
c) Altered a photocopy of a bank draft in the above conveyancing transaction by €100,000, as set out in paragraph 4.2 of the above report of 26 January 2012,
d) Misappropriated €170,000 received in respect of the purchase proceeds of a holiday home for a client in 2011, as set out in the Society’s report of 14 February 2012,
e) Misappropriated €30,864 of client funds in a probate matter, as set out in paragraph 4.3 of the above report of 26 January 2012,
f) Misappropriated €32,275 of funds of €38,249 received from a client at a time when there were no funds in the client account on 27 May 2011, as set out in paragraph 6 of the Society’s memorandum of 14 February 2012,
g) Altered a photocopy of a bank draft by changing it from €223,500 to €323,500 in September 2010, as set out in the Society’s investigation memorandum of 29 March 2012, in order to conceal misappropriation of client funds,
h) Engaged in a practice of teeming and lading to hide the misappropriated client moneys,
i) Caused claims of €250,000 to be paid from the compensation fund to date in respect of his practice.
The tribunal ordered that the Society bring their findings to the High Court and, on 14 October 2013, the High Court ordered that:
a) The respondent solicitor’s name should be struck from the Roll of Solicitors,
b) The respondent solicitor make restitution to the Society’s compensation fund in respect of all funds paid for claims in respect of his former practice,
c) The Society recover €2,500 from the respondent solicitor as a contribution towards the Society’s costs of the proceedings before the disciplinary tribunal,
d) The respondent solicitor pay to the Society the cost of the proceedings in the High Court, to be taxed in default of agreement.
-
Adam A Suzin
Adam A Suzin & Co, Solicitors, 6 Keon’s Terrace, Longford, Co Longford
Date of Order08/07/2013In the matter of Adam A Suzin, a solicitor formerly practising as Adam A Suzin & Co, Solicitors, 6 Keon’s Terrace, Longford, Co Longford, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2008 [10064/DT103/11 and High Court record no 2013/59SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Adam A Suzin (respondent solicitor)
On 10 April 2013, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:
a) Failed to pay stamp duty to a named firm of solicitors, either at all or in a timely manner, to enable the firm to comply with their undertaking to a named bank,
b) Failed to comply with outstanding matters, either at all or in a timely manner, to enable a named firm of solicitors to comply with their undertaking to a named bank,
c) Permitted and/or had knowledge of the fact that two undertakings came into being in respect of the same property at the same time, without taking any or any sufficient steps to alert the solicitors and/or the financial institutions involved to the situation,
d) Failed to respond to correspondence from the Society, either in a timely manner or at all, and in particular to all or some letters dated 27 April 2010, 29 June 2010, 26 July 2010, 10 August 2010 and 1 September 2010,
e) Failed without reasonable excuse to attend a meeting of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee on 22 September 2010, as required by letter from the Society dated 10 September 2010,
f) Failed without reasonable excuse to attend a meeting of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee on 27 October 2010, as required by order of the High Court dated 18 October 2010,
g) Failed without reasonable excuse to attend a meeting of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee on 14 December 2010 as directed by the committee on 27 October 2010,
h) Failed without reasonable excuse to attend a meeting of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee on 16 February 2011 as directed by the committee on 14 December 2010.
The tribunal referred the matter to the High Court and, on 8 July 2013, Mr Justice O’Neill made the following orders:
a) That the name of the respondent solicitor be struck from the Roll of Solicitors,
b) That the respondent pay the Society the costs of the High Court proceedings and the costs of the proceedings before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal to include witness expenses, to be taxed in default of agreement.
-
Alexander M Gibbons
Gibbons & Company, Solicitors, Riverside, Kent Street, Clonakilty, Co Cork
Date of Order24/06/2013In the matter of Alexander M Gibbons, a solicitor previously practising as Gibbons & Company, Solicitors, Riverside, Kent Street, Clonakilty, Co Cork, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2011 [5839/DT56/12 and High Court record no 2013 no 57SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Alexander M Gibbons (respondent solicitor)
On 27 November 2012, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:
a) Attempted to mislead the Society by sending letters to the Society on 30 May 2011 and 28 July 2011 purporting to be from a named assistant solicitor in the practice, when these letters emanated from the solicitor himself,
b) Failed to respond to the Society’s correspondence, and in particular the Society’s letters of 17 December 2010 and 3 March 2011, in a timely manner or at all,
c) Failed to comply with the direction of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee made at its meeting of 2 June 2011 that the solicitor make a contribution of €500 towards the costs incurred by the Society in dealing with this matter.
The tribunal ordered that the matters go forward to the President of the High Court and, on 24 June 2013, the President of the High Court made the following order:
a) That the name of the respondent solicitor be struck from the Roll of Solicitors,
b) That the respondent solicitor do pay to the Society the costs of the proceedings before the High Court and the costs of the proceedings before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, to include all witness expenses to be taxed in default of agreement.
-
Brian Johnston
Brian Johnston & Co, Solicitors, 79 Park Street, Dundalk, Co Louth
Date of Order10/06/2013In the matter of Brian Johnston, a solicitor, formerly practising as Brian Johnston & Co, Solicitors, 79 Park Street, Dundalk, Co Louth, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2008 [6927/DT95/11 and High Court record 2013 no 60SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Brian Johnston (respondent solicitor)
On 11 April 2013, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:
1) Failed to comply within a reasonable time or at all with an undertaking given by him dated 31 January 2006, whereby he undertook to procure a deed of partial discharge,
2) Failed to reply adequately or at all to the complainant’s correspondence and, in particular, letters dated 18 May 2009, 21 July 2009, 13 August 2009, 14 May 2010 and 1 October 2010.
The tribunal ordered that the matters go forward to the High Court and, on 10 June 2013, the High Court made the following orders:
1) That the name of the respondent solicitor shall be struck from the Roll of Solicitors,
2) That the respondent solicitor do pay the Society the costs of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, to include witness expenses, to be taxed in default of agreement,
3) That the respondent solicitor do pay to the Society the costs of the High Court proceedings to be taxed in default of agreement.
-
Patrick Aidan Crowley
Egan Daughter & Company, Solicitors, Church Street, Castlebar, Co Mayo
Date of Order15/04/2013In the matter of Patrick Aidan Crowley, a solicitor previously practising as a partner in the firm of Egan Daughter & Company, Solicitors, Church Street, Castlebar, Co Mayo, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2008 [6598/DT03/12 and High Court record no 2013 no 45 SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Patrick Aidan Crowley (respondent solicitor)On 14 February 2013, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:
a) Allowed a shortfall of €521,924 in the client account as of 31 May 2010, as set out in the investigation report of 1 September 2010, in breach of the Solicitors’ Accounts Regulations,
b) Allowed a shortfall in respect of the estate of a named person, as detailed in paragraph 2.4 of the report of 26 July 2010, in at least the sum of €3,038.00,
c) Made deductions from a settlement cheque of a named client without her written authority and without providing a section 68(6) bill,
d) Made a payment to a client in advance of €46,024 when no funds were available in the office account in respect of that client, thereby causing a debit balance,
e) Withdrew €518,380 from a named estate over a period of about seven years, in breach of the regulations, without issuing bills of costs to the clients,
f) Misappropriated €35,000 from another named estate on 22 July 2010 by withdrawing this amount from the executor’s account and purchasing a bank draft payable to another client whose personal injuries claim had become statute barred,
g) As detailed in paragraph 4.8 of the investigation report of 11 April 2011, made lodgements of approximately €454,000 to his personal bank account over a period of years, and the lodgements included a substantial amount of unrecorded fees, including legal aid cheques and other unidentified amounts, and he paid a personal injury settlement from this account,
h) Dealt with some of the assets of a named estate without disclosing the assets to the Revenue or to the Probate Office of the High Court,
i) Failed to inform a named person of his possible entitlement in a named estate,
j) Incorrectly dealt with the moveable assets of a named estate without the authority of the appropriate court,
k) By his acts/omissions, the solicitor contributed to a named person becoming the sole beneficiary to the proceeds of a named estate and to depriving two named individuals of their possible entitlements,
l) Made misleading statements to the Revenue and produced misleading documents to the Probate Office,
m) Maintained an executor’s account for a named estate but failed to record transactions on the executor’s account in the books of account of the practice.
The tribunal referred the matter to the President of the High Court and, on 15 April 2013, the High Court made an order:
a) Striking the name of the respondent solicitor from the Roll of Solicitors,
b) The costs of the proceedings before the tribunal and the costs of the High Court proceedings to be taxed by a taxing master of the High Court in default of agreement.
-
Brian Johnston
Brian Johnston & Co, Solicitors, 79 Park Street, Dundalk, Co Louth
Date of Order11/04/2013In the matter of Brian Johnston, a solicitor formerly practising as Brian Johnston & Co, Solicitors, 79 Park Street, Dundalk, Co Louth, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2008 [6927/DT95/11 and High Court record no 2013/60 SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Brian Johnston (respondent solicitor)
On 11 April 2013, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:
a) Failed to comply within a reasonable time or at all with an undertaking given by him dated 31 January 2006, whereby he undertook to procure a deed of partial discharge,
b) Failed to reply adequately or at all to the complainant’s correspondence and, in particular, letters dated 18 May 2009, 21 July 2009, 13 August 2009, 14 May 2010 and 1 October 2010.
The tribunal ordered that the matters go forward to the High Court and, on 10 June 2013, Mr Justice O’Neill made the following orders:
a) That the name of the respondent solicitor shall be struck from the Roll of Solicitors,
b) That the respondent solicitor do pay the Society the costs of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal to include witness expenses, to be taxed in default of agreement,
c) That the respondent solicitor do pay to the Society the costs of the High Court proceedings, to be taxed in default of agreement.
-
Patrick McCarthy
McCarthy & Co, Second Floor, Building 1000, City Gate, Mahon, Cork
Date of Order08/04/2013In the matter of Patrick McCarthy, solicitor, formerly practising as McCarthy & Co, Second Floor, Building 1000, City Gate, Mahon, Cork, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2011 [7748/DT131/10 and High Court record no 2013/39 SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Patrick McCarthy (respondent solicitor)
On 27 January 2011, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:
a) Failed to comply with his solicitor’s undertaking to a lending institution, dated 3 December 2007, up to the date of the swearing of the Society’s affidavit,
b) Failed to reply to correspondence from the lending institution,
c) Failed to reply to correspondence from the Society,
d) Failed to attend meetings of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee,
e) Misled the Society in representing to the Society that documents had been sent to the Property Registration Authority when they had not,
f) Failed to discharge the contribution towards the costs of the investigation of the complaint of €550, as directed by the Complaints and Client Relations Committee, up to the date of the swearing of the Society’s affidavit.
The tribunal ordered that the matter go forward to the High Court with the recommendation that:
a) The respondent solicitor not be permitted to practise as a sole practitioner or in a 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 Society,
b) The respondent solicitor pay the whole of the costs of the Society, to be taxed by a taxing master of the High Court in default of agreement.
The President of the High Court, on 8 April 2013, made the following orders:
a) That the name of the respondent solicitor shall be struck from the Roll of Solicitors,
b) That the Society do recover the costs of the proceedings before the High Court and the costs of the proceedings before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal as against the respondent solicitor, to be taxed in default of agreement.
-
Patrick McCarthy
McCarthy & Co, Second Floor, Building 1000, City Gate, Mahon, Cork
Date of Order08/04/2013In the matter of Patrick McCarthy, solicitor, formerly practising as McCarthy & Co, Second Floor, Building 1000, City Gate, Mahon, Cork, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2011 [7748/DT144/11 and High Court record no 2013/40 SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Patrick McCarthy (respondent solicitor)
On 5 July 2012, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:
a) Breached regulation 12(1) by failing at all times to maintain proper books of account,
b) Breached regulation 12(2)(a) by failing to maintain books of account that showed the true financial position in relation to his transactions with clients’ moneys,
c) Breached regulation 7(2)(a) by allowing debit balance to arise on client ledgers in circumstances other than permitted by this subsection,
d) Failed to attend a meeting of the Regulation of Practice Committee on 21 May 2009, despite being required to so attend,
e) Allowed an estimated overall deficit to arise on the client account of €58,771, as of 30 April 2009,
f) Failed to stamp deeds on time, incurring substantial interest and penalties on late stamping of deeds in question,
g) Transferred stamp duty funds to his office account from the client account, ostensibly as fees,
h) Failed to discharge third-party liabilities in two matters, amounting to €32,074,
i) Used €3,090 of the monies for third-party liabilities referred to above to pay legal costs drawers’ fees.
The tribunal ordered that the matter go forward to the High Court, and the President of the High Court, on 8 April 2013, made the following orders:
a) That the name of the respondent solicitor be struck from the Roll of Solicitors,
b) That the Society do recover the costs of the proceedings before the High Court and the costs of the proceedings before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal as against the respondent solicitor, to be taxed in default of agreement.
-
Patrick McCarthy
McCarthy & Co, Second Floor, Building 1000, City Gate, Mahon, Cork
Date of Order08/04/2013In the matter of Patrick McCarthy, solicitor, formerly practising as McCarthy & Co, Second Floor, Building 1000, City Gate, Mahon, Cork, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2011 [7748/DT120/11 and High Court record no 2013/41 SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Patrick McCarthy (respondent solicitor)
On 5 July 2012, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:
a) Failed to stamp and register a deed of conveyance in a timely manner or at all,
b) Severely prejudiced his clients by allowing interest and penalties to accrue in relation to the non-stamping of the deed,
c) Misled his clients,
d) Misled his clients’ new solicitor,
e) Failed to reply to correspondence from the Society,
f) Failed to attend a meeting of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee when required to do so.
The tribunal ordered that the matter go forward to the High Court, and the President of the High Court, on 8 April 2013, made the following orders:
a) That the name of the respondent solicitor be struck from the Roll of Solicitors,
b) That the Society do recover the costs of the proceedings before the High Court and the costs of the proceedings before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal as against the respondent solicitor, to be taxed in default of agreement.
-
Brian Johnston
Brian Johnston & Co, Solicitors, 79 Park Street, Dundalk, Co Louth
Date of Order18/02/2013In the matter of Brian Johnston, a solicitor formerly practising as Brian Johnston & Co, Solicitors, 79 Park Street, Dundalk, Co Louth and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2008 [6927/DT113/10; 6927/DT114/10; 6927/DT117/10 and High Court record no 2013/9 SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Brian Johnston (respondent solicitor)
On 31 July 2012, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:
a) 6927/DT113/10 – failed to reply adequately or at all to correspondence from the Society and, in particular, letters dated 29 May 2009, 5 August 2009, 25 September 2009, 28 October 2009, 9 February 2010 and 2 March 2010,
b) 6927/DT114/10 – failed to reply adequately or at all to correspondence from the Society and, in particular, letters dated 29 May 2009, 5 August 2009, 25 September 2009, 28 October 2009, 9 February 2010 and 2 March 2010,
c) 6927/DT117/10 – failed to reply adequately or at all to correspondence from the Society and, in particular, letters dated 29 May 2009, 5 August 2009, 25 September 2009, 9 February 2010 and 2 March 2010.
The tribunal ordered that the matters go forward to the High Court, and the President of the High Court, on 18 February 2013, made the following orders:
1) That the name of the respondent solicitor shall be struck from the Roll of Solicitors,
2) That the respondent solicitor do pay the Society the costs of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal in each of the three applications, to be taxed in default of agreement,
3) That the Society do recover the costs of the High Court proceedings against the respondent solicitor, to be taxed in default of agreement.
-
Padraig J Butler
Butler Solicitors, 10 Lower Patrick Street, Kilkenny
Date of Order28/01/2013In the matter of Padraig J Butler, solicitor, formerly practising as Butler Solicitors at 10 Lower Patrick Street, Kilkenny, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2008 [2908/DT121/11 and 2908/DT104/12]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Padraig J Butler (respondent solicitor)
On 18 October 2012, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:
a) Misappropriated substantial client monies, and
b) Failed to comply with one or more of the undertakings given by him to furnish discharge of charges in favour of a named financial institution, in respect of the properties identified in the schedule to the affidavit sworn on behalf of the Society on 31 May 2012.
The tribunal recommended that:
a) The respondent solicitor was not a fit person to be a member of the solicitors’ profession,
b) The name of the respondent solicitor be struck off the Roll of Solicitors,
c) The respondent solicitor pay the whole of the costs of the Society, to be taxed by the taxing master of the High Court in default of agreement.
On 28 January 2013, the President of the High Court ordered:
a) That the name of the respondent solicitor be struck off the Roll of Solicitors,
b) That the respondent solicitor do pay the Society the costs of the proceedings before the High Court and the costs of the proceedings before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, to be taxed in default of agreement.
-
Seamus P McConnell
Tullamore, Co Offaly
Date of Order28/01/2013In the matter of Seamus P McConnell, solicitor, of Tullamore, Co Offaly, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2008 [6626/DT83/11, 6626/DT84/11 and High Court record 2012 no 87SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Seamus P McConnell (respondent solicitor)
6626/DT83/11
On 7 June 2012, 3 July 2012 and 9 October 2012, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal sat to consider a complaint against the respondent solicitor and found that he was guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:
1) Failed to register his client’s title to a property at Lehenaghmore, Co Cork, in an identified folio in a timely manner or at all, having purchased same in 2001,
2) Failed to respond to the Society’s correspondence dated 7 January 2011, 10 May 2011, and 10 June 2011 in a timely manner or at all.
6626/DT84/11
On 7 June 2012, 3 July 2012 and 9 October 2012, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal sat to consider a complaint against the respondent solicitor and found that he was guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:
1) Failed to comply with an undertaking dated 21 April 2005 in connection with a property in Lehenaghmore, Co Cork, furnished to Bank of Ireland Mortgages, in a timely manner or at all,
2) Failed to respond to the Society’s correspondence and, in particular, the Society’s letters of 17 December 2010, 5 May 2011, and 10 June 2011 in a timely manner or at all,
3) Misled the Society in a letter dated 11 February 2011, indicating that the registration was pending and a full update would be furnished to the bank within seven days, when this was not the case.
The tribunal, having heard the two matters, directed that the Society bring the matters before the President of the High Court and, on 28 January 2013, the President of the High Court ordered:
1) That the respondent solicitor should not be permitted to practise as a sole practitioner or in partnership without the leave of the Society, 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 Society,
2) That the respondent solicitor do pay to the Society the costs of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal and of the proceedings in the High Court, to be taxed in default of agreement.
-
Brian Johnston
Brian Johnston & Co, Solicitors, 79 Park Street, Dundalk, Co Louth
Date of Order21/01/2013In the matter of Brian Johnston, a solicitor formerly practising as Brian Johnston & Co, Solicitors, 79 Park Street, Dundalk, Co Louth and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2008 [6927/DT65/10 and High Court record no 2013/1 SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Brian Johnston (respondent solicitor)
On 16 November 2012, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:
a) Failed to honour an undertaking to pay a named lending institution the net funds due to be paid by his clients by Tipperary County Council under the terms of the compulsory purchase order,
b) Failed to adequately respond to the Society’s correspondence and, in particular, letters dated 1 December 2009 and 5 January 2010 respectively.
The tribunal ordered that the matters go forward to the High Court, and the President of the High Court, on 21 January 2013, made the following orders:
1) That the name of the respondent solicitor shall be struck from the Roll of Solicitors,
2) That the Society do recover the costs of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal when taxed or ascertained,
3) That the Society do recover the costs of the High Court proceedings when taxed or ascertained.
-
Brendan MacNamara
Devitt Doorley MacNamara, The Valley, Roscrea, Co Tipperary
Date of Order21/01/2013In the matter of Brendan MacNamara, solicitor, formerly practising as a partner in the practice of Devitt Doorley MacNamara, The Valley, Roscrea, Co Tipperary, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2011 [10447/DT44/10 and High Court record no 2011 86 SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Brendan MacNamara (respondent solicitor)
On 21 July 2011, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:
a) Conducted a conveyancing transaction in relation to a named client in a manner that fell so far below what could be regarded as prudent standard conveyancing practice that his client obtained no title to the property,
b) Breached his solicitor’s undertaking to Roscrea Credit Union,
c) Left his client with a liability to repay a loan and interest to Roscrea Credit Union, notwithstanding that he obtained no title to the property that was the subject matter of the loan from the credit union,
d) Conducted a conveyancing transaction in relation to another named client in a manner that fell so far below what could be regarded as prudent standard conveyancing practice that his client obtained no title to the property,
e) Breached his solicitor’s undertaking to Bank of Ireland in respect of a loan of €170,000,
f) Left his client with a liability to repay a loan and interest to Bank of Ireland, notwithstanding that he obtained no title to the property that was the subject matter of the loan from the bank,
g) Conducted a conveyancing transaction in relation to another named client in a manner that fell so far below what could be regarded as prudent standard conveyancing practice that his client obtained no title to the property.
The tribunal made an order that the respondent solicitor:
a) Do stand censured,
b) Pay a sum of €12,000 to the compensation fund,
c) Pay the whole of the costs of the Society, including witness expenses, as taxed by a taxing master of the High Court in default of agreement.
The matter, on appeal, came before the President of the High Court on 21 January 2013. The President acceded to the Society’s appeal and ordered that:
1) The name of the respondent solicitor be struck off the Roll of Solicitors,
2) The order of the tribunal censuring the respondent solicitor and directing him to pay a sum of €12,000 to the compensation fund of the Society be rescinded,
3) The respondent solicitor pay to the Society the costs of the tribunal and the High Court proceedings, to be taxed in default of agreement.
-
Brian Johnston
Brian Johnston & Co, Solicitors, 79 Park Street, Dundalk, Co Louth
Date of Order21/01/2013In the matter of Brian Johnston, a solicitor formerly practising as Brian Johnston & Co, Solicitors, 79 Park Street, Dundalk, Co Louth and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2008 [6927/DT78/09 and High Court record no 2013/2 SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Brian Johnston (respondent solicitor)
On 16 November 2012, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:
a) Failed to comply with instructions from the bank to ensure the bank obtained good and marketable title to properties and that the bank’s security was in place,
b) Informed the bank in letters dated 14 August 2006, 15 August 2006, 18 August 2006 and 19 February 2007 that security requirements had been fulfilled, that the borrower had good marketable title to the properties over which it was anticipated that the bank would have a fixed charge, and that the bank’s security was in order, when this was not the case,
c) Failed to adequately reply to the bank and the complainant in relation to the security position of properties to which the bank had loaned approximately €7 million,
d) Failed to reply to correspondence from the Society dated 7 April 2008, 23 April 2008, 6 May 2008, 23 May 2008, 13 October 2008 and 23 October 2008,
e) Failed to comply with a direction of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee made at its meeting of 3 September 2008 to respond within 48 hours,
f) Failed to comply with a direction of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee at its meeting held on 7 October 2008 to send copies of the mortgages lodged at the Land Registry to the complainant,
g) Stated in a letter to the Society dated 29 September 2008 and to the Complaints and Client Relations Committee at its meetings held on 7 October 2008 and 11 November 2008 that deeds of charges were lodged at the Land Registry for registration, when this was not the case,
h) Failed to comply with a direction of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee made at its meeting held on 11 November 2008 to respond to the Society within 48 hours of the meeting to provide confirmation of the charges lodged in the Land Registry.
The tribunal ordered that the matters go forward to the High Court, and the President of the High Court, on 21 January 2013, made the following orders:
1) That the name of the respondent solicitor shall be struck from the Roll of Solicitors,
2) That the Society do recover the costs of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal when taxed or ascertained,
3) That the Society do recover the costs of the High Court proceedings when taxed or ascertained.
-
Greg (otherwise John G) Casey
Casey & Co, Solicitors, North Main Street, Bandon, Co Cork
Date of Order16/01/2013In the matter of Margaret AM Casey and Greg (otherwise John G) Casey, solicitors, formerly practising as Casey & Co, Solicitors, at North Main Street, Bandon, Co Cork, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2002 [8372-5355/DT41/08 and 2012 no 15 SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Margaret AM Casey (first-named respondent solicitor)
Greg (otherwise John G) Casey (second-named respondent solicitor)
On 23 November 2011, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitors guilty of misconduct in their practice as solicitors, in that they:
a) Breached the Solicitors’ Accounts Regulations, whereby they retained the sum of €25,000 of the complainant’s monies, ostensibly by way of a loan, until a further period of six weeks, pending payment of the party-and-party costs from a named county council. The party-and-party costs were paid, but the respondent solicitors did not account to the complainant for these monies or at no point have ever issued a bill of costs in respect of these monies.
b) Provided inadequate professional services, in that they failed to act on the complainant’s instructions in relation to taking an unfair dismissal action for constructive dismissal from a named employer.
c) Provided inadequate professional services, in that the respondent solicitors failed to communicate with their client:
i) Failed to communicate, in particular failure to keep the complainant advised of progress in relation to proceedings brought by a named bank over a considerable period and, in particular, the respondent solicitor and the co-respondent solicitor had not communicated with the complainant since July 2007, when both proceedings brought by the named bank and the proceedings to set aside the judgment were listed for hearing. This was apparently adjourned until October 2007, when the Society was requesting updates in regard to the above without a response to date.
ii) A cheque for €7,757.15 for interest relating to the compulsory purchase orders monies was forwarded to the co-respondent solicitor on 22 November 2004 by a local authority. He failed to forward this amount to the complainant despite requests and was obliged to obtain a replacement cheque in November 2006, subsequent to the making of the complaint to the Society.
The tribunal ordered that the matter go forward to the High Court, and the President of the High Court, on 3 December 2012, made the following orders on consent:
1) That the first-named respondent solicitor (that is, Margaret AM Casey) not be permitted to practise as a sole practitioner or in partnership; that she 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 Society,
2) That there be no order for costs made against the first-named respondent solicitor.
On 16 January 2013, the President of the High Court made the following orders:
1) That the name of the second-named respondent solicitor (that is, Greg (otherwise John G) Casey) shall be struck off the Roll of Solicitors,
2) That the Society do recover the costs of the High Court proceedings and the costs of the proceedings before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal as against the second-named respondent, to be taxed in default of agreement.
-
Greg (otherwise John G) Casey
Casey & Co, Solicitors, at North Main Street, Bandon, Co Cork
Date of Order16/01/2013In the matter of Greg (otherwise John G) Casey, formerly practising in the solicitors’ firm of Casey & Co, Solicitors, at North Main Street, Bandon, Co Cork, and in the matter of Mairead Casey, a solicitor formerly practising as the principal of the solicitors’ firm of Casey & Co, Solicitors, at North Main Street, Bandon, Co Cork, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2002 [5355-8372/DT104/08 and 2012 no 76 SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Greg (otherwise John G) Casey (first-named respondent solicitor)
Mairead Casey (second-named respondent solicitor)
On 27 June 2012, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the first-named respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:
a) Misrepresented to a lending institution, in an undertaking given to that lending institution on his own behalf, dated 4 October 2001, that he was a partner in the practice of Casey & Co, Solicitors,
b) Subsequently failed to comply with his undertaking to the bank, in that he failed to complete the legal formalities in relation to the purchase of the property concerned so as to ensure that the bank obtained a good marketable title to the property free from any encumbrances,
c) He further failed to comply with his undertaking, in that he failed to secure that the bank obtained a valid first legal mortgage or charge on the property,
d) Failed to reply to multiple correspondence from the bank.
On 27 June 2012, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the second-named respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in her practice as a solicitor in that she failed to supervise the first-named respondent solicitor, in that he gave the relevant undertaking to the bank without her knowledge.
The tribunal ordered that the matters go forward to the High Court, and the President of the High Court, on 3 December 2012, made the following orders on consent:
1) That the second-named respondent solicitor (Mairead Casey) not be permitted to practise as a sole practitioner or in partnership; that she 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 Society,
2) That there be no order for costs made against the second-named respondent solicitor.
On 16 January 2013, the President of the High Court made the following orders:
1) That the name of the first-named respondent solicitor (that is, Greg (otherwise John G) Casey) shall be struck off the Roll of Solicitors,
2) That the Society do recover the costs of the High Court proceedings and the costs of the proceedings before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal as against the first-named respondent, to be taxed in default of agreement.
-
Pamela Wall
8 Carmody Street, Ennis, Co Clare
Date of Order10/12/2012In the matter of Pamela Wall, solicitor, formerly of 8 Carmody Street, Ennis, Co Clare, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2008 [6728/DT88/11 and 2012 no 75 SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Pamela Wall (respondent solicitor)
On 10 July 2012, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in her practice as a solicitor in that she:
1) Failed to maintain proper books of account in respect of her practice, insofar as books were not kept written up to date, transfers between ledger accounts were back-dated, and some ledger accounts did not show the true financial position, in breach of regulation 12,
2) Failed to maintain books of account sufficient to allow the true clients’ funds position in her practice to be determined at the time of the Society’s inspections in December 2007 and February 2008,
3) Caused or allowed clients’ moneys of €312,429 to be improperly lodged to an account that was not designated as a client account, in breach of regulation 4, and instead caused or allowed the money to be held in a joint account bearing her name and that of a person who worked in her office,
4) Improperly caused or allowed the Society’s investigating accountant to be presented with in or about 23 section 68(1) letters, which were created after notification of the investigation issued in July 2007 but which were backdated to dates between 12 September 2005 and 14 March 2007, thereby giving the misleading appearance of compliance with section 68(1),
5) Improperly caused or allowed up to €651 of clients’ money from a named client ledger account to be drawn to the office account by way of transfers on 29 September 2005 and 10 November 2005,
6) Improperly caused or allowed in or about €111.04 of client’s money, which was received to pay for outlay, to be transferred from a named client ledger account to the office account on 10 November 2005, which money was not disbursed for outlay,
7) Improperly caused or allowed €8,000 of clients’ monies to be drawn from the client account to the office account on 19 December 2005, creating a debit balance of €8,000 on a named client ledger account, in breach of regulation 7,
8) Improperly caused or allowed €140,500 to be drawn from a named client ledger account in round sum amounts from in or about 3 January 2006 to 28 July 2006 without having issued bills of costs or interim bills of costs to the client, in breach of regulation 11,
9) Improperly caused or allowed clients’ money of €4,367.50 to be drawn from the client account to the office account on 4 September 2006, causing debit balances of €4,367.50 on three clients’ ledger accounts, in breach of regulation 7,
10) Improperly caused or allowed up to €4,748 of clients’ money received from deposits in sales to be drawn to the office account on 4 September 2006,
11) Improperly caused or allowed €4,098.59 to be drawn from the client account to the office account on 15 September 2006, causing debit balances on the clients’ ledger accounts, in breach of regulation 7,
12) Improperly caused or allowed €1,439.78 of clients’ money to be drawn from the client account to the office account on 21 November 2006, causing a debit balance of €1,439.78 on a named client ledger account, in breach of regulation 7,
13) Improperly caused or allowed €3,000 of clients’ money to be drawn from the client account to the office account on 30 November 2006 and the debit balance on a named clients’ ledger account to increase to €4,439.78, in breach of regulation 7,
14) Improperly caused or allowed €1,075.50 of clients’ money to be drawn from the client account to the office account on 5 December 2006 and the debit balance on a named clients’ ledger account to increase to €5,515.28, in breach of regulation 7,
15) Improperly caused or allowed €5,000 of clients’ money to be drawn from the client account to the office account on 5 January 2007, increasing the debit balance on the deposit interest account in the clients’ ledger to €8,383.54, in breach of regulation 7,
16) Improperly caused or allowed €6,955 of a named clients’ money to be lodged to the office account over a period from 15 August 2005 to 5 December 2005,
17) Caused or allowed debit balances in the clients’ ledger account and moneys to be incorrectly transferred to the office account, totalling €52,325.57 as at 30 May 2007,
18) Drew various round sum amounts totalling €148,500 from client account to office account over a period from December 2005 to July 2006, which were debited to a named clients’ ledger account with no supporting documentation in the client’s files, in breach of regulation 12,
19) Improperly caused or allowed monies to be drawn as fees from a named clients’ ledger account for work that had not yet been carried out,
20) Furnished the Registrar of Solicitors with false or misleading information in a written response in October 2007 concerning a total of in or about €47,000 drawn from a named clients’ ledger account, when she stated that the monies drawn were the repayment of a loan given to the named client by the respondent solicitor and her parents,
21) Caused or allowed false or misleading documentation to be created and retained on a named client file, namely a file memo dated 9 August 2005 stating that there was “a sum of €20,000 due to [named persons] re an historic loan” and “a sum of €30,000 due to P Wall re an historic loan”; a receipt stating that the amount of €19,810 drawn from the client account was the repayment of a loan; and a receipt stating that the amount of €27,150 drawn from the client account was the repayment of a loan,
22) Improperly caused or allowed transfers between clients’ ledger accounts of €5,833.30 and €19,810.53 to be backdated in the books of account from in or after April 2007 to September and October 2006, having the effect of concealing debit balances on a named clients’ ledger account,
23) Improperly caused or allowed transfers between ledger accounts of €10,000 and €15,000 to be backdated in the books of account from in or after April 2007 to 7 November 2006 and 13 November 2006,
24) Improperly caused or allowed €5,942.36 of clients’ money to be taken from the client account for her own benefit on 30 July 2007, when she caused a debit balance of that amount on a named clients’ ledger account, in breach of regulation 7,
25) Improperly caused or allowed €20,000 of clients’ money to be drawn from the client account on 28 January 2003 and created a debit balance in that amount on a named client ledger account, in breach of regulation 7, according to the books of account maintained by the respondent as detailed in the investigation report of 17 January 2008,
26) Improperly caused or allowed €25,394.76 of clients’ money to be drawn from the client account on 11 March 2003 and created a debit balance in that amount on a named client ledger account, in breach of regulation 7, according to the books of account maintained by the respondent as detailed in the investigation report of 17 January 2008,
27) Improperly caused or allowed monies to be drawn from a deposit in a sale received in a named client’s estate, causing a deficit of €18,668 on the client account on 30 June 2007,
28) Caused or allowed €32,991.21 to be drawn from client account to office account in the matter of a named clients’ estate, in circumstances where her costs amounted to only €27,030.40 according to the executor’s account, and thereby improperly caused clients’ money of in or about €5,960.81 to be drawn to the office account,
29) Improperly caused or allowed the recording of a figure of €145,200 for costs in a client matter to be backdated by in or about ten months on the debit side of the office ledger,
30) Improperly caused or allowed a debit balance of €13,851.61 on a named client ledger account, in breach of regulation 7, according to the books of account maintained by the respondent as detailed in the investigation report of 17 January 2008, over the period from 27 February 2001 to 7 December 2001, which debit balance included €7,259.73 of other clients’ moneys drawn to the office account as fees,
31) Improperly failed to maintain any or adequate documentation in the clients’ files to enable drawings of fees from a named client ledger account to be appropriately vouched,
32) Improperly caused or allowed a debit balance on a named client ledger account of €48,757.94 on 28 August 2002 and a debit balance of €47,814.10 on 22 May 2003, which increased to €76,846.84 on 20 June 2003, in breach of regulation 7, according to the books of account maintained by the respondent as detailed in the investigation report of 17 January 2008,
33) Improperly caused or allowed a debit balance on a client ledger account in her name of €1,234.02 between 23 October 2002 and 15 April 2003, in breach of regulation 7, which debit balance was concealed by a credit entry incorrectly dated 15 April 2002,
34) Failed to disclose relevant documentation during the investigation in December 2007, namely ledger cards for a named client,
35) Caused or allowed €14,520 of clients’ money to be incorrectly drawn from client account to office account in a named clients’ estate in May 2007, creating a deficit of €14,520 in the estate ledger account, which was cleared on or about 27 August 2007,
36) Caused or allowed two section 68(1) letters to be created in respect of a named client’s estate on 4 September 2007, two days before the Society’s investigation commenced, which were backdated to 24 November 2006 and placed on the client file between documents dated 22 November 2006 and 22 December 2006, thereby misleadingly appearing to have been created in November 2006,
37) Improperly caused or allowed a net debit balance to arise on a named clients’ ledger accounts over a period, which amounted to €49,441.63 at 30 April 2002, according to the books of account maintained by her as detailed in the investigation report of 13 March 2008,
38) Improperly caused or allowed IR£5,000 of clients’ money to be drawn from the client account on 17 May 2001 and created a debit balance in that amount on a named client ledger account, in breach of regulation 7(2)(a), according to the books of account maintained by her as detailed in the investigation report of 13 March 2008,
39) Improperly caused or allowed €19,001.81 of clients’ money from a named client ledger account to be transferred from the client account to the office account on or about 11 February 2002, as part of a sum of €20,000, as detailed in the investigation report of 13 March 2008,
40) Improperly used clients’ money of IR£4,668.05 on 13 September 2000, when she paid a client account cheque for IR£5,250 to named piano retailers and caused a debit balance on her account in the clients’ ledger, in breach of regulation 7(2)(a), according to the books of account maintained by the respondent as detailed in the investigation report of 13 March 2008,
41) Improperly caused or allowed the net debit balance on her clients’ ledger accounts to increase from IR£4,668.05 to IR£12,668.05 on 18 September 2000, according to the books of account maintained by the respondent as detailed in the investigation report of 13 March 2008,
42) Misleadingly sent to a named client and a named bank in November 2001 a schedule of monies stating that she was holding a balance of IR£2,186.26 at that date, when the clients’ ledger account showed a debit balance of IR£10,909.03 at that date,
43) Misleadingly informed a named bank in writing on 18 May 2004 that she was holding a balance of €73,000 relating to a named client, when some or all of that money had already been drawn to the office account, in breach of the regulations,
44) Caused or allowed €72,912 to be drawn as fees from a named client ledger account to the office account without furnishing bill(s) of costs in accordance with regulation 11,
45) Improperly caused or allowed a total of €114,154.87 to be drawn from a named clients’ ledger account in circumstances where the final bill of costs subsequently prepared in respect of that client, dated September 2008, only totalled €99,201.59 – a difference of €14,953.28,
46) Caused or allowed a deficit on the client account of in or about €3,918.49 at 30 April 2001, as per the books of account detailed in the investigation report of 20 May 2008,
47) Failed to ensure that debit balances of in or about €20,624.05 that she caused or allowed to arise over a period of months leading up to 29 April 2001 were disclosed as a breach of the regulations in the accountant’s report for year ended 30 April 2001,
48) Caused or allowed debit balances to arise on her account in the clients’ ledger of in or about €13,769.48 at 29 April 2001, €4,804.69 in November 2000 and €9,989.19 in January 2001, in breach of regulation 7, as per the books of account detailed in the investigation report of 20 May 2008,
49) Caused or allowed a deficit of at least in or about €23,938.39 in the client account at 30 April 2002, as per the books of account detailed in the investigation report of 20 May 2008,
50) Improperly caused or allowed a round sum transfer of IR£10,000 to be made from the client account to the office account on 21 September 2001, which led to debit balances on the following accounts, in breach of regulation 7(2)(a): €279.47 on a named client ledger account, €385.85 on another named client ledger account, €177.78 on another named client ledger account, €759.30 on another named client ledger account, €1,767.48 on another named client ledger account, and €261.16 on another named client ledger account, as per the books of account detailed in the investigation report of 20 May 2008,
51) Caused or allowed a deficit of in or about €68,511.98 in the client account at 30 April 2003, as per the books of account detailed in the investigation report of 20 May 2008,
52) Improperly caused or allowed debit balances totalling at least in or about €111,557.53 and up to in or about €115,569.96 in the clients’ ledger at 30 April 2004, in breach of regulation 7(2)(a), as per the books of account detailed in the investigation report of 20 May 2008,
53) Improperly caused or allowed €10,000 of clients’ money to be drawn from the client account to the office account on 6 May 2003, as per the books of account detailed in the investigation report of 20 May 2008,
54) Improperly caused or allowed €10,000 of clients’ money to be drawn from the client account to the office account on 12 May 2003, as per the books of account detailed in the investigation report of 20 May 2008,
55) Improperly caused or allowed €6,050 of clients’ money to be drawn from the client account to the office account on 20 May 2003, as per the books of account detailed in the investigation report of 20 May 2008,
56) Caused or allowed a deficit on the client account of in or about €26,086 at 31 March 2005,
57) Improperly caused or allowed debit balances of in or about €99,843 to arise in the clients’ ledger in the period up to 31 March 2005,
58) Improperly left client liabilities of in or about €26,086 unpaid as at 31 March 2005, when her then practice ceased with no remaining monies in her client account,
59) Improperly caused or allowed monies totalling in or about €146,956.99 to be drawn from a named client ledger account, in breach of the regulations, without having issued bills of costs, as per the books of account detailed in the investigation report of 20 May 2008.
The tribunal ordered that the matter go forward to the High Court, and the President of the High Court, on 10 December 2012, made the following orders by consent:
1) The respondent solicitor be suspended from practising as a solicitor indefinitely,
2) The respondent do pay the Society’s agreed costs of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal proceedings,
3) The respondent do pay the Society’s agreed costs of the High Court proceedings,
4) Liberty to both parties to apply in respect of the question of costs.
-
Gabrielle M Dalton
Gabrielle Dalton & Associates, 21 Otteran Place, South Parade, Waterford
Date of Order08/10/2012In the matter of Gabrielle M Dalton, a solicitor formerly practising under the style and title of Gabrielle Dalton & Associates, 21 Otteran Place, South Parade, Waterford, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2008 [S5330/DT06/11 and 2012 no 64SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Gabrielle M Dalton (respondent solicitor)
On 2 February 2012, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in her practice as a solicitor in that she:
a) Caused or allowed a deficit to arise on her client account as at 31 March 2008,
b) Caused or allowed monies totalling in or about €68,970 to be improperly withdrawn from the client account between 15 November 2007 and 30 January 2008, in breach of regulation 7 of the Solicitors’ Accounts Regulations 2001 by posting fees in that amount to the ‘dummy’ ledger card and drawing same to the office account,
c) Caused or allowed a deficit to arise on her client account totalling in or about €68,970 as of 30 January 2008 as a result of the drawing of fees through the ‘dummy’ ledger card,
d) Caused or allowed monies totalling in or about €27,830 to be improperly transferred from the client account to the office account between 3 April 2008 and 21 April 2008, in breach of regulation 7,
e) Failed to maintain accounting records that showed the true financial position in relation to her transactions with the client monies of a named company, in breach of regulation 12,
f) Failed to maintain accounting records that showed the true financial position in relation to her transactions with the client monies of a different named company, in breach of regulation 12,
g) Failed to draw professional fees in the client matters of a named client company in accordance with the regulations,
h) Improperly drew fees totalling in or about €8,711 from the client monies of a named client, received in the purchase of an apartment in Kilkenny, in breach of regulation 7,
i) Improperly caused or allowed fees of €8,772 to be drawn twice in a named client matter,
j) Failed to maintain accounting records that showed the true financial position in relation to her transactions with the client monies of a named client, in breach of regulation 12,
k) Caused or allowed fees to be improperly drawn from the client account on 1 October 2007 by debiting fees totalling €3,630 (€1,815 plus €1,815) to the client ledger accounts of two named clients, where there were no funds available in the client ledger accounts at that date,
l) Caused or allowed fees to be improperly drawn from the client account on 21 June 2007 by debiting fees of in or about €1,028 to the client ledger account of a named client, when there were no funds available at that date on the client ledger,
m) Failed to complete stamping of the deed in the matter of a named client in a timely manner,
n) Caused or allowed a deficit to arise on her client account as at 31 May 2008 and at 4 June 2008,
o) Caused or allowed a deficit on the client accounts as at 31 May 2008, in respect of a named client, of in or about €101,604,
p) Caused or allowed a further deficit on the client accounts as at 31 May 2008, in respect of other client matters, of in or about €44,671,
q) Misappropriated client funds of a named client in the amount of €30,539 from monies of €44,355 received to pay stamp duty, Land Registry fees and outlay in respect of the purchase of a premises in Waterford,
r) Misappropriated client funds of a named client in the amount of in or about €8,711 received to pay stamp duty, outlays and Land Registry fees in respect of the purchase of an apartment in Kilkenny,
s) Failed to stamp the purchase deeds of clients, despite having been put in funds of in or about €5,332 to do so, and instead drew fees from the amount received so that there were insufficient funds remaining to complete stamping,
t) Demonstrated a gross disregard for client funds,
u) Failed to maintain proper books of account, in breach of regulation 12 of the 2001 regulations, over a continued period of time and, in particular, from in or about November 2007 to November 2008 such that it was not possible to determine from her accounting records a true and accurate statement of client affairs,
v) Breached regulation 7 by withdrawing monies from the client account that were not properly available to be so withdrawn in accordance with the provisions of that regulation,
w) Caused or allowed debit balances to arise on client ledger accounts in breach of regulation 7(2),
x) Transferred monies between clients’ ledger accounts other than in circumstances permitted by the regulations, in breach of regulation 9,
y) Failed to maintain and keep in respect of transfers between clients’ ledger accounts such accounting records and other documents as would enable such transactions to be appropriately vouched, in breach of regulation 9(a),
z) Breached regulation 11 by failing to furnish bills of costs to clients prior to drawing fees.
The tribunal ordered that the matter go forward to the President of the High Court, and the President of the High Court, on 8 October 2012, made an order striking the name of the respondent solicitor from the Roll of Solicitors and ordering that the respondent solicitor pay the costs of the Society, to be taxed in default of agreement.
-
Jacqueline M Durcan
Durcans Solicitors, 1 Hazel Grove, Spencer Park, Castlebar, Co Mayo
Date of Order08/10/2012In the matter of Jacqueline M Durcan, solicitor, formerly practising as Durcans Solicitors, 1 Hazel Grove, Spencer Park, Castlebar, Co Mayo, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2008 [7083/DT86/11 and 2012 no 70 SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Jacqueline M Durcan (respondent solicitor)
On 12 July 2012, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in her practice as a solicitor in that she:
a) Failed to comply with an undertaking given by her on 5 July 2005, in respect of named clients over properties in Co Mayo, to AIB Bank plc expeditiously or within a reasonable time or at all, whereby she, among other things, undertook to stamp and register the documents of title to give AIB Bank plc a first legal mortgage/charge over the properties and to forward documents of title and certificates of title to AIB Bank plc duly registered,
b) Failed to correspond adequately or at all to the complainant’s correspondence, in particular letters dated 23 April 2009 and 1 September 2009,
c) Failed to respond adequately to the Society’s correspondence, in particular letters dated 16 March 2010, 31 March 2010, 23 April 2010, 10 May 2010, 31 May 2010, 28 June 2010, 27 July 2010, 3 August 2010, 12 August 2010, 27 September 2010, 26 October 2010 and 29 October 2010,
d) Failed to comply adequately or at all with the directions of the committee meeting on 26 May 2010.
The tribunal ordered that the matter go forward to the High Court and, on 8 October 2012, the President of the High Court made the following orders:
a) That the name of the respondent solicitor shall be struck from the Roll of Solicitors,
b) That the Society do recover the costs of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal proceedings, to include witness expenses and the costs of the High Court application against the respondent, to be taxed in default of agreement.
-
Noel Brennan
Joy Brennan & Company, Solicitors, 1 New Quay, Clonmel, Co Tipperary
Date of Order23/07/2012In the matter of Noel Brennan, a solicitor formerly practising as a partner in Joy Brennan & Company, Solicitors, at 1 New Quay, Clonmel, Co Tipperary, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2008 [4028/DT21/11 and 2012 no 62SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Noel Brennan (respondent solicitor)
On 24 April 2012, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:
a) Improperly retained substantial fees in the client account, in breach of regulation 5(2), and avoided tax thereon until the matter was rectified after the Society’s investigation in June 2007,
b) In the case of a named client, transferred €22,097.72 to the office account in circumstances where €19,427 of the said monies was received to pay stamp duty,
c) In the course of acting for a named client, delayed in stamping a deed on which the stamp duty was €19,427 from in or about 2001 until after the Society’s investigation was completed in June 2007,
d) Transferred to the office account, in the case of a named client, monies received for Land Registry fees,
e) Was in serious delay in registering the transfer of properties purchased by a named client in 1997 and in 2001, in that the transfers were not registered at the time of the completion of the investigation report in June 2007,
f) Caused or allowed a deed to be updated from December 2003 to December 2005 while in the course of acting for a named client in the transfer of property to him, thereby avoiding interest and penalty on the stamp duty amount of €5,400,
g) Improperly caused or allowed the sum of €170,800 to be misapplied from the client account in May 2003 for the benefit of a named client, when there was no money to his credit in the client account to cover the payment, in breach of regulation 7(1)(a),
h) Failed to reimburse monies referred to at (g) above to the client account until in or about June 2006,
i) Failed to maintain the relevant ledger account card for the named client at (a) above, in breach of regulation 12(3)(a),
j) Maintained inaccurate listings of clients’ ledger balances at the balancing dates of 30 June 2004 and 31 December 2004, which did not show the sum of €170,800 referred to at (g) above as a debit balance,
k) Improperly caused or allowed the sum of €50,000 to be paid from the client account to a builder in October 2004, on foot of the respondent solicitor’s personal liability to the builder, in breach of regulation 7(2)(b),
l) Caused or allowed the updating of a deed in relation to a named client in the purchase of property, thereby avoiding interest and penalties for late stamping of the deed,
m) Caused or allowed the updating of a deed in relation to two other named clients in the purchase of property, thereby avoiding interest and penalties for late stamping of the deed,
n) Caused or allowed the updating of a deed in relation to another two named clients in the purchase of property, thereby avoiding interest and penalties for late stamping of the deed,
o) Caused or allowed the updating of a deed in relation to another named client in the purchase of property, thereby avoiding interest and penalties for late stamping of the deed,
p) Caused or allowed the updating of a deed in relation to another named client in the purchase of property, thereby avoiding interest and penalties for late stamping of the deed,
q) Caused or allowed the updating of a deed in relation to another named client in the purchase of property, thereby avoiding interest and penalties for late stamping of the deed,
r) Caused or allowed the updating of a deed in relation to another named client in the purchase of property, thereby avoiding interest and penalties for late stamping of the deed,
s) Caused or allowed the updating of a deed in relation to another two named clients in the purchase of property, thereby avoiding interest and penalties for late stamping of the deed,
t) Caused or allowed the updating of a deed in relation to another named client in the purchase of property, thereby avoiding interest and penalties for late stamping of the deed,
u) Caused or allowed the updating of two deeds in relation to another named client in the purchase of property, thereby avoiding interest and penalties for late stamping of the deeds,
v) Caused or allowed the updating of a deed in relation to another named client in the purchase of property, thereby avoiding interest and penalties for late stamping of the deed,
w) Caused or allowed the updating of a deed in relation to another named client in the purchase of property, thereby avoiding interest and penalties for late stamping of the deed,
x) In the course of acting for both a named vendor and the named purchasers, in a property transaction that closed in April 2006, was in delay in stamping the deed, which was not stamped until after the investigation was completed in June 2007,
y) Breached regulation 7(1)(a)(iii) by transferring to the office account the balance of €3,900 on a named client ledger account without furnishing to the clients a bill of costs,
z) Caused or allowed his reporting accountant to submit unqualified accountant’s reports for the years ended 31 December 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004, in circumstances where he knew or ought to have known that such reports should have been qualified.
The tribunal ordered that the matter go forward to the President of the High Court, and the President of the High Court on 23 July 2012 made an order striking the name of the respondent solicitor from the Roll of Solicitors and ordered that the respondent solicitor pay the costs of the Society, to be taxed in default of agreement.
-
Noel Brennan
Joy Brennan & Company, Solicitors, 1 New Quay, Clonmel, Co Tipperary
Date of Order23/07/2012In the matter of Noel Brennan, a solicitor formerly practising as a partner in Joy Brennan & Company, Solicitors, at 1 New Quay, Clonmel, Co Tipperary, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2008 [4028/DT22/11 and 2012 no 62SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Noel Brennan (respondent solicitor)
On 24 April 2012, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:
a) Failed to comply with his undertaking to Bank of Scotland (Ireland) in respect of clients identified in the proceedings,
b) Failed to comply with his undertaking to Bank of Ireland Mortgage Bank in respect of clients identified in the proceedings,
c) Failed to comply with his undertaking to ICS Building Society in respect of a client identified in the proceedings,
d) Failed to comply with his undertaking to Bank of Ireland in respect of a client identified in the proceedings,
e) Failed to comply with his undertaking to National Irish Bank in respect of a client identified in the proceedings,
f) Failed to comply with his undertaking to Ulster Bank in respect of clients identified in the proceedings,
g) Failed to comply with his undertaking to Allied Irish Bank in respect of clients identified in the proceedings,
h) Failed to comply with his undertaking to Permanent TSB in respect of clients identified in the proceedings,
i) Failed to comply with his undertaking to ACC Bank in respect of clients identified in the proceedings,
j) Failed to act properly or at all in or about the purchase of property for a named client,
k) In the course of acting for a named client in the purchase of property at Urlingford, Co Kilkenny, obtained funds from Ulster Bank on foot of an undertaking dated 16 December 2005, but failed to perfect the bank’s security, in breach of his undertaking,
l) In the course of acting for a named client in the purchase of property at Clonmel, obtained funds from Ulster Bank on foot of an undertaking dated 16 December 2005, but failed to perfect the bank’s security, in breach of his undertaking,
m) In the course of acting for a named client in the purchase of property in Clonmel, obtained funds from First Active on foot of an undertaking dated 10 June 2005, but failed to perfect the bank’s security, in breach of his undertaking,
n) In the course of acting for a named client in the purchase of property at Moangariff, obtained funds from National Irish Bank on foot of undertakings in November 2002 and April 2008, but failed to perfect the bank’s security, in breach of his undertaking,
o) In the course of acting for a named client in the purchase of a property in Clonmel, obtained funds from Permanent TSB on foot of an undertaking dated 5 June 2007, but failed to perfect the bank’s security, in breach of his undertaking,
p) In the course of acting for a named client in the purchase of property in Clonmel, obtained funds from ACC Bank on foot of an undertaking, but failed to perfect the bank’s security, in breach of his undertaking,
q) In the course of acting for a named client in the purchase of a property in Stillorgan, obtained funds from Bank of Ireland Mortgage Bank on foot of an undertaking, but failed to perfect the bank’s security, in breach of his undertaking,
r) In the course of acting for a named client in the purchase of a property in Pembroke Square, obtained funds from Bank of Ireland on foot of an undertaking, but failed to perfect the bank’s security, in breach of his undertaking,
s) In the course of acting for a named client in the purchase of a named property, obtained funds from Bank of Ireland Mortgage Bank on foot of an undertaking, but failed to perfect the bank’s security, in breach of his undertaking,
t) In the course of acting for a named client in the purchase of a named property, obtained funds from Ulster Bank on foot of an undertaking, but failed to perfect the bank’s security, in breach of his undertaking,
u) In the course of acting for named clients in the purchase of a property at Burgess Court, obtained funds from IIB Homeloans on foot of an undertaking, but failed to perfect the bank’s security, in breach of his undertaking,
v) In the course of acting for a named client in the purchase of a property at Fitton Street, obtained funds from Bank of Ireland on foot of an undertaking, but failed to perfect the bank’s security, in breach of his undertaking,
w) In the course of acting in respect of named clients in the purchase of a property at Kilsheelin, obtained funds from National Irish Bank on foot of an undertaking, but failed to perfect the bank’s security, in breach of his undertaking.
The tribunal ordered that the matter go forward to the President of the High Court, and the President of the High Court on 23 July 2012 made an order striking the name of the respondent solicitor from the Roll of Solicitors and ordered that the respondent solicitor pay the costs of the Law Society of Ireland, to be taxed in default of agreement.
-
Katherine MA Ryan
Ryan & Company, 42 Woodley Park, Kilmacud, Dublin 14
Date of Order26/03/2012In the matter of Katherine MA Ryan, a solicitor formerly practising under the style and title of Ryan & Company at 42 Woodley Park, Kilmacud, Dublin 14, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2008 [6970/DT35/10; 6970/DT75/10; 6970/DT76/10; 6970/DT110/10; 6970/DT124/10 and High Court record no 2012 no 21SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Katherine MA Ryan (respondent solicitor)
6970/DT35/10
On 13 October 2011, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in her practice as a solicitor in that she:
a) Failed to ensure that there was furnished to the Society an accountant’s report for the year ended 30 April 2009 within six months of that date, in breach of regulation 21(1) of the Solicitors’ Accounts Regulations 2001 (SI 421 of 2001),
b) Through her conduct, showed disregard for her 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.
6970/DT75/10
On 13 October 2011, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in her practice as a solicitor in that she:
a) Failed to comply with an undertaking given to the complainant’s bank on 30 November 2006 in a timely manner,
b) Failed to reply adequately and in a timely fashion or at all to the Society’s correspondence and, in particular, the Society’s letters of 28 July 2009, 18 August 2009, 2 September 2009, 1 October 2009, and 25 February 2010,
c) Failed to comply with the direction of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee made at its meeting on 30 September 2009 that she make a contribution of €550 towards the costs incurred by the Society as a result of her failure to communicate.
6970/DT76/10
On 13 October 2011, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in her practice as a solicitor in that she:
a) Delayed in the payment of stamp duty given to her by the complainant on 14 September 2007,
b) Failed to respond to the Society’s correspondence and, in particular, the Society’s letters of 21 September 2009, 8 October 2009, 29 October 2009 and 23 February 2010 in a timely manner or at all,
c) Failed to attend at a meeting of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee on 25 March 2010, despite being required to do so by letter dated 10 March 2010.
6970/DT110/10
On 13 October 2011, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in her practice as a solicitor in that she:
a) Failed to complete the conveyancing work for which she had been paid and, in particular, to stamp and register the title documentation for the complainants in respect of four named properties in Dublin in a timely manner or at all,
b) Misled the Complaints and Client Relations Committee at their meeting on 9 October 2009 by indicating to the committee that she had handed over the complainants’ file to another solicitor with their consent, when this was not the case,
c) Failed to respond to the Society’s correspondence and, in particular, the Society’s letters of 30 July 2009, 17 August 2009, and 2 September 2009 in a timely manner or at all,
d) Failed to attend the Complaints and Client Relations Committee meeting of 29 April 2010, despite being required to attend,
e) Continued to hold monies paid to her by the complainants for stamp duty/registration fees, despite the fact that she held no practising certificate.
6970/DT124/10
On 13 October 2011, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in her practice as a solicitor in that she:
a) Failed to comply with the direction in a timely manner or at all made by the Complaints and Client Relations Committee at its meeting on 10 July 2009 that she refund all professional fees and undischarged outlay paid by the complainant within 21 days,
b) Failed to comply in a timely manner with the direction of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee made on 10 July 2009 that she furnish all of the complainant’s files over to his new solicitor, having only furnished those files to the Society at the meeting of 9 October 2009,
c) Brought the profession into disrepute by recklessly disregarding the interests of her client.
Having heard these five matters, the tribunal recommended that the matter be sent forward to the President of the High Court and, in proceedings record number 2012 no 21SA, the President of the High Court on 26 March 2012 made an order:
a) That the name of the respondent solicitor shall be struck from the Roll of Solicitors,
b) That the respondent solicitor make restitution to the Society in respect of any payments made by the Society from the compensation fund in respect of the solicitor’s practice,
c) That the Society do recover the costs of the High Court proceedings and the costs of the proceedings before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal as against the respondent when taxed or ascertained.
-
Katherine MA Ryan
Ryan & Company, 42 Woodley Park, Kilmacud, Dublin 14
Date of Order26/03/2012In the matter of Katherine MA Ryan, a solicitor formerly practising under the style and title of Ryan & Company, Solicitors, at 42 Woodley Park, Kilmacud, Dublin 14, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2008 [6970/DT77/10; 6970/DT78/10; 6970/DT111/10; 6970/DT120/10; 6970/DT121/10 and High Court record no 2012 no 22SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Katherine MA Ryan (respondent solicitor)
6970/DT77/10
On 25 October 2011, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in her practice as a solicitor in that she:
a) Failed to furnish evidence that she had stamped and registered her client’s title to the property at Amiens Street, Dublin 1, which he purchased in 2006, in a timely manner or at all,
b) Failed to return the deeds relating to that property to the complainant’s bank in a timely manner or at all,
c) Failed to respond to the Society’s letter of 23 February 2010 in a timely manner or at all,
d) Failed to attend the meeting of the Complaints and Client Relations committee on 25 March 2010, despite being required to do so by letter dated 10 March 2010.
6970/DT78/10
On 25 October 2011, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in her practice as a solicitor in that she:
a) Failed to comply with an undertaking given to the complainant bank on 22 September 2004 in a timely manner or at all,
b) Failed to reply adequately and in a timely manner to the Society’s correspondence and, in particular, the Society’s letters of 24 July 2009 and 29 September 2009 in a timely manner or at all,
c) Failed to comply with the direction of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee made at its meeting on 20 October 2009 that she make a contribution of €550 towards the costs incurred by the Society as a result of her failure to respond to its correspondence.
6970/DT111/10
On 25 October 2011, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in her practice as a solicitor in that she:
a) Failed to respond to the Society’s letter of 23 February 2010,
b) Failed to attend the meeting of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee on 25 March, despite being required to do so by letter dated 10 March 2010.
6970/DT120/10
On 25 October 2011, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in her practice as a solicitor in that she:
a) Failed to comply with the direction of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee made at its meeting on 29 May 2009 that she furnish a progress report and vouching documentation in relation to the complaint within ten days and a further progress report by 26 June 2009,
b) Failed to comply in full, in a timely fashion or at all with the direction of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee made at its meeting on 10 July 2009 to refund all professional fees paid by the client to the solicitor within 21 days,
c) Failed to attend the Complaints and Client Relations Committee meeting of 29 March 2010, despite being required to do so,
d) Failed to reply to the Society’s correspondence in a timely manner or at all and, in particular, letters of 9 July 2008, 24 July 2008, 26 July 2008, 17 September 2008, 15 October 2008, 6 November 2008, 5 December 2008, 7 January 2009, 6 March 2009, 30 March 2009, 23 April 2009 and 23 February 2010.
6970/DT121/10
On 25 October 2011, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in her practice as a solicitor in that she:
a) Failed to advise the complainant that her case was statute barred and led the complainant to believe that proceedings were in being and that her case was being processed,
b) Sought instructions from the complainant on a settlement offer without informing the complainant that she, the solicitor, was the source of this offer,
c) Failed to attend the meeting of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee on 10 June 2010, despite being required to do so,
d) By her reckless disregard for the interests of her client, brought the profession into disrepute.
Having heard these five matters, the tribunal recommended that the matter be sent forward to the President of the High Court and, in proceedings record number 2012 no 22SA, the President of the High Court on 26 March 2012 made an order:
a) That the name of the respondent solicitor shall be struck from the Roll of Solicitors,
b) That the Law Society do recover the costs of the High Court proceedings and the costs of the proceedings before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal as against the respondent when taxed or ascertained.
-
William J (otherwise Liam) Davis
William J Davis & Co, Solicitors, 14 Herbert Street, Dublin 2
Date of Order27/02/2012In the matter of William J Davis (otherwise Liam), solicitor, of William J Davis & Co, Solicitors, 14 Herbert Street, Dublin 2, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2008 [4399/DT34/09 and High Court record 2012 no 5SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
William J Davis (respondent solicitor)
On 30 July 2009, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:
1) Breached regulation 21(1) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations (SI 421 of 2001) in failing to ensure that there was furnished to the Society an accountant’s report covering his financial year ended 30 November 2006 within six months thereafter, that is, by 31 May 2007,
2) Through his conduct, showed a disregard for his own statutory obligations and the Society’s statutory obligation to monitor compliance with the Solicitors Accounts Regulations for the protection of clients, the solicitors’ profession, and the public.
The tribunal ordered that the matter go forward to the High Court and, on 27 February 2012, the President of the High Court made the following orders:
1) That the name of the respondent solicitor shall be struck from the Roll of Solicitors,
2) That the Society do recover the costs of the High Court proceedings and the costs of the proceedings before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, to include witness expenses in these proceedings and in other High Court proceedings involving the same parties as against the respondent when taxed or ascertained as one set of costs.
-
Jacqueline M Durcan
Durcans Solicitors, 1 Hazel Grove, Spencer Park, Castlebar, Co Mayo
Date of Order13/02/2012In the matter of Jacqueline M Durcan, solicitor, formerly practising as Durcans Solicitors, no 1 Hazel Grove, Spencer Park, Castlebar, Co Mayo, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2011 [7083/DT46/11 and 2012 no 8 SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Jacqueline M Durcan (respondent solicitor)
On 15 November 2011, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in her practice as a solicitor in that she:
a) Failed to comply within a reasonable time or at all with her undertaking given to the complainant dated 3 May 2005, in which she undertook to put a first legal charge in place on a named property in Castlebar, Co Mayo, in favour of ACC Bank Plc in respect of a named client,
b) Failed to reply adequately or at all to the complainant’s correspondence, in particular, letters dated 11 February 2008, 6 June 2008, 29 September 2009, 10 February 2010 and 12 March 2010 respectively,
c) Failed to comply with her undertaking given to the Complaints and Client Relations Committee at its meeting on 1 October 2010, whereby she undertook to lodge the stamped deed of mortgage and deed of conveyance with the Registry of Deeds within 14 days and, within the same time, to furnish the Society with a copy of her letter to the Registry of Deeds and a copy of the deeds submitted for registration,
d) Failed to reply adequately or at all to the Society’s correspondence dated 16 April 2010, 11 May 2010, 28 June 2010, 19 July 2010, 4 October 2010, 20 October 2010 and 22 November 2010.
The tribunal was of the opinion that:
a) The respondent solicitor is not a fit person to be a member of the solicitors’ profession,
b) The name of the respondent solicitor be struck off the Roll of Solicitors,
c) The respondent solicitor make a contribution of €5,000 towards the costs of the Law Society of Ireland.
On foot of an application to the President of the High Court, the following orders were made on 13 February 2012:
1) That the name of the respondent solicitor be struck from the Roll of Solicitors,
2) That the Society do recover the costs of the proceedings against the respondent solicitor when taxed or ascertained.
-
Katherine MA Ryan
Ryan & Company, Solicitors, 42 Woodley Park, Kilmacud, Dublin 14
Date of Order24/10/2011In the matter of Katherine MA Ryan, a solicitor practising under the style and title of Ryan & Company, Solicitors, at 42 Woodley Park, Kilmacud, Dublin 14, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2008 [6970/DT96/09, 6970/DT99/09, 6970/DT111/09 and the High Court record no 2011 no 9SA]Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Katherine MA Ryan (respondent solicitor)
On 13 October 2010, in disciplinary matter 6970/DT96/09, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in her practice as a solicitor in that she failed to respond in a timely manner to the Society’s correspondence and, in particular, the Society’s letters of 14 January 2009, 12 March 2009 and 24 June 2009 in a timely manner or at all.
On 13 October 2010, in disciplinary matter 6970/DT99/09, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in her practice as a solicitor in that she:
a) Up to the date of the referral of this matter to the tribunal, failed to comply with an undertaking given to the complainants, IIB Homeloans (now known as KBC Homeloans), on 9 August 2006 in a timely manner or at all,
b) Failed to reply to the Society’s correspondence and, in particular, the Society’s letters of 2 October 2008, 14 October 2008, 22 October 2008, 12 November 2008, 26 November 2008, 12 December 2008, 6 January 2009, 14 January 2009, 9 March 2009, and 16 April 2009 in a timely manner or at all,
c) Failed to comply with the direction of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee made on 29 May 2009 to furnish within ten days a full report on the complaint file, supported by vouching documentation, and to furnish an updated report by 26 June 2009 in a timely manner or at all.
On 13 October 2010, in disciplinary matter 6970/DT111/09, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in her practice as a solicitor in that she:
a) Failed to comply with an undertaking dated 15 November 1998 in respect of a named property in Dublin 3, furnished to Irish Life and Permanent plc, in a timely manner or at all,
b) Failed to comply with an undertaking dated 20 June 2000, furnished in respect of a named property in Dublin 7, furnished to Irish Life and Permanent plc, in a timely manner,
c) Failed to comply with an undertaking dated 23 April 2003 in respect of a named property in Co Wicklow, furnished to Irish Life and Permanent plc, in a timely manner or at all,
d) Failed to comply with an undertaking dated 29 March 2004 in respect of a named property in Co Dublin, furnished to Irish Life and Permanent plc, in a timely manner or at all,
e) Failed to comply with an undertaking dated 28 April 2004 in respect of a named property in Co Kildare, furnished to Irish Life and Permanent plc, in a timely manner or at all,
f) Failed to comply with an undertaking dated 10 December 2004 in respect of a named property in Co Meath, furnished to Irish Life and Permanent plc, in a timely manner,
g) Failed to comply with an undertaking dated 20 May 2005 in respect of a named property in Co Dublin, furnished to Irish Life and Permanent plc, in a timely manner or at all,
h) Failed to comply with an undertaking dated 1 December 2005 in respect of a named property in Dublin 12, furnished to Irish Life and Permanent plc, in a timely manner,
i) Failed to comply with an undertaking dated 1 December 2005 in respect of a named property in Co Kilkenny, furnished to Irish Life and Permanent plc, in a timely manner or at all,
j) Failed to comply with an undertaking dated 6 September 2005 in respect of a named property in Co Cork, furnished to Irish Life and Permanent plc, in a timely manner,
k) Failed to comply with an undertaking dated 1 February 2006 in respect of a named property in Co Dublin, furnished to Irish Life and Permanent plc, in a timely manner or at all,
l) Failed to comply with an undertaking dated 24 February 2006 in respect of a named property in Co Wicklow, furnished to Irish Life and Permanent plc, in a timely manner or at all,
m) Failed to comply with an undertaking dated 28 March 2006 in respect of a named property in Co Dublin, furnished to Irish Life and Permanent plc, in a timely manner or at all,
n) Failed to comply with an undertaking dated 29 September 2006 in respect of a named property in Co Meath, furnished to Irish Life and Permanent plc, in a timely manner or at all,
o) Failed to comply with an undertaking dated 23 November 2006 in respect of a named property in Dublin 24, furnished to Irish Life and Permanent plc, in a timely manner or at all,
p) Failed to comply with an undertaking dated 1 May 2007 in respect of a named property in Dublin 15, furnished to Irish Life and Permanent plc, in a timely manner or at all,
q) Failed to comply with an undertaking dated 31 July 2007 in respect of a named property in Dublin 8, furnished to Irish Life and Permanent plc, in a timely manner or at all,
r) Failed to comply with an undertaking dated 30 October 2007 in respect of a named property in Dublin 15, furnished to Irish Life and Permanent plc, in a timely manner or at all,
s) Failed to comply with an undertaking dated 7 May 2008 in respect of named properties in Dublin 18, Dublin 20, Dublin 8 and Dublin 18, furnished to Irish life and Permanent plc, in a timely manner or at all,
t) Failed to comply with an undertaking dated 9 June 2008 in respect of a property in Dublin 22, furnished to Irish Life and Permanent plc, in a timely manner,
u) Failed to comply with an undertaking dated 24 July 2008 in respect of another named property in Co Wicklow, furnished to Irish Life and Permanent plc, in a timely manner or at all,
v) Failed to furnish a report on each file within ten days of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee meeting of 29 May 2009 and failed to furnish a progress report for the Complaints and Client Relations Committee on or before 26 June 2009, as directed by the Complaints and Client Relations Committee.
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, having made findings of misconduct in relation to the above three disciplinary matters, recommended that the Society bring the matter forward to the President of the High Court with a recommendation that the respondent solicitor was not a fit person to be a member of the solicitors’ profession and that the name of the respondent solicitor be struck off the Roll of Solicitors and that the respondent solicitor pay the whole of the costs of the Society, including witnesses’ expenses, to be taxed by a taxing master of the High Court in default of agreement.
On 24 October 2011, the President of the High Court ordered that the name of the respondent solicitor be struck off the Roll of Solicitors and that the society do recover the costs of the High Court proceedings and the costs of the proceedings before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal as against the respondent solicitor when taxed or ascertained.
-
Michael Small
Michael Small, Solicitor, Carraig House, 10 Newenham Street, Limerick
Date of Order21/10/2011In the matter of Michael Small, a solicitor previously carrying on practice as Michael Small, Solicitor, at Carraig House, 10 Newenham Street, Limerick, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2008 [10119/DT19/11 and High Court record 2011 no 90SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Michael Small (respondent solicitor)
On 5 April 2011, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he failed to account to his clients, the complainants, for the total proceeds of their mortgage advance, leaving them with at least an admitted shortfall of €49,915.
The tribunal ordered that the Society bring their findings to the High Court and, on 21 October 2011, the President of the High Court ordered that:
1) The name of the respondent solicitor be struck from the Roll of Solicitors, and
2) The Society do recover the costs of the proceedings before the High Court and the cost of the proceedings before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, to include witness expenses as against the respondent solicitor when taxed or ascertained.
-
Brian Johnston
Brian Johnston & Co, Solicitors, 79 Park Street, Dundalk, Co Louth
Date of Order17/10/2011In the matter of Brian Johnston, a solicitor formerly practising as Brian Johnston & Co, Solicitors, 79 Park Street, Dundalk, Co Louth, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2008 [6927/DT64/10 and High Court record no 2011/81 SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Brian Johnston (respondent solicitor)
On 2 June 2011, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:
a) Failed to maintain proper books of account in respect of his practice,
b) Failed to furnish reporting accountant’s reports to the Society as required by the Solicitors’ Accounts Regulations 2001,
c) Falsely stated in his application for a practising certificate that a reporting accountant’s reports had been filed when in fact this had not been done,
d) Allowed overpayments to be made to a number of clients, giving rise to a deficit on client accounts in excess of €700,000,
e) Committed several breaches of regulation 7(2)(a) of the Solicitors’ Accounts Regulations 2001 by allowing debit balances to arise on the clients’ ledger account in respect of a client other than a debit balance that was totally offset by a credit balance arising on another clients’ ledger account in respect of the same client,
f) Failed to make income tax returns in respect of his practice,
g) Failed to make VAT returns in respect of his practice,
h) Retained his name on the headed notepaper of his former practice, thus giving the impression he was still in practice at a time when he had been suspended from practising as a solicitor.
The tribunal made the following recommendations:
1) The respondent solicitor is not a fit 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 50% of the costs of the Society, to be taxed by a taxing master of the High Court in default of agreement.
In recognition of the respondent solicitor’s efforts to pay back the monies to clear the deficit and to regularise his affairs, the tribunal did not make any recommendation in regard to imposing a monetary penalty on him.
On 17 October 2011, the President of the High Court ordered that:
1) The name of the respondent solicitor shall be struck from the Roll of Solicitors,
2) The Society do recover the costs of the proceedings before the High Court and the costs of the proceedings before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, to include witness expenses, as against the respondent solicitor when taxed or ascertained.
-
Michael Small
Michael Small, Solicitor, Carraig House, 10 Newenham Street, Limerick
Date of Order11/07/2011In the matter of Michael Small, a solicitor previously carrying on practice as Michael Small, Solicitor, at Carraig House, 10 Newenham Street, Limerick, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2008 [10119/DT172/10 and High Court record 2011 no 58SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Michael Small (respondent solicitor)
On 5 April 2011, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:
1) Allowed a deficit of client funds in the sum of €1,181,667.04 as of 16 August 2009,
2) Operated a secret bank account where funds of approximately €1.2 million were lodged, in breach of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations,
3) Used client moneys to discharge the mortgage debts of clients who defaulted on mortgages,
4) Paid the money to third parties and withdrew money for his own use,
5) Failed to maintain proper records, and
6) Allowed claims to arise on the compensation fund of €1,123,245.11, with €428,735.81 already paid out as of the date of swearing of the Society’s affidavit.
The tribunal ordered that the Society bring their findings to the High Court and, on 11 July 2011, the High Court ordered that:
1) The name of the respondent solicitor be struck from the Roll of Solicitors,
2) The respondent solicitor do make such restitution, if and when he is in a position to do so, in respect of all payments by the compensation fund arising from the respondent solicitor’s practice,
3) The Law Society do recover the costs of the proceedings before the High Court and the cost of the proceedings before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal when taxed or ascertained.
-
Charles O'Neill
Cathal O'Neill & Company, Solicitors, 10 Church Avenue, Rathmines, Dublin 6
Date of Order27/06/2011In the matter of Charles O’Neill, a solicitor formerly practising as Cathal O’Neill & Company, Solicitors, 10 Church Avenue, Rathmines, Dublin 6, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2008 [2707/DT81/09 and High Court record no 2011 no 64 SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Charles O’Neill (respondent solicitor)
On 7 April 2011, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:
a) Failed/neglected to furnish to the complainant the information requested by him in relation to the disposal of his property in Wexford,
b) Failed to account to the complainant in relation to the balance of proceeds of sale of the property in Wexford for the period of 12 January 2005 to 13 July 2007,
c) Through his failure to account to his client for the balance of sale proceeds or to furnish the information required by the client in relation to the disposal of the property in Wexford, failed to protect the interests of his client,
d) Failed, refused or neglected to transfer title deeds in respect of two other properties in Wexford in a timely manner,
e) Failed to provide a written explanation to the complainant for not handing over the title deeds to the complainant’s new solicitors in a timely manner,
f) Gave an assurance to the complainant in an email dated 8 August 2008 to the effect that he would finally deal with the problems at (a), (b) and (c) above during the weekend of 8 August 2008, which assurance he did not carry out,
g) Failed to reply adequately to the complainant’s correspondence by email on several occasions from 20 June 2008 onwards,
h) Failed to reply or instruct his solicitor to reply to the Society’s letters dated 18 August 2008, 1 September 2008, 17 September 2008 and 1 October 2008,
i) In his failure to correspond or instruct his solicitor to correspond with the Society, obstructed the Society’s investigation into the complaint.
The tribunal recommended that:
a) The respondent solicitor is not a fit person to be a member of the solicitors’ profession,
b) The name of the respondent solicitor be struck off the Roll of Solicitors,
c) The respondent solicitor pay the whole of the costs of the Society, to be taxed by a taxing master of the High Court in default of agreement.
The tribunal ordered that the matter be brought before the High Court and, on 27 June 2011, the President of the High Court ordered that:
1) The name of the respondent solicitor, Charles O’Neill, be struck from the Roll of Solicitors,
2) The Society do recover as against the respondent solicitor the costs of the proceedings before the High Court when taxed and ascertained,
3) The Society do recover as against the respondent solicitor the costs of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal proceedings, to include witness expenses when taxed and ascertained.
-
Peter McGarry
Peter McGarry & Co, Solicitors, 27 Capel Street, Dublin 1
Date of Order30/05/2011In the matter of Peter McGarry, a solicitor, formerly practising as Peter McGarry & Co, Solicitors, 27 Capel Street, Dublin 1, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2008 [4989/DT02/11 and High Court record no 2011/54 SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Peter McGarry (respondent solicitor)
On 20 April 2011, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:
a) Caused or allowed an estimated deficit in the client account as at 30 November 2009 in the sum of €126,449.
b) Failed to keep proper books of account in that books were not kept up to date, in breach of regulation 12(1) of the Solicitors’ Accounts Regulations 2001.
c) Failed on numerous occasions to furnish his clients with a bill of costs, in breach of regulation 11(1) of the Solicitors’ Accounts Regulations 2001.
d) Failed to redeem an existing mortgage on a property from the proceeds of a re-mortgage credited to the client bank account. The respondent solicitor gave an undertaking to AIB that he would discharge a mortgage outstanding with Permanent TSB with approximately €103,000. The sum of €102,000 had been transferred from the relevant client ledger account on the basis that apparently the respondent solicitor provided a loan to the client and this represented the repayment of same.
e) Failed to redeem an existing mortgage on a property, despite giving an undertaking to provide a discharge or vacated mortgage to the solicitor acting on behalf of the purchaser. The respondent solicitor failed to do this from the proceeds of sale credited to the client bank account. Confirmation was received from Bank of Scotland (Ireland) Limited that the mortgage in the sum of approximately €250,000 was paid on 18 November 2009.
f) Allowed or permitted the client ledger account of a named client to go into debt in the sum of €12,986.77 in March 2009. On 25 November 2009, the sum of €11,000 was credited to this client ledger account to reduce the deficit to €1,986.77, but it was not possible to vouch the source of these funds.
g) Made a payment to the Revenue Commissioners of €6,000 on behalf of a named client, which was funded, by six other separate clients of the practice and the respondent solicitor.
h) Transferred the sum of €30,555.56 from the client ledger account of a named client to the client ledger account of the respondent solicitor without any apparent authorisation or evidence to show that the respondent solicitor was legally and beneficially entitled to the funds transferred to the credit of his client ledger account.
i) Transferred round sum amounts in respect of fees from the client ledger prior to the posting of the fee note to the office ledger, in breach of regulation 10(4) of the Solicitors’ Accounts Regulations 2001.
j) Caused or allowed, through his conduct, claims to be made on the Society’s compensation fund, resulting in a payment from the Society’s compensation fund to named clients in the sum of €508,000 on 24 June 2010.
k) Dealt with the re-mortgage of various properties on the same client ledger account, in breach of regulation 12(3)(a) of the Solicitors’ Accounts Regulations 2001.
The tribunal made the following recommendations:
1) The respondent solicitor is not a fit person ever again 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 make such restitution to the Society in respect of payments made by the compensation fund arising from the respondent solicitor’s practice as the court thinks fit and, pending such restitution, the High Court make an ancillary order freezing the respondent solicitor’s assets,
4) The respondent solicitor pay the whole of the costs of the Society as taxed by a taxing master of the High Court in default of agreement.
On 30 May 2011, the President of 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 make such restitution, being the amount in respect of payments made by the compensation fund arising from the respondent solicitor’s practice, and that the assets of the respondent solicitor’s practice be frozen pending such restitution to the Society,
3) The Society do recover the costs of the proceedings herein and the costs of the proceedings before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal as against the respondent solicitor when taxed or ascertained.
-
Matthew Breslin
Donal J O'Neill & Co, Solicitors, 3 Denny Street, Tralee, Co Kerry
Date of Order16/05/2011In the matter of Matthew Breslin, solicitor, practising as Donal J O’Neill & Co, Solicitors, 3 Denny Street, Tralee, Co Kerry, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2008 [7159/DT123/09 and 2011 no 49 SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Matthew Breslin (respondent solicitor)
On 24 March 2011, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:
a) Failed in a timely fashion or at all to honour an undertaking contained in a letter dated 4 April 2006 to the complainant, whereby he undertook to lodge with the complainant the net proceeds of sale of residential units from a development in Co Laois when the sales were completed,
b) Failed to adequately respond to the complainant’s letters to him and, in particular, letters dated 1 May 2008, 5 June 2008, 1 July 2008, 27 August 2008 and 2 September 2008 respectively,
c) Failed to adequately respond to the Society’s correspondence, in particular letters dated 6 October 2008, 26 November 2008, and 16 January 2009.
The tribunal made the following recommendations:
1) That the respondent solicitor was not a fit person to be a member of the solicitors’ profession,
2) That the name of the respondent solicitor be struck off the Roll of Solicitors,
3) That the respondent solicitor pay the whole of the costs of Society, to include witness expenses, to be taxed by the taxing master of the High Court in default of agreement.
On 16 May 2011, the High Court made an order in the following terms, on foot of an application by the Society to bring the report and order of the disciplinary tribunal to the President of the High Court:
1) That the name of the respondent solicitor be struck from the Roll of Solicitors,
2) That the Society do recover the costs of the proceedings, to include witness expenses, before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal as against the respondent when taxed or ascertained.
-
Seosamh O'Daimhin
Devine Solicitors, 9 O'Rahilly St, Nenagh, Co Tipperary
Date of Order29/11/2010In the matter of Seosamh O’Daimhin (otherwise Joseph Devine), solicitor, practising as Devine Solicitors at 9 O’Rahilly Street, Nenagh, Co Tipperary, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2008 [6260/DT17/09 and High Court record no 2010/97 SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Seosamh O’Daimhin (otherwise Joseph Devine) (respondent solicitor)
On 22 October 2009, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:
- Failed to pursue a tax rebate application to the Revenue Commissioners in respect of capital gains tax paid on the sale of the property of the complainant’s father, located at Garrykennedy in early 2005,
- Failed to respond adequately to the complainant’s correspondence, telephone calls and emails over a three-year period from 2005 to 2007,
- Failed to comply with the directions of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee of 16 April 2008, whereby he was directed to do the following:
1) Provide a copy of his letter and cheque paying the capital gains tax,
2) Provide a letter from the Revenue confirming the amount of CGT paid and the date upon which it is was paid,
3) Provide a statement from his accountant giving a statement of account and, in particular, confirming that the €2,000 referred to in the complainant’s letter of complaint had been paid,
4) Provide a copy of his letter to the complainant furnishing a refund of the fees,
- Failed to reply adequately to the Society’s correspondence and, in particular, letters dated 12 April 2007, 18 July 2007, 1 August 2007, 9 August 2007, 24 August 2007, 3 September 2007, 11 September 2007, 18 October 2007, 26 October 2007, 18 January 2008, 1 February 2008, 11 February 2008, 26 February 2008, 6 March 2008, 26 March 2008, 9 April 2008, 22 April 2008, 13 May 2008, 28 May 2008 and 5 June 2008 respectively.
The tribunal made the following recommendations in respect of the respondent solicitor:
a) That the respondent solicitor not be permitted to practise as a sole practitioner or in partnership, that he be permitted only to practise as an assistant solicitor 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,
b) That the respondent solicitor make restitution to a named former client in the sum of €2,000 plus VAT at 21%, which figure includes the fee of another named solicitor,
c) That the respondent solicitor pay the reasonable expenses of the named former client and the other named solicitor in relation to their attendance at the hearing on the 22 October 2009, to be taxed by a taxing master of the High Court, in default of agreement.
On 29 November 2010, the President of the High Court ordered that:
1) The name of the respondent solicitor be struck off the Roll of Solicitors,
2) The respondent solicitor pay restitution to the named former client in the sum of €2,000 plus VAT at 21%, which figure includes the fee of the other named solicitor,
3) That the respondent solicitor pay the reasonable expenses of the named former client and the other named solicitor in relation to their attendance at the hearing on the 22 October 2009, to be taxed by a taxing master of the High Court, in default of agreement;
4) The respondent solicitor pay the costs of the proceedings to be taxed in default of agreement,
5) The respondent solicitor pay the costs of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal proceedings, to include witness expenses to be taxed in default of agreement.
Subsequent to the making of that order by the president, the respondent solicitor has appealed against that order to the Supreme Court and the appeal bears record number 004/2011.
-
Seosamh O’Daimhin
Devine Solicitors, 9 O’Rahilly Street, Nenagh, Co Tipperary
Date of Order29/11/2010In the matter of Seosamh O’Daimhin (otherwise Joseph Devine), solicitor, practising as Devine Solicitors at 9 O’Rahilly Street, Nenagh, Co Tipperary, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2008 [6260/DT106/09 and High Court record no 2010/84 SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Seosamh O’Daimhin (otherwise Joseph Devine) (respondent solicitor)
On 15 July 2010, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:
a) Caused or allowed a minimum deficit to arise on his client account of in or about €262,864 as at, on or about, 28 May 2008,
b) Failed to maintain proper accounting records in the client account of the estate of a named deceased person, in breach of regulation 12, and, in particular, failed to maintain a ledger card that recorded all transactions in the distribution of the estate and failed to record costs of €17,222.12 transferred to the office account,
c) Misappropriated and/or wrongly drew to the office account excess costs of in or about €54,676 from the same estate,
d) Caused a debit balance on the client account of the same estate of in or about €7,808 by making overpayments in that amount to beneficiaries of the estate,
e) Failed to maintain proper accounting records in the client account of a named client family, in breach of regulation 12, and, in particular, failed to maintain ledger accounts that showed the true financial position in relation to his transactions with the client’s monies, such that amounts totalling €38,912.10 debited to the ledger account were not written up,
f) Misappropriated and/or wrongly transferred to the office account costs totalling in or about €42,500 in the client transactions of the same client family, causing a deficit on the client ledger account in or about that amount,
g) Misappropriated and/or wrongly discharged VAT payments to the Revenue Commissioners out of the client account in the amount of €12,000 on 14 February 2008, €36,314 on 20 February 2008 and €18,140 on 29 February 2008, creating a deficit of €66,454 on the client account,
h) Wrongly debited costs and VAT of in or about €5,687 on 21 April 2008 in the client matter of a named file from the client account when there were no funds to meet the payment, and subsequently misappropriated and/or wrongly debited the same costs and VAT to the office account on 29 April 2008, 1 May 2008 and 20 May 2008, causing a total deficit of in or about €22,748,
i) Wrongly discharged a booking deposit of €10,000 in the client matter of a named file from the client account on or about 26 October 2007 and did not lodge an office account cheque to the client account to meet that payment because there were insufficient funds in the office account to meet the payment,
j) Wrongly drew a cheque of €300 on the client account for personal expenses, in breach of regulation 7(2)(b),
k) Wrongly caused or allowed bank charges to be debited to the client accounts in the two years ended 30 April 2008 amounting to a total of €897.61, causing a deficit of that amount on the client account,
l) Caused or allowed stamp duty funds of €3,779 received from the client on or about 21 December 2006 in a named client matter to be lodged to the office account and, on 4 January 2007, discharged stamp duty in that amount by way of client account cheque, causing a debit balance on the client ledger account, which debit balance increased following the payment of a Land Registry fee of €585 on 15 March 2007, also from the client account,
m) Failed to maintain proper accounting records in the client matters of a named client and, in particular, failed to maintain separate ledger accounts for each client matter dealt with by him, in breach of regulation 12(3)(a),
n) Misappropriated and/or wrongly drew costs allocated to a named client file of €3,630 on 15 January 2007 and €4,000 on 30 April 2007 from the client account, causing a debit balance on the client ledger account of €5,226.14,
o) Wrongly debited the amount of €6,755 in costs from the estate of a named deceased person, instead of the costs due of €675.50, causing a deficit of €6,079.50 on the client account, and subsequently wrongly transferred a further €1,500 to the office account debited to this client matter, increasing the deficit to €7,579.50,
p) Wrongly drew costs of €3,872 from the client account to the office account in a named client matter in circumstances where monies to cover costs and outlay were not received from clients, causing a debit balance of that amount on the client account,
q) Failed to maintain proper accounting records in the client matter of the estate of a named deceased person, in breach of regulation 12, and, in particular, failed to post payments of €7,186.15 to the beneficiaries to the ledger card, thereby failing to show a debit balance on the ledger card,
r) Wrongly lodged two receipts totalling €6,951.41 in the same estate directly to the office account in June 2007 and February 2008, in breach of regulation 4(1) and regulation 6(4)(a), and further wrongly drew costs of €2,325 to the office account on 13 February 2008, which costs had already been drawn in November 2006, causing a total deficit in the client ledger account of €9,276.41,
s) Misappropriated and/or wrongly transferred costs of €1,210 to the office account from the estate of a named client, causing a debit balance of €847.91 on the client account,
t) Wrongly lodged monies received in the estate of a named deceased person of €4,199.71 to the office account and failed to lodge further monies received, in the amount of €956.61, to the client account, in breach of regulations 4(1) and regulation 6(4), causing a total deficit in the client ledger account of €5,156.32,
u) Caused a net overpayment to be made from the client ledger account of a named client of in or about €3,850, creating a deficit in the client account in that amount,
v) Wrongly caused payments to be made from the client account to or for the personal benefit of his wife in the amount of €50 on 1 February 2008, €135 on 1 February 2008, €12,000 on 6 February 2008 and €639 on 18 March 2008,
w) Discharged personal expenditure or expenditure to his personal benefit from the client account, in breach of regulation 7(2)(b), and, in particular, mortgage payments of €2,000 on 22 January 2008 and 31 March 2008, payment of €400 to a supermarket on 22 February 2008, and a payment of €122 on 31 March 2008,
x) Wrongly caused payments to be made from the client account to or for the benefit of a named individual in the amounts of €1,300 on 22 January 2008 and 31 March 2008,
y) Through wrongful payment out of the client account to or for the benefit of the respondent solicitor, his wife and her cousin, a named individual as detailed above, contributed to a net deficit in the client ledger account of in or about €17,307.40,
z) Failed to maintain proper books of account for his practice, in breach of regulation 12(1).
The tribunal recommended by report dated 11 August 2010 that:
a) The respondent solicitor was not a fit person to be a member of the solicitors’ profession,
b) The name of the respondent solicitor should be struck off the Roll of Solicitors.
The tribunal made no recommendation in relation to costs.
Subsequent to the hearing of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, the respondent solicitor brought an appeal against the decision of the tribunal to make findings of professional misconduct on allegations 10(d), (g), (h), (i), (j), (o) and (t). The respondent solicitor claimed, among other things, that the tribunal had erred in law and on the facts in the manner in which it arrived at the above findings; that he had not acted dishonestly or fraudulently in connection with any of the matters; that his conduct resulted from confusion, distraction, inadvertence and error caused by ill health and bad management of his practice; and that he was suffering at the time of the matters under inquiry from acute anxiety and depression such that his capacity and judgement were impaired. The respondent solicitor claimed that the tribunal had failed to have adequate regard to the significance of missing documentation (among other things, cheque books, VAT books and records, and bank statements) and that, contrary to natural justice, the tribunal had failed to allow him to pursue the significance of the missing documentation by way of cross-examination.
When the matter came before the President of the High Court on 29 November 2010, he asked the respondent solicitor’s counsel on what statutory section he was appealing. Counsel stated that there was none and that he relied on the president’s inherent jurisdiction to hear the appeal. Counsel, under questioning from the president, confirmed that it was the respondent solicitor’s position that there was no prima facie case for the disciplinary tribunal inquiry in the first place. The president stated that he was satisfied that no real issues had been raised by the respondent solicitor to merit an appeal.
On 29 November 2010 the President of the High Court ordered that:
1) The name of the respondent solicitor be struck off the Roll of Solicitors,
2) The respondent solicitor pay restitution in the sum of €379,385.66 to the Compensation Fund of the Law Society,
3) The respondent solicitor pay the costs of the proceedings when these are ascertained,
4) The respondent solicitor pay the costs of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal proceedings, to include witness expenses when these are ascertained.
On 29 November 2010, the President of the High Court also ordered that:
1) The recommendation of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal made on 11 August 2010 be affirmed and adopted,
2) The respondent solicitor pay the costs of the High Court proceedings when taxed in default of agreement.
Subsequent to the making of that order by the president, the respondent solicitor has appealed against that order to the Supreme Court and the appeal bears record number 003/2011.
-
Daniel J Coleman
Coleman & Co, Solicitors, Main Street, Ballinrobe, Co Mayo
Date of Order26/07/2010In the matter of Daniel J Coleman, solicitor, formerly practising as Coleman & Co, Solicitors, Main Street, Ballinrobe, Co Mayo, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2008 [8347/DT20/09 and High Court record no 2010/65SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Daniel J Coleman (respondent solicitor)
On 10 February 2010, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:
a) Caused or allowed the name of another named solicitor to be written on contracts for sale dated 19 May 2004 without the authority of that solicitor,
b) Caused or allowed a fictitious contract, dated 19 May 2004, to come into existence and purportedly made between the complainant’s clients and that other solicitor in trust for the purpose of misleading ACC Bank into advancing monies to a named client, knowing that the sale of the land from that named client had not closed and that the dwelling units had not been constructed,
c) Destroyed a file consisting of merely three contracts relating to the contested contract, dated 19 May 2004, without the express or implied instructions of both parties and, in particular, the complainant’s named clients,
d) Acted for both the vendor/builder, a named client, and purchasers of 13 newly constructed houses at Galway Road, Tuam, Co Galway, involving himself in a possible conflict of interest contrary to the provisions of article 4(a) of the Solicitors (Professional Practice, Conduct and Discipline) Regulations 1997, SI no 85 of 1997.
The tribunal directed that:
i) The respondent solicitor is not a fit person to be a member of the solicitor’s profession,
ii) The name of the respondent solicitor be struck off the Roll of Solicitors,
iii) The respondent solicitor pay the whole of the costs of the Law Society of Ireland (to include the Law Society’s costs of the adjourned hearing of 26 November 2009), to be taxed by a taxing master of the High Court in default of agreement.
On 26 July 2010, the President of the High Court ordered that:
1) The name of the solicitor be struck from the Roll of Solicitors,
2) The respondent pay the applicant the costs of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, to include witness expenses, same to be taxed in default of agreement,
3) The respondent do pay to the applicant the costs of the High Court proceedings, same to be taxed in default of agreement.
Subsequent to the making of that order, the respondent solicitor has lodged an appeal against the decision of the President of the High Court under Supreme Court appeal number 319/2010.
-
Joseph Traynor
Traynor & Company, Solicitors, 86 Clanbrassil Street, Dundalk, Co Louth
Date of Order05/07/2010In the matter of Joseph Traynor, solicitor, formerly practising as Traynor & Company, Solicitors, 86 Clanbrassil Street, Dundalk, Co Louth, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2008 [5554/DT125/09 and High Court record no 2010 no 58 SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Joseph Traynor (respondent solicitor)
On 18 March 2010, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:
a) Failed to honour an undertaking given to the complainant, dated 17 November 2004, whereby he undertook to do the following:
1) Execute security documents in that, prior to negotiating the loan cheque or the proceeds thereof, he failed to ensure that the borrower had executed a mortgage deed/charge in the lender’s standard form as produced by the lender over the property,
2) Ensure that the mortgage ranked as a first legal mortgage/charge on the property,
3) Register the mortgage in the appropriate registry so as to ensure that the lender/complainant obtained a first legal mortgage/charge on the property and, expeditiously, as soon as practicable thereafter, to lodge the following documents with the lender/complainant:
i) All deeds and documents to the property, stamped and registered as appropriate, including, if applicable, the assignment of the life policy, stamped collateral to the mortgage,
ii) The original mortgage (with certificate of charge endorsed thereon under rule 156 of the Land Registry Rules 1972, if Land Registry title),
iii) If Land Registry title, the land certificate or, if not issued, an up-to-date certified copy folio of the property showing the mortgage registered as a burden thereon,
iv) The complainant’s certificate of title in the Law Society’s standard form.
4) Hold all title documents of the property in trust for the lender/complainant.
b) Failed to adequately or at all respond to the complainant’s correspondence, in particular letters dated 18 July 2008, 6 October 2008 (twice), 22 October 2008, 7 January 2009, 9 January 2009 and 6 February 2009,
c) Failed to adequately respond to the Society’s correspondence, in particular letters dated 23 February 2009, 11 March 2009, 19 March 2009, 1 April 2009 and 3 June 2009 respectively.
The tribunal directed:
a) That the respondent solicitor is not a fit person to be a member of the solicitors’ profession,
b) That the name of the respondent solicitor be struck off the Roll of Solicitors,
c) That the respondent solicitor pay the sum of €45,275.94 to KBC Mortgages Limited,
d) That the respondent solicitor pay the whole of the costs of the Law Society of Ireland, including witness expenses, to be taxed by a taxing master of the High Court in default of agreement.
The tribunal directed that the matter be referred forward to the High Court and, on 5 July 2010, the President of the High Court ordered:
1) That the name of the respondent solicitor be struck from the Roll of Solicitors,
2) That the respondent solicitor pay the sum of €45,275.94 as restitution to KBC Homeloans Limited,
3) That the applicant forward the papers in respect of this application to the Director of Public Prosecutions,
4) That the respondent solicitor surrender his passport forthwith to An Garda Síochána,
5) That the respondent solicitor pay the applicant the costs of the High Court proceedings, together with the costs of the disciplinary tribunal proceedings, to include witness expenses, to be taxed in default of agreement.
-
Joseph Traynor
Traynor & Company, Solicitors, 86 Clanbrassil Street, Dundalk, Co Louth
Date of Order05/07/2010In the matter of Joseph Traynor, solicitor, formerly practising as Traynor & Company, Solicitors, 86 Clanbrassil Street, Dundalk, Co Louth, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2008 [5554/DT126/09 and High Court record no 2010 no 59 SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Joseph Traynor (respondent solicitor)
On 18 March 2010, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:
a) Failed to honour an undertaking given to the complainant’s clients, Start Mortgages Limited, in respect of his named client, involving property at Rosehill, Mullagh, Co Cavan, in a solicitor’s undertaking dated 25 January 2008, whereby he undertook to do the following:
i) To register the mortgage in the appropriate registry to ensure that the complainant’s clients, Start Mortgages Limited, obtained the first legal charge on the property,
ii) To, as soon as practicable thereafter, register the first legal charge on the property and to lodge with the lender, Start Mortgages Limited, all deeds and documents properly stamped and registered,
iii) As soon as practicable after registration of Start Mortgages Limited first legal mortgage of the property, to lodge the original mortgage with the lender, Start Mortgages Limited,
iv) To ensure the borrowers acquiring the property obtained good marketable title to it or, where the borrower already owned the property, to satisfy himself that such borrower had good marketable title to it.
b) Failed to adequately or at all respond to the complainant’s correspondence, in particular letters dated 9 December 2008, 9 January 2009, 28 January 2009, 16 February 2009 and 26 February 2009 respectively.
The tribunal directed:
a) That the respondent solicitor is not a fit person to be a member of the solicitors’ profession,
b) That the name of the respondent solicitor be struck off the Roll of Solicitors,
c) That the respondent solicitor pay restitution in the sum of €180,000 to Start Mortgages,
d) That the respondent solicitor pay the whole of the costs of the Law Society of Ireland, including witness expenses, to be taxed by a taxing master of the High Court in default of agreement.
The tribunal directed that the matter be referred forward to the High Court and, on 5 July 2010, the President of the High Court ordered:
1) That the name of the respondent solicitor be struck from the Roll of Solicitors,
2) That the respondent solicitor pay the sum of €180,000 as restitution to Start Mortgages Limited,
3) That the applicant forward the papers in respect of this application to the Director of Public Prosecutions,
4) That the respondent solicitor surrender his passport forthwith to An Garda Síochána,
5) That the respondent solicitor pay the applicant the costs of the High Court proceedings, together with the costs of the disciplinary tribunal proceedings, to include witness expenses, to be taxed in default of agreement.
-
Joseph Traynor
Traynor & Company, Solicitors, 86 Clanbrassil Street, Dundalk, Co Louth
Date of Order05/07/2010In the matter of Joseph Traynor, solicitor, formerly practising as Traynor & Company, Solicitors, 86 Clanbrassil Street, Dundalk, Co Louth, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2008 [5554/DT75/09 and High Court record no 2010 no 54 SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Joseph Traynor (respondent solicitor)
On 26 January 2010, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:
a) Failed to honour an undertaking on 25 August 2006 to lodge the title documents relating to lands at Castlewarden, Naas, Co Kildare, immediately upon the sale being completed,
b) Failed to honour an undertaking on 29 August 2006 to stamp and register the title documents relating to lands at Castlewarden, Naas, Co Kildare,
c) Failed to honour an undertaking on 26 September 2006 to stamp the deed of transfer in respect of the sale of lands at Castlewarden, Naas, Co Kildare,
d) Failed to honour an undertaking on 13 February 2007 to stamp the title documents relating to lands at Castlewarden, Naas, Co Kildare, and to arrange to have them lodged in the Land Registry within six weeks from that date,
e) Failed to comply with the direction of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee on 11 February 2009 to reply to the Society by 1 March 2009 with a copy of the stamped deed, the dealing number and copy correspondence to ACC Bank plc informing them that the deed was stamped.
The tribunal directed:
a) That the respondent solicitor is not a fit person to be a member of the solicitors’ profession,
b) That the name of the respondent solicitor be struck off the Roll of Solicitors,
c) That the respondent solicitor pay a monetary penalty of €630,000 to the Revenue Commissioners,
d) That the respondent solicitor pay the whole of the costs of the Law Society of Ireland, including witness expenses, to be taxed by a taxing master of the High Court in default of agreement.
The tribunal urged that the papers in respect of this application be forwarded to the Director of Public Prosecutions.
The tribunal directed that the matter be referred forward to the High Court and, on 5 July 2010, the President of the High Court ordered:
1) That the name of the respondent solicitor be struck from the Roll of Solicitors,
2) That the respondent solicitor pay the sum of €630,000 to ACC Bank plc, who will remit said sum to the Revenue Commissioners if due in respect of stamp duty, or retain if not due,
3) That the applicant forward the papers in respect of this application to the Director of Public Prosecutions,
4) That the respondent solicitor surrender his passport forthwith to An Garda Síochána,
5) That the respondent solicitor pay the applicant the costs of the High Court proceedings, together with the costs of the disciplinary tribunal proceedings, to include witness expenses, to be taxed in default of agreement.
-
Joseph Traynor
Traynor & Company, Solicitors, 86 Clanbrassil Street, Dundalk, Co Louth
Date of Order05/07/2010In the matter of Joseph Traynor, solicitor, formerly practising as Traynor & Company, Solicitors, 86 Clanbrassil Street, Dundalk, Co Louth, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2008 [5554/DT01/10 and High Court record no 2010 no 56 SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Joseph Traynor (respondent solicitor)
On 11 May 2010, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:
a) Caused or allowed a fictitious contract for the purported sum of €7 million in relation to the purchase of lands at Castlewarden, being a false and misleading contract as to the purchase price, as there was an existing contract for the sum of €4.6 million,
b) Caused or allowed a fictitious contract for the purchase of lands at Castlewarden to bear the signature of the vendor and the complainant’s signature as witness, when such signatures were not the signatures of the vendor and the complainant,
c) Permitted or allowed a fictitious contract to be forwarded to the solicitors for a bank for the purchase of the site the bank placed reliance upon,
d) Failed to progress the true contract for the purchase price of €4.6 million, leaving a capital balance outstanding of €1,140,000 plus interest, which entailed proceedings for specific performance being issued and served by the complainant,
e) Failed to have the original deed of transfer signed by the purchaser dated, stamped and registered,
f) Failed to explain why €3.4 million occurred on the client ledger account when he claimed that he had no money to stamp the deed,
g) Failed to explain why there were two versions of a contract for the same lands,
h) Released title documents held on trust to the order of the complainant pending payment of the full amount of the purchase monies,
i) Failed to explain why he had not brought the matter of the fictitious contract and purported fraud to the immediate attention of the gardaí,
j) Failed to respond adequately or at all to the complainant’s correspondence, in particular letters dated 1 November 2006, 7 November 2006, 11 December 2006, 15 June 2007, 9 August 2007, 22 August 2007, 19 October 2007, 20 December 2007, 13 June 2008, 3 April 2009, 15 April 2009, 22 April 2009 and 27 April 2009,
k) Failed to respond adequately or at all to the Society’s correspondence, in particular letters dated 20 August 2009 and 21 September 2009.
The tribunal directed:
a) That the respondent solicitor is not a fit person to be a member of the solicitors’ profession,
b) That the name of the respondent solicitor be struck off the Roll of Solicitors,
c) That the respondent solicitor pay the whole of the costs of the Law Society of Ireland, including witness expenses, to be taxed by a taxing master of the High Court in default of agreement.
The tribunal directed that the matter be referred forward to the High Court and, on 5 July 2010, the President of the High Court ordered:
1) That the name of the respondent solicitor be struck from the Roll of Solicitors,
2) That the applicant forward the papers in respect of this application to the Director of Public Prosecutions,
3) That the respondent solicitor surrender his passport forthwith to An Garda Síochána,
4) That the respondent solicitor pay the applicant the costs of the High Court proceedings, together with the costs of the disciplinary tribunal proceedings, to include witness expenses, to be taxed in default of agreement.
-
Joseph Traynor
Traynor & Company, Solicitors, 86 Clanbrassil Street, Dundalk, Co Louth
Date of Order05/07/2010In the matter of Joseph Traynor, solicitor, formerly practising as Traynor & Company, Solicitors, 86 Clanbrassil Street, Dundalk, Co Louth, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2008 [5554/DT102/09 and High Court record no 2010 no 53 SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Joseph Traynor (respondent solicitor)
On 26 January 2010, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he failed, up to the date of referral to this tribunal, in a timely manner or at all, to honour an undertaking given to the complainant by letter dated 22 February 2008, whereby he failed to discharge the mortgage on title in favour of ACC Bank plc from the proceeds of sale of property at Tullydonnell, Ardee, Co Louth, and to furnish a mortgage vacate of the said mortgage, together with a cheque in the sum of €25, in respect of Land Registry fees as soon as possible thereafter.
The tribunal directed:
a) That the respondent solicitor is not a fit person to be a member of the solicitors’ profession,
b) That the name of the respondent solicitor be struck off the Roll of Solicitors,
c) That the respondent solicitor pay a monetary penalty of €800,000,
d) That the respondent solicitor pay the whole of the costs of the Law Society of Ireland, including witness expenses, to be taxed by a taxing master of the High Court in default of agreement.
The tribunal urged that the papers in respect of this application be forwarded to the Director of Public Prosecutions.
The tribunal directed that the matter be referred forward to the High Court and, on 5 July 2010, the President of the High Court ordered:
1) That the name of the respondent solicitor be struck from the Roll of Solicitors,
2) That the respondent solicitor pay the sum of €800,000 as restitution to a named client,
3) That the applicant forward the papers in respect of this application to the Director of Public Prosecutions,
4) That the respondent solicitor surrender his passport forthwith to An Garda Síochána,
5) That the respondent solicitor pay the applicant the costs of the High Court proceedings, together with the costs of the disciplinary tribunal proceedings, to include witness expenses, to be taxed in default of agreement.
-
Joseph Traynor
Traynor & Company, Solicitors, 86 Clanbrassil Street, Dundalk, Co Louth
Date of Order05/07/2010In the matter of Joseph Traynor, solicitor, formerly practising as Traynor & Company, Solicitors, 86 Clanbrassil Street, Dundalk, Co Louth, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2008 [5554/DT11/10 and High Court record no 2010 no 55 SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Joseph Traynor (respondent solicitor)
On 11 May 2010, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:
a) Failed to honour an undertaking given to the complainant on behalf of a named client for property at Lislin, Mullagh, Co Cavan, dated 31 August 2007, in which he undertook to register the mortgage of the complainant in the appropriate registry and to ensure that the lender/complainant obtained a first legal mortgage on the property and, as soon as practical thereafter, to lodge with the lender/complainant all deeds and documents properly stamped and registered as appropriate together with the original mortgage,
b) Failed to reply adequately to the complainant’s correspondence and to the complainant’s solicitors’ correspondence, in particular letters dated 9 December 2008, 9 January 2009, 28 January 2009, 16 February 2009 and 26 February 2009,
c) Failed to adequately respond to the Society’s correspondence, in particular letters dated 5 May 2009 and 20 May 2009,
d) Failed to attend or arrange representation before the Complaints and Client Relations Committee meeting on 9 October 2009, despite being directed to attend.
The tribunal directed:
a) That the respondent solicitor is not a fit person to be a member of the solicitors’ profession,
b) That the name of the respondent solicitor be struck off the Roll of Solicitors,
c) That the respondent solicitor pay the sum of €570,000 as restitution to Start Mortgages,
d) That the respondent solicitor pay the whole of the costs of the Law Society of Ireland, including witness expenses, to be taxed by a taxing master of the High Court in default of agreement.
The tribunal directed that the matter be referred forward to the High Court and, on 5 July 2010, the President of the High Court ordered:
1) That the name of the respondent solicitor be struck from the Roll of Solicitors,
2) That the respondent solicitor pay the sum of €570,000 as restitution to Start Mortgages Limited,
3) That the applicant forward the papers in respect of this application to the Director of Public Prosecutions,
4) That the respondent solicitor surrender his passport forthwith to An Garda Síochána,
5) That the respondent solicitor pay the applicant the costs of the High Court proceedings, together with the costs of the disciplinary tribunal proceedings, to include witness expenses, to be taxed in default of agreement.
-
Joseph Traynor
Traynor & Company, Solicitors, 86 Clanbrassil Street, Dundalk, Co Louth
Date of Order05/07/2010In the matter of Joseph Traynor, solicitor, formerly practising as Traynor & Company, Solicitors, 86 Clanbrassil Street, Dundalk, Co Louth, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2008 [5554/DT124/09 and High Court record no 2010 no 57 SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Joseph Traynor (respondent solicitor)
On 18 March 2010, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:
1) Failed to honour an undertaking given to the complainant’s clients, Start Mortgages Limited, in respect of his named clients, involving property at Rathcore, Enfield, Co Meath, in the solicitor’s undertaking dated 4 March 2008, whereby he undertook to do the following:
a) To ensure that the mortgage ranked as the first legal mortgage/charge on the property,
b) As soon as practicable, to stamp and register the mortgage in the appropriate registry so as to ensure the lender obtained the first legal mortgage/charge on the property and, expeditiously, as soon as practicable thereafter, to lodge the following with the lender:
i) All deeds and documents to the property, stamped and registered as appropriate, including if applicable the assignment of the life policy, stamped collateral to the mortgage,
ii) The original mortgage (with certificate of charge endorsed thereon under rule 156 of the Land Registry Rules1972, if Land Registry title),
iii) The Land Registry certificate or, if not issued, an up-to-date certified copy folio of the property showing the mortgage registered as a burden thereon, and
iv) Certificate of title in the Law Society’s standard form.
2) Failed to adequately or at all respond to the complainant’s correspondence, in particular letters dated 31 August 2008, 28 October 2008, 21 November 2008 and 18 December 2008 respectively.
The tribunal directed:
a) That the respondent solicitor is not a fit person to be a member of the solicitors’ profession,
b) That the name of the respondent solicitor be struck off the Roll of Solicitors,
c) That the respondent solicitor pay the sum of €50,000 as restitution to Start Mortgages Limited,
d) That the respondent solicitor pay the whole of the costs of the Law Society of Ireland, including witness expenses, to be taxed by a taxing master of the High Court in default of agreement.
The tribunal directed that the matter be referred forward to the High Court and, on 5 July 2010, the President of the High Court ordered:
1) That the name of the respondent solicitor be struck from the Roll of Solicitors,
2) That the respondent solicitor pay the sum of €50,000 as restitution to Start Mortgages Limited,
3) That the applicant forward the papers in respect of this application to the Director of Public Prosecutions,
4) That the respondent solicitor surrender his passport forthwith to An Garda Síochána,
5) That the respondent solicitor pay the applicant the costs of the High Court proceedings, together with the costs of the disciplinary tribunal proceedings, to include witness expenses, to be taxed in default of agreement.
-
Desmond O'Brien
Cregg, Lahinch, Co Clare
Date of Order14/06/2010In the matter of Desmond O’Brien, solicitor, Cregg, Lahinch, Co Clare, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954 to 2008 [4952/DT58/09 and High Court record 2010 no 44SA)
Law Society of Ireland
(applicant)
Desmond O’Brien
(respondent solicitor)
On 27 April 2010, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:
a) In April 2006, misappropriated €31,900 of clients’ monies to purchase a motor car.
b) In April 2006, misappropriated €6,000 of clients’ monies by means of a client account cheque payable to Bank of Ireland, which he used to purchase a bank draft payable to his wife, which was then lodged in their joint account in Bank of Ireland.
c) In May 2005, misappropriated €9,500 of clients’ money by means of a client account cheque payable to Bank of Ireland, which he used to purchase a bank draft payable to his wife, which was then lodged in their joint account in Bank of Ireland.
d) In February 2006, misappropriated €5,200 of clients’ money, which he then put into his credit card account.
e) In September 2006, misappropriated €21,500 of clients’ money, which, according to the bank, was lodged to an account in his own name in AIB.
f) Caused or allowed a possible underpayment of CGT in the case of a named client arising from an alteration in the computation by the solicitor.
g) Deducted costs from the estate of a named deceased, in breach of the regulations, without issuing a bill of costs, and the amount involved was €2,178.
h) In February 2006, misappropriated €3,224 of clients’ money, which he used to pay into his accounts in GE Money, Bank of Ireland mortgages, and into a Bank of Ireland loan account.
i) Deprived the elderly beneficiary of the estate of a named deceased of her money for the three years up to when he ceased practice, having misappropriated some of the estate money for his own personal benefit.
j) In February 2006, misappropriated €3,000 of clients’ money, with which he purchased an international bank draft payable to Bank Nationale de Paris and caused the cheque to be debited to the clients’ ledger account of a named client, described as ‘Bank of Ireland inheritance tax’.
k) On 3 July 2006, issued a client account cheque for €14,000 payable to the Revenue Commissioners, which was used with two other client account cheques to pay the stamp duty and penalty on a deed relating to a purchase by a named client that was completed in July 2004. He caused the cheque to be debited to the aforementioned named client’s ledger account.
l) Paid the second part of the stamp duty and penalty on a named client’s deed with a client account cheque for €3,684, which he caused to be debited to the client’s ledger account of another named client and which he caused to be described in the books of account as ‘Revenue Commissioners CGT’.
m) The third part of the stamp duty and penalty on a named client’s deed he paid with an AIB bank draft for €11,141, which, more than 18 months earlier, on 16 January 2005, the solicitor had drawn from a named client’s client account by means of a client account cheque payable to ‘Allied Irish Banks for Revenue’ and which the solicitor caused to be debited to the clients’ ledger account of a named client.
n) In February 2006, misappropriated €663 of clients’ money to pay his electricity bill.
o) In February 2006, misappropriated €417 of client’s money to pay his wife’s car insurance.
p) In February 2006, paid €665 to a named plant hire company and €283.22 to a named refuse and recycling company. These payments were debited to the client ledger account of a named deceased and there was nothing in that client’s file to support the payments.
q) On 17 November 2006, misappropriated €700 of clients’ money to pay his gas bill.
r) In February 2007, misappropriated clients’ money of €2,727.50 to pay his family’s VHI bill. The €2,727.50 was misappropriated as part of a larger amount of clients’ money, the balance of which was misappropriated as part of teeming and lading.
s) Misappropriated €4,250 of client’s money, which he lodged into his credit card account in March 2008.
t) In March 2008, misappropriated €2,000 of clients’ money, which he paid into a mortgage account in Bank of Ireland held in his own and his wife’s names.
u) In February 2008, misappropriated €5,000 of clients’ money, which he lodged to his credit card account.
v) In July 2006, misappropriated €4,800 of clients’ money, which he lodged to his credit card account.
w) In September 2005, misappropriated €5,000 of clients’ money, which he lodged to his credit card account.
x) On 17 August 2005, issued a client account cheque for €15,700 payable to a named client. The returned paid cheque shows that it was endorsed on the back with the name of a person bearing the same surname as the named client. The solicitor caused the cheque to be wrongly debited to the estate account in the clients’ ledger of a named client, described in the books as a named deceased’s bequest, although there was no such beneficiary in that estate. The books of account, however, show that the solicitor acted for the first-named client in the estate of a named deceased.
y) On 22 September 2006, misappropriated €13,250 of clients’ money, which he used to make a payment of €6,000 to a bank in France, €3,500 into his credit card account, and the balance of €3,750 was lodged into a joint account in his and his wife’s name.
z) Caused the bookkeeper/accountant to make false and misleading entries in the books of account.
The tribunal recommended that the matter be sent forward to the President of the High Court and, on 14 June 2010, the President of the High Court made an order that the name of the respondent solicitor shall be struck from the Roll of Solicitors and that the Law Society do recover the costs of the proceedings before the High Court and the costs of the proceedings before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal as against the respondent when taxed or ascertained.
-
Michael J Murphy
MJ Murphy & Co, Solicitors, 25 Lower Salthill, Galway, Co Galway
Date of Order14/06/2010In the matter of Michael J Murphy, a solicitor formerly practising as MJ Murphy & Co, Solicitors, 25 Lower Salthill, Galway, Co Galway, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2008 [4803/DT119/08 and High Court record no 2009/95 SA]
Michael J Murphy (respondent solicitor)
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
On 1 September 2009, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:
1) Deducted an improper solicitor client fee of €15,000 from a named client’s settlement of €30,000, which represents a solicitor client fee of 50%, when he also received party-and-party costs of €7,978.26,
2) Failed to record the receipt of the above amount of €7,978.26 in the books of account,
3) Failed to lodge the above amount of €7,978.26 to client account or to office account,
4) Failed to maintain a copy of the party-and-party bill of costs or the letter received enclosing the party-and-party costs cheque on the client’s file in the case of a named client,
5) Misapplied the above party-and-party costs of €7,978.26 by lodging same to an account in his own name in a named credit union,
6) Deducted an improper solicitor client fee of €9,500 from a named client’s settlement of €22,500, which represents a solicitor client fee of 42.2%, when he also received party-and-party costs of €3,500,
7) Failed to record the receipt of the above amount of €3,500 in the books of account,
8) Failed to lodge the above amount of €3,500 to client account or to office account,
9) Failed to maintain a copy of the party-and party-bill of costs or the letter received enclosing the party-and-party costs cheque on the client’s file in the case of a named client,
10) Deducted an improper solicitor client fee of €2,000 from a named client’s settlement of €5,000, which represents a solicitor client fee of 40%, when he also received party-and-party costs of €928.41,
11) Failed to record the receipt of the above amount of €928.41 in the books of account,
12) Failed to lodge the above amount of €928.41 to client account or to office account,
13) Failed to maintain a copy of the party-and-party bill of costs or the letter received enclosing the party-and-party costs cheque on the client’s file in the case of a named client,
14) Deducted an improper solicitor client fee of €8,515.44 from a named client’s settlement of €22,515.44, which represents a solicitor client fee of 37.8%, when he also received party-and-party costs of €3,000,
15) Failed to record the receipt of the above amount of €3,000 in the books of account,
16) Failed to lodge the above amount of €3,000 to client account or to office account,
17) Misapplied the above party-and-party costs of €3,000 by lodging same to an account in his own name in a named credit union,
18) Failed to maintain a copy of the party-and-party bill of costs or the letter received enclosing the party-and-party costs cheque on the client’s file in the case of a named client,
19) Deducted an improper solicitor client fee of €15,000 from a named client’s settlement of €40,000, which represents a solicitor client fee of 37.5%, when he also received party-and-party costs of €7,050,
20) Failed to record the receipt of the above amount of €7,050 in the books of account,
21) Failed to maintain a copy of the party-and-party bill of costs or the letter received enclosing the party-and-party costs cheque on the client’s file in the case of a named client,
22) Deducted an improper solicitor client fee of €7,500 from a named client’s settlement of €20,000, which represents a solicitor client fee of 37.5%, when he also received party-and-party costs of €6,335.50,
23) Failed to record the receipt of the above amount of €6,335.50 in the books of account,
24) Failed to lodge the above €6,335.50 to client account or to office account,
25) Misapplied the above party-and-party costs of €6,335.50 by lodging same to an account in his own name in a named credit union,
26) Deducted an improper solicitor client fee of €5,699.14 from a named client’s settlement of €15,769.14, which represents a solicitor client fee of 36.1%, when he also received party-and-party costs of €5,886.32,
27) Failed to record the above €5,886.32 in the books of account,
28) Failed to lodge the above €5,886.32 to client account or to office account,
29) Failed to maintain the letter received enclosing the party-and-party costs cheque on the client’s file in the case of a named client,
30) Misapplied the above party-and-party costs of €5,886.32 by lodging same to an account in his own name in a named credit union,
31) Deducted an improper solicitor client fee of IR£3,500 from a named client’s settlement of IR£13,500, which represents a solicitor client fee of 25.9%, when he also received party-and-party costs of €3,850,
32) Deducted an improper solicitor client fee of €2,500 from a named client’s settlement of €10,000, which represents a solicitor client fee of 25%, when he also received party-and-party costs of €3,377.40,
33) Failed to record the receipt of the above €3,377.40 in the books of account,
34) Failed to lodge the above €3,377.40 to client account or to office account,
35) Failed to maintain a copy of the party-and-party bill or the letter received enclosing the party-and-party cheque on the client’s file in the case of a named client,
36) Misapplied the above party-and-party costs of €3,377.40 by lodging same to an account in his own name in a named credit union,
37) Deducted an improper solicitor client fee of €5,000 from a named client’s settlement of €20,000, which represents a solicitor client fee of 25%, when he also received party-and-party costs of €4,755.52,
38) Deducted an improper solicitor client fee of €3,000 from a named client’s settlement of €13,301, which represents a solicitor client fee of 22.5%, when he also received party-and-party costs of €6,620.13,
39) Deducted an improper solicitor client fee of €3,500 from a named client’s settlement of €16,500, which represents a solicitor client fee of 21.2%, when he also received party-and-party costs of €3,907.41,
40) Deducted an improper solicitor client fee of €20,000 from a named client’s settlement of €110,000, which represents a solicitor client fee of 18.2%, when he also received party-and-party costs of €35,888.79 in two instalments of €25,000 and €10,888.79,
41) Failed to record the receipt of the above instalment of party-and-party costs of €25,000 in the books of account,
42) Failed to lodge the above instalment of party-and-party costs of €25,000 to client account or to office account,
43) Failed to maintain a copy of the party-and-party bill or the letters received enclosing the party-and-party cheques on the client’s file in the case of a named client,
44) Misapplied the above party-and-party costs instalment of €25,000 by lodging same to an account in his own name in a named credit union,
45) Deducted an improper solicitor client fee of €5,000 from a named client’s settlement of €30,000, which represents a solicitor client fee of 16.67%, when he also received party-and-party costs of €20,378.33,
46) Failed to record the receipt of the above €20,378.33 in the books of account,
47) Failed to lodge the above €20,378.33 to client account or to office account,
48) Misapplied the above party-and-party costs of €20,378.33 by lodging same to an account in his own name in a named credit union,
49) Failed to record in the books of account the receipt of party-and-party costs of €3,194.66 received in the case of a named client,
50) Failed to lodge the party-and-party costs of €3,194.66 received in the case of a named client to client account or to office account,
51) Failed to maintain the letter received enclosing the party-and-party costs cheque of €3,194.66 on the client’s file in the case of a named client,
52) Failed to record in the books of account the receipt of party-and-party costs of €5,717.26 received in the case of a named client,
53) Failed to lodge the party-and-party costs of €5,717.26 received in the case of a named client to client account or to office account,
54) Failed to maintain the letter received enclosing the party-and-party costs cheque of €5,717.26 on the client’s file in the case of a named client,
55) Misapplied the above party-and-party costs of €5,717.26 by lodging same to an account in his own name in a named credit union,
56) Left the sum of €2,541.00, received to pay counsel in the case of a named client, in office account between October 2003 and June 2004,
57) Failed to record in the books of account the receipt of party-and-party costs of €8,384.77 received in the case of a named client,
58) Failed to lodge the party-and-party costs of €8,384.77 received in the case of a named client to client account or to office account,
59) Failed to maintain the letter received enclosing the party-and-party costs cheque of €8,384.77 on the client’s file in the case of a named client,
60) Misapplied the above party-and-party costs of €8,384.77 by lodging same to an account in his own name in a named credit union,
61) Failed to record in the books of account the receipt of party-and-party costs of €3,957.93 received in the case of a named client,
62) Failed to lodge the party-and-party costs of €3,957.93 received in the case of a named client to client account or to office account,
63) Failed to maintain the letter received enclosing the party-and-party costs cheque of €3,957.93 on the client’s file in the case of a named client,
64) Failed to record in the books of account the receipt of party-and-party costs of €3,591.95 received in the case of a named client,
65) Failed to lodge the party-and-party costs of €3,591.95 received in the case of a named client to client account or to office account,
66) Failed to maintain the party-and-party bill of costs and the letter received enclosing the party-and-party costs cheque of €3,591.95 on the client’s file in the case of a named client,
67) Failed to record in the books of account the receipt of party-and-party costs of €17,872.80 received in the case of a named client,
68) Failed to lodge the party-and-party costs of €17,872.80 received in the case of a named client to client account or to office account,
69) Failed to maintain the letter received enclosing the party-and-party costs cheque of €17,872.80 on the client’s file in the case of a named client,
70) Misapplied the above party-and-party costs of €17,872.80 by lodging same to an account in his own name in a named credit union,
71) Delayed in paying €1,875 to counsel from June 2003 to February 2005 in the case of a named client,
72) Untruthfully stated during the investigation that the party-and-party costs cheques that had not been lodged to client or office accounts and had not been recorded in the books of account had all been cashed “across the counter” and that they were not lodged to any account,
73) Drew costs from client account by means of cheques payable to Bank of Ireland in the sums of €250 and €2,000,
74) Deducted €315.99 for an itemised list of ‘specials’ from a named client’s settlement and subsequently misapplied the €315.99 to office account,
75) Informed the barrister in a named client’s case that that the claim had been settled for €5,000 when it had actually been settled for €7,500,
76) Deducted €18,000 from a named client’s settlement of €100,000 and lodged same to office account after the client had been informed that €8,000 of the deduction was for ‘specials’,
77) Drew €6,112.50, being part of a solicitor client fee of €8,000 in the case of a named client, from client account by means of a cheque payable to Bank of Ireland,
78) Failed to record the receipt of the €6,112.50 as a fee in the books of account in the case of a named client,
79) Deducted an improper solicitor client fee of €8,000 from a named client’s settlement of €33,000, which represents a solicitor client fee of 24.24%, when he was also entitled to charge party-and-party costs,
80) Misused €417 of clients’ money when he drew €662 from client account and the clients’ ledger account of a named client by means of a cheque payable to Galway City Council for his (the respondent solicitor’s) domestic refuse charges,
81) Delayed in paying the stamp duty of €12,050 in the case of a named client,
82) Failed to fully comply with section 68(6) of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act 1994 in respect of 36 clients’ files examined,
83) Deducted improper solicitor client fees ranging from 14% to 47.21% and ranging from €2,000 to €63,608 of the client’s settlements in up to 16 other cases documented in work papers provided by the reporting accountant,
84) Misused clients’ money when he caused debit balances on clients’ ledger accounts in his own name,
85) Failed to provide documentation, prior to his referral to the disciplinary tribunal, to enable the following amounts credited to his own accounts in the clients’ ledger to be verified: €28,498.82 on 7 March 2002; €24,760 on 9 April 2002; €10,204.82 on 13 June 2002; €7,000 on 14 June 2002; €17,478.62 on 20 June 2002; €10,000 on 28 June 2002; €21,254.84 on 12 July 2002; €24,660 on 29 January 2003; and €25,000 on 1 December 2004,
86) Failed to identify or provide documentation, prior to his referral to the disciplinary tribunal, to enable the following amounts lodged to his account in a named credit union to be verified:
- 16 July 2002 – €5,000,
- 5 June 2003 – €17,578.99,
- 1 July 2003 – €7,800,
- 1 August 2003 – €2,907,
- 13 April 2004 – €2,461.80,
- 24 April 2004 – €13,519.75,
- 21 May 2004 – €5,000,
- 6 August 2004 – €4,026.27,
- 6 August 2004 – €4,000,
- 17 August 2004 – €11,825.60,
- 24 August 2004 – €3,142.24,
- 27 August 2004 – €19,422.55,
- 7 September 2004 – €27,583.25,
- 7 September 2004 – €6,300.42,
- 5 October 2004 – €3,793.35,
- 17 November 2004 – €3,800,
- Total – €138,161,
87) Misled the Revenue by excluding solicitor client fees of €459,000 from income in his voluntary disclosure and informing the Revenue, through his representatives, that solicitor client fees of €459,000 were obtained in breach of the regulations and would be paid back to the clients, and then failed to repay the full €459,000 to the clients prior to his referral to the disciplinary tribunal,
88) Preferred 12 former clients by refunding them solicitor client fees totalling €83,545.95 plus interest, as per a letter dated 22 July 2008 from his legal representative, without explaining why these 12 clients were preferred and did not explain why any of the remainder of the €459,000 was not refunded,
89) Failed to refund all of the solicitor client fees to the clients as directed by the Regulation of Practice Committee at its meeting on 6 April 2006 prior to his referral to the disciplinary tribunal,
90) Failed to provide or failed to ensure, prior to his referral to the disciplinary tribunal, that the explanation required by the Regulation of Practice Committee was provided concerning the circumstances of an undertaking to Bank of Ireland over the sale proceeds of a house in a named location, as requested at the May 2006 meeting of the Regulation of Practice Committee.
The tribunal recommended that:
a) The respondent solicitor was not a fit person to be a member of the solicitors’ profession and that the name of the respondent solicitor be struck off the Roll of Solicitors,
b) The respondent solicitor pay the whole of the costs of the Society, including witness expenses, to be taxed by a taxing master of the High Court in default of agreement.
On 14 June 2010, the President of the High Court ordered:
1) That the respondent solicitor is not a fit person to be a member of the solicitors’ profession and the name of the respondent solicitor be struck off the Roll of Solicitors,
2) That the respondent solicitor shall pay the whole of the costs of the Society, including witness expenses before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, to be taxed by a taxing master of the High Court in default of agreement;
3) An order for the costs of the proceedings in the High Court to be taxed by a taxing master of the High Court, in default of agreement.
Subsequently, the respondent solicitor appealed to the Supreme Court against the decision of the President of the High Court.
-
Eamon P Comiskey
Ballycarnan, Portlaoise, Co Laois
Date of Order01/03/2010In the matter of Eamon P Comiskey, a solicitor previously practising at Ballycarnan, Portlaoise, Co Laois, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2008 [7337/DT23/09 and High Court 2009 no 102SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Eamon P Comiskey (respondent solicitor)
On 17 September 2009, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he failed to comply with an undertaking furnished to IIB Homeloans (now KBC Homeloans) on 28 April 2000 in respect of a named client and a named property in Co Tipperary in a timely manner or at all.
The tribunal ordered that the matter be brought before the High Court and, on 1 March 2010, the President of the High Court ordered that the name of the respondent solicitor be struck from the Roll of Solicitors and that the Society recover the costs of the proceedings in the High Court and the costs of the proceedings before the disciplinary tribunal as against the respondent solicitor when taxed and ascertained.
-
Eamon P Comiskey
Ballycarnan, Portlaoise, Co Laois
Date of Order01/03/2010In the matter of Eamon P Comiskey, a solicitor previously practising at Ballycarnan, Portlaoise, Co Laois, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2008 [7337/DT24/09 and High Court 2009 no 102SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Eamon P Comiskey (respondent solicitor)
On 17 September 2009, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he failed to comply with an undertaking given to IIB Homeloans (now KBC Homeloans) on 8 February 2001 in respect of a named client and two properties in Co Offaly in a timely manner or at all.
The tribunal ordered that the matter be brought before the High Court and, on 1 March 2010, the President of the High Court ordered that the name of the respondent solicitor be struck from the Roll of Solicitors and that the Society recover the costs of the proceedings in the High Court and the costs of the proceedings before the disciplinary tribunal as against the respondent solicitor when taxed and ascertained.
-
Eamon P Comiskey
Ballycarnan, Portlaoise, Co Laois
Date of Order01/03/2010In the matter of Eamon P Comiskey, a solicitor previously practising at Ballycarnan, Portlaoise, Co Laois, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2008 [7337/DT85/09 and High Court 2010 no 13SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Eamon P Comiskey (respondent solicitor)
On 24 November 2009, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:
a) Failed to comply with an undertaking dated 22 February 2007 to discharge an Investec mortgage on a premises and to furnish partial discharge in a timely manner or at all,
b) Failed to reply to the Society’s correspondence and, in particular, the Society’s letters of 12 February 2009, 18 March 2009 and 31 March 2009 in a timely manner or at all,
c) Failed to attend at the meetings of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee on 13 May 2009 and 24 June 2009, despite being required to do so,
d) Failed to attend at the meeting of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee on 30 July 2009, despite being directed to so attend by order of the High Court made on 13 July 2009.
The tribunal ordered that the matter be brought before the High Court and, on 1 March 2010, the President of the High Court ordered that the name of the respondent solicitor be struck from the Roll of Solicitors and that the Society recover the costs of the proceedings in the High Court and the costs of the proceedings before the disciplinary tribunal as against the respondent solicitor when taxed and ascertained.
-
David O'Shea
O'Donovan Solicitors, 73 Capel St, Dublin 1
Date of Order15/02/2010In the matter of David O’Shea, solicitor, formerly practising at O’Donovan Solicitors, 73 Capel Street, Dublin 1, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2008 [6743/DT63/09 and High Court record no 2009 no108 SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
David O’Shea (respondent solicitor)
On 15 February 2010, the High Court made an order striking the name of the respondent solicitor from the Roll of Solicitors.
The High Court had before it the findings of misconduct of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal as follows:
a) Caused, by the misapplication and/or misappropriation of monies, a deficit on the client account of O’Donovan Solicitors of in or about €273,439.28, in breach of regulation 7(2)(a).
b) Misappropriated monies from the client account for his own personal use and benefit of in or about €96,000, in breach of regulation 7(2)(b).
c) Misapplied funds of in or about €80,000 from the client ledger account of a named client, in breach of regulation 7(1)(a)(i).
d) Failed to stamp/failure to ensure the stamping of the deeds of a named client, despite having been put in funds to do so, causing interest and penalties to arise of in or about €38,220 as at February 2008.
e) Dishonestly advanced funds of in or about €47,000 to two named clients from the client ledger account of a named estate, and upon receipt of loan monies to the credit of the two named clients, failed to retain the sum of €47,000 and credit same to the account of the estate. This is in breach of regulations 9, 9(a), 9(b) and 12(2)(a).
f) Misapplied and/or misappropriated monies totalling in or about €198,900 from the client ledger account of the above estate, in breach of regulation 12(1) and 12(2)(a).
g) Misappropriated monies in a minimum amount of €40,500 from the client ledger account of the above estate for his own personal use and benefit, in breach of regulation 7(2)(b).
h) Maintained, or caused to be maintained, false and misleading accounting records in respect of the client account of the above estate deceased, in breach of regulation 12(2)(a).
i) Caused or permitted a transfer deed for a named client to be presented to the Revenue Commissioners for stamping dated 8 February 2008, when the actual date of transfer was in or about March 2007.
j) Misappropriated funds of a named client of in or about €16,539.28 by lodging same to his personal ledger account for his personal use and benefit, in breach of regulations 7(2)(b) and 12(2)(a).
k) Failed to open a client ledger account for the above client, having received monies outstanding to her credit from a named firm of solicitors, and failed to stamp/ensure the stamping of the deeds of the above named client, in breach of regulation 6(4)(b) and 12(2)(a).
-
Mary Miley
Mary Miley & Co, Solicitors, Brewery Place, Rathdrum, Co Wicklow
Date of Order18/01/2010In the matter of Mary Miley, solicitor, formerly practising as Mary Miley & Co, Solicitors, at Brewery Place, Rathdrum, Co Wicklow, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2002 [3916/DT66/07 and High Court record 2010 no 4SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Mary Miley (respondent solicitor)
On 11 June 2008, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in her practice as a solicitor in that she:
1) Gave undertakings to a lending institution in respect of the sale proceeds of property without the express or implied authority of the registered owner,
2) Failed to reply to correspondence from the solicitors for the lending institution concerned,
3) Withheld the land certificate from the solicitors for the registered owner without any lawful authority to do so,
4) Prejudiced the registered owner of the property by retaining the land certificate, thereby causing a delay in the sale of the property, resulting in a completion notice being served and specific performance proceedings being issued against the registered owner.
The tribunal ordered that the matter go forward to the High Court and, on 18 January 2010, the President of the High Court made the following orders:
1) That the name of the respondent solicitor shall be struck from the Roll of Solicitors,
2) That the respondent solicitor do make restitution to her former client in the amount of €225,515 within four weeks of the making of this order,
3) That the respondent solicitor, within 14 days of the making of this order, submit to the Society proposals to the satisfaction of the Society for the orderly disposition of all files and documents, including title deeds, in her possession or control or within her procurement arising from her practice as a solicitor,
4) That the respondent solicitor disclose on affidavit, within 14 days of the making of this order, what files and documents, including title deeds, are in her possession or control or within her procurement arising from her practice as a solicitor and the current whereabouts, or last known whereabouts, of any specific file or documentation or title deeds notified by the Society to her and, in particular, as detailed the affidavit on behalf of the Society sworn on 21 December 2009,
5) That the respondent solicitor make herself available before the court should the Society so require, on a specified date and at a specified time, for oral examination under oath in relation to the contents of any affidavit sworn by her pursuant to the order of the court,
6) If necessary, an order pursuant to section 8(1)(c)(v) of the 1960 act, as substituted and amended, that the respondent solicitor forthwith deliver up to the Society’s nominee all files and documents, including title deeds, in her possession or control or within her procurement arising from her practice as a solicitor, which files and documents to be dealt with by the Society pursuant to the provisions of section 19 of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act 1960, as amended by substitution by section 27 of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act 1994,
7) That the respondent solicitor, within 24 hours of the making of this order, surrender her passport to the Registrar of the High Court,
8) That the Law Society do recover the costs of the proceedings herein and the costs of the proceedings before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal as against the respondent, to be taxed in default of agreement.
-
Mary Miley
Mary Miley & Co, Solicitors, at Brewery Place, Rathdrum, Co Wicklow
Date of Order18/01/2010In the matter of Mary Miley, solicitor, formerly practising as Mary Miley & Co, Solicitors, at Brewery Place, Rathdrum, Co Wicklow, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2008 [3916/DT89/08 and High Court record 2010 no 6SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Mary Miley (respondent solicitor)
On 10 March 2009, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in her practice as a solicitor in that she:
1) Failed, up to 23 May 2007 or at all, to comply in full and in a timely manner with the undertaking given by her to Irish Nationwide Building Society (INBS) dated 18 December 2001 on behalf of her client, despite multiple requests by and on behalf of INBS seeking compliance with the said undertaking,
2) In particular, failed, up to 23 May 2007 or at all, to comply with the terms of the said undertaking, which required her “as soon as practicable” to stamp and register a mortgage deed/charge in favour of INBS and to lodge with INBS a duly stamped and registered mortgage deed and title documentation,
3) Failed to respond in a timely manner, or at all, to correspondence from INBS and the complainant (on behalf of INBS) requesting compliance with the said undertaking, and further failed to offer any explanation for her continued failure to comply with the terms of the said undertaking,
4) Failed to respond appropriately in a timely manner, or at all, to the Society’s correspondence in relation to the investigation of the complaint and, in particular, to the issues contained in the Society’s letter of 2 February 2007,
5) Failed to comply with the notice dated 15 January 2007 issued to her pursuant to section 10 of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act 1994 requiring her, within ten days of the date of service of the said notice, to deliver to a solicitor at the Society all documents in her possession, under her control, or within the procurement of her or her firm in connection with the matters relating to the complaint of the complainant, and failed to comply within the time frame specified therein or at all.
The tribunal ordered that the matter go forward to the High Court and, on 18 January 2010, the President of the High Court made the following orders:
1) That the name of the respondent solicitor shall be struck from the Roll of Solicitors,
2) That the respondent solicitor, within 14 days of the making of this order, submit to the Society proposals to the satisfaction of the Society for the orderly disposition of all files and documents, including title deeds, in her possession or control or within her procurement arising from her practice as a solicitor,
3) That the respondent solicitor disclose on affidavit, within 14 days of the making of this order, what files and documents, including title deeds, are in her possession or control or within her procurement arising from her practice as a solicitor and the current whereabouts, or last known whereabouts, of any specific file or documentation or title deeds notified by the Society to her and, in particular, as detailed in the affidavit on behalf of the Society sworn on 21 December 2009,
4) That the respondent solicitor make herself available before the court should the Society so require, on a specified date and at a specified time, for oral examination under oath in relation to the contents of any affidavit sworn by her pursuant to the order of the court,
5) If necessary, an order pursuant to section 8(1)(c)(v) of the 1960 act, as substituted and amended, that the respondent solicitor forthwith deliver up to the Society’s nominee all files and documents, including title deeds, in her possession or control or within her procurement arising from her practice as a solicitor, which files and documents to be dealt with by the Society pursuant to the provisions of section 19 of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act 1960, as amended by substitution by section 27 of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act 1994,
6) That the respondent solicitor, within 24 hours of the making of this order, surrender her passport to the Registrar of the High Court,
7) That the Law Society do recover for the costs of the proceedings herein and the costs of the proceedings as against the respondent solicitor before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, to be taxed in default of agreement.
-
Mary Miley
Mary Miley & Co, Solicitors, at Brewery Place, Rathdrum, Co Wicklow
Date of Order18/01/2010In the matter of Mary Miley, solicitor, formerly practising as Mary Miley & Co, Solicitors, at Brewery Place, Rathdrum, Co Wicklow, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2008 [3916/DT90/08 and High Court record 2010 no 5SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Mary Miley (respondent solicitor)
On 10 March 2009, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in her practice as a solicitor in that she:
1) Failed to comply with an undertaking dated 28 October 2005 given to a lending institution on behalf of two clients,
2) Failed to reply to six letters from the solicitors for the lending institution between 22 November 2006 and 1 February 2007 inquiring about the position,
3) Failed to reply to correspondence from the Society endeavouring to investigate the complaint, being letters dated 14 February 2007, 1 March 2007, and 12 March 2007,
4) Failed to comply with a direction of the Complaint and Client Relations Committee on 28 March 2007 that she make a contribution of €500 towards the costs incurred by the Society as a result of her failure to respond to the Society’s inquiries,
5) Failed to respond to a letter dated 16 December 2005 from the solicitor previously acting for her clients,
6) Failed to protect the interests of her clients, the borrowers.
The tribunal ordered that the matter go forward to the High Court and, on 18 January 2010, the President of the High Court made the following orders:
1) That the name of the respondent solicitor shall be struck from the Roll of Solicitors,
2) That the respondent solicitor do make restitution to her former clients in the amount of €9,769 within four weeks of the making of this order,
3) That the respondent solicitor, within 14 days of the making of this order, submit to the Society proposals to the satisfaction of the Society for the orderly disposition of all files and documents, including title deeds, in her possession or control or within her procurement arising from her practice as a solicitor,
4) That the respondent solicitor disclose on affidavit, within 14 days of the making of this order, what files and documents, including title deeds, are in her possession or control or within her procurement arising from her practice as a solicitor and the current whereabouts, or last known whereabouts, of any specific file or documentation or title deeds notified by the Society to her and, in particular, as detailed in the affidavit on behalf of the Society sworn on 21 December 2009,
5) That the respondent solicitor make herself available before the court should the Society so require, on a specified date and at a specified time, for oral examination under oath in relation to the contents of any affidavit sworn by her pursuant to the order of the court,
6) If necessary, an order pursuant to section 8(1)(c)(v) of the 1960 act, as substituted and amended, that the respondent solicitor forthwith deliver up to the Society’s nominee all files and documents, including title deeds, in her possession or control or within her procurement arising from her practice as a solicitor, which files and documents to be dealt with by the Society pursuant to the provisions of section 19 of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act 1960, as amended by substitution by section 27 of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act 1994,
7) That the respondent solicitor, within 24 hours of the making of this order, surrender her passport to the Registrar of the High Court,
8) That the Society do recover for the costs of the proceedings herein and the costs of the proceedings as against the respondent solicitor before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, to be taxed in default of agreement.
-
Mary Miley
Mary Miley & Co, Solicitors, Brewery Place, Rathdrum, Co Wicklow
Date of Order18/01/2010In the matter of Mary Miley, solicitor, formerly practising as Mary Miley & Co, Solicitors, at Brewery Place, Rathdrum, Co Wicklow, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2008 [3916/DT18/09 and High Court record 2010 no 8SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Mary Miley (respondent solicitor)
On 17 June 2009, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in her practice as a solicitor in that she:
1) Dishonestly held herself out as a person entitled to practise as a solicitor when she did not hold a current practising certificate,
2) Gave an undertaking to a named firm of solicitors by letter dated 30 August 2007 in circumstances where she did not hold a current practising certificate,
3) Gave an undertaking to a named firm of solicitors by letter dated 18 January 2008 in circumstances where she did not hold a current practising certificate,
4) Failed to reply to correspondence from a named firm of solicitors, dated 15 February 2008, 14 March 2008, 15 May 2008, 15 August 2008 and 4 September 2008,
5) Failed to comply with the undertaking given to a named firm of solicitors, dated 30 August 2007, in a timely manner or at all,
6) Failed to comply with the undertaking given to a named firm of solicitors, dated 18 January 2008, in a timely manner or at all.
The tribunal ordered that the matter go forward to the High Court and, on 18 January 2010, the President of the High Court made the following orders:
1) That the name of the respondent solicitor shall be struck from the Roll of Solicitors,
2) That the respondent solicitor, within 14 days of the making of this order, submit to the Society proposals to the satisfaction of the Society for the orderly disposition of all files and documents, including title deeds, in her possession or control or within her procurement arising from her practice as a solicitor,
3) That the respondent solicitor disclose on affidavit, within 14 days of the making of this order, what files and documents, including title deeds, are in her possession or control or within her procurement arising from her practice as a solicitor and the current whereabouts, or last known whereabouts, of any specific file or documentation or title deeds notified by the Society to her and, in particular, as detailed in the affidavit on behalf of the Society sworn on 21 December 2009,
4) That the respondent solicitor make herself available before the court should the Society so require, on a specified dated and at a specified time, for oral examination under oath in relation to the contents of any affidavit sworn by her pursuant to the order of the court,
5) If necessary, an order pursuant to section 8(1)(c)(v) of the 1960 act, as substituted and amended, that the respondent solicitor forthwith deliver up to the Society’s nominee all files and documents, including title deeds, in her possession or control or within her procurement arising from her practice as a solicitor, which files and documents to be dealt with by the Society pursuant to the provisions of section 19 of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act 1960, as amended by substitution by section 27 of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act 1994,
6) That the respondent solicitor, within 24 hours of the making of this order, surrender her passport to the registrar,
7) That the Law Society do recover for the costs of the proceedings herein and the costs of the proceedings as against the respondent solicitor before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, to be taxed in default of agreement.
-
Mary Miley
Mary Miley & Co, Solicitors, Brewery Place, Rathdrum, Co Wicklow
Date of Order18/01/2010In the matter of Mary Miley, solicitor, formerly practising as Mary Miley & Co, Solicitors, at Brewery Place, Rathdrum, Co Wicklow, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2008 [3916/DT39/09 and High Court record 2010 no 3SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Mary Miley (respondent solicitor)
On 16 July 2009, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in her practice as a solicitor in that she:
1) Fraudulently obtained loans for her own personal benefit and use totalling, in or about, €570,000 from Secured Property Loans Ltd (SPL),
2) Fraudulently obtained/fraudulently assisted others to obtain further loans totalling, in or about, €425,000 from SPL,
3) Fraudulently held herself out as a person entitled to practise as a solicitor when she did not hold a practising certificate,
4) Dishonestly obtained a loan of, in or about, €220,000 from SPL on foot of a fraudulent loan application, which was made in her married name, Mary Ann Dore, and which contained false information,
5) Forged or falsified, or permitted to be forged or falsified, employment documentation, namely payslips and P60s, for use in support of the loan application(s) of Mary Ann Dore to SPL,
6) Dishonestly furnished/permitted to be furnished to SPL forged or false employment documentation in support of the loan application of Mary Ann Dore for €220,000, namely payslips in the name of Mary Dore and a P60 in the name of Mary Dore for the year ended 31 December 2005,
7) Forged or falsified, or permitted to be forged or falsified, the personal details page of a passport, or a copy thereof, for use in support of the loan application(s) of Mary Ann Dore,
8) Dishonestly furnished/permitted to be furnished to SPL a copy of a forged or falsified personal details page of a passport in support of the application of Mary Ann Dore for a loan of €220,000,
9) Forged or falsified, or permitted to be forged or falsified ESB bill(s), or copies thereof, for use in support of the loan application(s) of Mary Ann Dore,
10) Dishonestly furnished/permitted to be furnished to SPL a copy of a forged or false ESB bill in support of the loan application of Mary Ann Dore for a loan of €220,000,
11) Forged or falsified, or permitted to be forged or falsified, AIB Bank statements for use in support of the loan application(s) of Mary Ann Dore,
12) Dishonestly furnished/permitted to be furnished to SPL a forged or falsified AIB Bank Statement in support of the loan application of Mary Ann Dore for a loan of €220,000,
13) Forged or falsified, or permitted to be forged or falsified, a notification of grant of planning permission by Wexford County Council Planning Authority (no 20043915), or a copy thereof, for use in support of a loan application by Mary Ann Dore,
14) Dishonestly furnished/permitted to be furnished to SPL a copy of a forged or falsified notification of grant of planning permission in support of the loan application of Mary Ann Dore for a loan of €220,000,
15) Dishonestly failed to disclose to SPL that she and Mary Ann Dore were one and the same person and deliberately misled SPL and caused SPL to believe that she and Mary Ann Dore were separate individuals by completing/permitting the completion of loan applications in the name of Mary Ann Dore and purportedly acting as solicitor, in the name of Mary Miley, for the said Mary Ann Dore and fraudulently advising SPL that she had provided Mary Ann Dore with independent legal advice,
16) Fraudulently signed a solicitors certificate, which was furnished to SPL dated 7 July 2007, confirming that she had independently advised her client Mary Ann Dore (that is, herself),
17) Dishonestly signed, in the capacity of a witness to the signature of Mary Dore (that is, herself), a letter from Mary Dore to SPL dated 7 July 2006 confirming that Mary Dore had been provided with independent legal advice from Mary Miley with regard to the loan of €220,000 to be provided by SPL, which said letter was furnished to SPL,
18) Failed to comply with an undertaking dated 7 July 2006 given by her to SPL by which she, among other things, undertook to register a first charge in the name of SPL over the property provided as security for the loan of €220,000 to Mary Ann Dore,
19) Fraudulently stated in her undertaking dated 7 July 2006 to SPL that the title to the property offered as security for the loan was good and marketable and might be safely accepted by SPL, in circumstances where she knew that the borrower of the loan (that is, herself) did not have title to the property,
20) Fraudulently undertook to register, by way of security for the loan of €220,000 to Mary Ann Dore, a first charge in the name of SPL over a property at Co Wexford registered under folio 10374F, which said folio did not relate to the property being provided as security for the loan and further dishonestly signed a loan commitment letter issued by SPL to Mary Ann Dore that stated that the borrower, Mary Ann Dore, was the sole owner of a property registered under folio 10374F, knowing that this was untrue,
21) Dishonestly obtained a loan of €350,000 from SPL on foot of a fraudulent loan application, which was made in her married name, Mary Ann Dore, and which contained false information,
22) Dishonestly furnished/permitted to be furnished to SPL a copy of a forged or falsified personal details page of a passport in support of the application of Mary Ann Dore for a loan of €350,000,
23) Dishonestly furnished/permitted to be furnished to SPL forged or false employment documentation in support of the loan application of Mary Ann Dore for €350,000, namely payslips in the name of Mary Dore and two P60 forms in the name of Mary Dore for years ended 31 December 2005 and 31 December 2006,
24) Dishonestly furnished/permitted to be furnished to SPL a copy of a forged or falsified ESB bill in support of the loan application of Mary Ann Dore for a loan of €350,000,
25) Dishonestly furnished/permitted to be furnished to SPL a forged or falsified AIB Bank statement in support of the loan application of Mary Ann Dore for a loan of €350,000,
26) Fraudulently undertook to register, by way of security for the loan of €350,000 to Mary Ann Dore, a first charge in the name of SPL over property being part transferred from folio 20460F, which was registered to a named person, and further dishonestly signed a loan commitment letter issued by SPL to Mary Ann Dore that stated that the borrower, Mary Ann Dore, was sole owner of a property being part transferred from folio 20460F Wexford, knowing that same was not true,
27) Dishonestly signed, in the capacity of a witness to the signature of Mary Dore (that is, herself), a customer care booklet on 1 November 2007 declaring “I/we have not made any false statements to Secured Property Limited or omitted any matters that would affect the granting of a loan to myself/ourselves”, knowing the said declaration to be untrue,
28) Fraudulently furnished a solicitors certificate to SPL dated 1 November 2007 confirming that she had independently advised her client Mary Ann Dore (that is, herself),
29) Dishonestly signed, in the capacity of a witness to the signature of Mary Dore (that is, herself), a letter from Mary Dore to SPL dated 1 November 2007 confirming that Mary Dore had been provided with independent legal advice from Mary Miley with regard to the loan of €350,000 to be provided by SPL, which said letter was furnished to SPL,
30) Dishonestly furnished a solicitors certificate to SPL dated 1 November 2007 confirming that she had independently advised her client Mary Ann Dore (that is, herself),
31) Dishonestly furnished a solicitors certificate to SPL dated 1 November 2007, at which date she did not hold a current practising certificate,
32) Failed to comply with an undertaking dated 1 November 2007 given by her to SPL by which she, among other things, undertook to register a first charge in the name of SPL over a property provided as security for the loan of €350,000 to Mary Ann Dore and further undertook to execute a partial transfer of land from folio 20460F Co Wexford into a newly created Land Registry Folio at her earliest opportunity,
33) Fraudulently gave a solicitors undertaking dated 1 November 2007 when she did not hold a current practising certificate for that year, and which said undertaking stated that she was a solicitor licensed to practise in Ireland and a member of the firm of Mary Miley & Co,
34) Fraudulently obtained/fraudulently assisted in the obtaining of loan moneys of €55,000 from SPL,
35) Caused or permitted an application to be submitted to SPL for a loan in the amount of €55,000 to a named person, which contained false information and was accompanied by a forged or falsified valuation of the property being provided as security for the loan,
36) Failed to comply with an undertaking dated 25 January 2007 given by her to SPL by which she, among other things, undertook to register a first charge in the name of SPL over a property provided as security for the loan of €55,000 to a named person,
37) Fraudulently gave a solicitors undertaking dated 25 January 2007 when she did not hold a current practising certificate for that year and which said undertaking stated that she was a solicitor licensed to practise in Ireland and a member of the firm of Mary Miley & Co,
38) Fraudulently furnished a solicitors certificate to SPL dated 25 January 2007, at which date she did not hold a current practising certificate,
39) Fraudulently obtained/fraudulently assisted in the obtaining of loan moneys of €150,000 from SPL,
40) Caused or permitted an application to be submitted to SPL for a loan in the amount of €150,000 to a named person, which contained false information and was accompanied by a forged or falsified valuation of the property being provided as security for the loan,
41) Failed to comply with an undertaking dated 5 March 2007 given by her to SPL by which she, among other things, undertook to register a second charge in the name of SPL over a property provided as security for the loan of €150,000 to a named person,
42) Fraudulently gave a solicitors undertaking dated 5 March 2007 when she did not hold a current practising certificate for that year and which said undertaking stated that she was a solicitor licensed to practise in Ireland and a member of the firm of Mary Miley & Company,
43) Fraudulently furnished a solicitors certificate to SPL dated 5 March 2007, at which date she did not hold a current practising certificate,
44) Fraudulently obtained/fraudulently assisted in the obtaining of loan moneys of €220,000 from SPL on or about 7 February 2008,
45) Caused or permitted an application to be submitted to SPL for a loan in the amount of €220,000 to a named person, which contained false information,
46) Caused or permitted an application to be submitted to SPL for a loan in the amount of €220,000 to a named person, which was accompanied by a copy of a forged or falsified driving licence,
47) Caused or permitted an application to be submitted to SPL for a loan in the amount of €220,000 to a named person, which was accompanied by forged or false supporting employment documentation, namely a P60 and payslips,
48) Dishonestly gave an undertaking dated 5 February 2008 to SPL stating that the property being provided as security for the loan to her client was at Wicklow Town, Co Wicklow, registered under stated folio number Co Wicklow and undertaking to register a first charge in the name of SPL over same, in circumstances where she knew/ought to have known that the property was not owned by the said client,
49) Fraudulently gave a solicitors undertaking dated 5 February 2008 when she did not hold a current practising certificate for that year and which said undertaking stated that she was a solicitor licensed to practise in Ireland,
50) Dishonestly furnished a solicitors certificate to SPL dated 5 February 2008, at which date she did not hold a current practising certificate,
51) Failed to comply with an undertaking dated 5 February 2008 given by her to SPL by which she undertook, among other things, to register a first charge in the name of SPL over a property provided as security for the loan of €220,000 to a named client,
52) Failed to obtain run-off cover for the years 2007 and 2008, as required by the Professional Indemnity Insurance Regulations 1995 (SI 312/1995), having ceased practice at the end of December 2006.
The tribunal ordered that the matter go forward to the High Court and, on 18 January 2010, the President of the High Court made the following orders:
1) That the name of the respondent solicitor shall be struck from the Roll of Solicitors,
2) That the respondent solicitor do make restitution to Secured Property Loans Limited in the amount of €1.25 million,
3) That the respondent solicitor, within seven days of the making of this order, submit to the Society proposals to the satisfaction of the Society for the orderly disposition of all files and documents, including title deeds, in her possession or control or within her procurement arising from her practice as a solicitor,
4) That the respondent solicitor disclose on affidavit, within 14 days of the making of this order, what files and documents, including title deeds, are in her possession or control or within her procurement arising from her practice as a solicitor and the current whereabouts, or last known whereabouts, of any specific file or documentation or title deeds notified by the Society to her and, in particular, as detailed in the affidavit on behalf of the Society sworn on 21 December 2009 and filed on 6 January 2010,
5) That the respondent solicitor make herself available before the court should the Society so require, on a specified date and at a specified time, for oral examination under oath in relation to the contents of any affidavit sworn by her pursuant to the order of the court,
6) If necessary, an order pursuant to section 8(1)(c)(v) of the 1960 act, as substituted and amended, that the respondent solicitor forthwith deliver up to the Society’s nominee all files and documents, including title deeds, in her possession or control or within her procurement arising from her practice as a solicitor, which files and documents to be dealt with by the Society pursuant to the provisions of section 19 of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act 1960, as amended by substitution by section 27 of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act 1994,
7) That the respondent solicitor, within 24 hours of the making of this order, surrender her passport to the Registrar of the High Court,
8) That the Law Society do recover the costs of the proceedings herein and the costs of the proceedings before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal as against the respondent, to be taxed in default of agreement,
9) That the Registrar of the High Court do refer the papers in the matter to the Director of Public Prosecutions to enquire into the matters contained therein.
-
Mary Miley
Mary Miley & Co, Solicitors, Brewery Place, Rathdrum, Co Wicklow
Date of Order18/01/2010In the matter of Mary Miley, solicitor, formerly practising as Mary Miley & Co, Solicitors, at Brewery Place, Rathdrum, Co Wicklow, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2008 [3916/DT49/09 and High Court record 2010 no 7SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Mary Miley (respondent solicitor)
On 22 September 2009, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in her practice as a solicitor in that she:
1) Failed to respond satisfactorily to the complainant’s correspondence requesting a comprehensive statement of account, properly vouched, in respect of the disbursement of funds of in or around €86,620.09 received by her on behalf of her former client,
2) Failed, up to the expiration of the stay of 21 days imposed by the committee on 20 June 2007, to provide a comprehensive statement of account, properly vouched, in respect of the disbursement of funds of in or around €86,620.09 received by her on behalf of her former client to the complainant.
The tribunal ordered that the matter go forward to the High Court and, on 18 January 2010, the President of the High Court made the following orders:
1) That the name of the respondent solicitor shall be struck from the Roll of Solicitors,
2) That the respondent solicitor, within 14 days of the making of this order, submit to the Society proposals to the satisfaction of the Society for the orderly disposition of all files and documents, including title deeds, in her possession or control or within her procurement arising from her practice as a solicitor,
3) That the respondent solicitor disclose on affidavit, within 14 days of the making of this order, what files and documents, including title deeds, are in her possession or control or within her procurement arising from her practice as a solicitor and the current whereabouts, or last known whereabouts, of any specific file or documentation or title deeds notified by the Society to her and, in particular, as detailed in the affidavit on behalf of the Society sworn on 21 December 2009,
4) That the respondent solicitor make herself available before the court should the Society so require, on a specified date and at a specified time, for oral examination under oath in relation to the contents of any affidavit sworn by her pursuant to the order of the court,
5) If necessary, an order pursuant to section 8(1)(c)(v) of the 1960 act, as substituted and amended, that the respondent solicitor forthwith deliver up to the Society’s nominee all files and documents, including title deeds, in her possession or control or within her procurement arising from her practice as a solicitor, which files and documents to be dealt with by the Society pursuant to the provisions of section 19 of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act 1960, as amended by substitution by section 27 of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act 1994,
6) That the respondent solicitor, within 24 hours of the making of this order, surrender her passport to the registrar,
7) That the Law Society do recover for the costs of the proceedings herein and the costs of the proceedings as against the respondent solicitor before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, to be taxed in default of agreement.
-
Gerard Corcoran
James H Powell & Son, Solicitors, at East Green, Dunmanway, Co Cork
Date of Order11/01/2010In the matter of Gerard Corcoran, a solicitor previously carrying on practice as James H Powell & Son, Solicitors, at East Green, Dunmanway, Co Cork, and in the matter of the
Solicitors Acts 1954 to 2008 [5559/DT22/09 and High Court record 2009 no 110SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Gerard Corcoran (respondent solicitor)
On 17 November 2009, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:
a) Caused or allowed a deficit of €340,645 to occur on the client account as of 31 July 2008,
b) Failed to maintain proper books of account, with the result that the books of account did not show the true clients’ funds position as of 31 July 2008,
c) Misappropriated clients’ money totalling €337,962 as of 31 July 2008,
d) Concealed his misappropriation of clients’ money through teeming and lading in the books of account,
e) Initially denied that he had borrowed or taken clients’ money (before subsequently going on to disclose that he had misappropriated clients’ money),
f) Incorrectly took client’s money of €96,500 from a named client’s ledger account to another client’s ledger account where it helped to partly clear a debit balance of €152,495.10 on another client’s ledger account and, as a result, left a shortfall of €96,500 on the named client’s ledger account,
g) Subsequently incorrectly took the sum of €93,816.69 from another named client’s ledger account and used it to clear part of the shortfall on the client ledger account of the client mentioned at (f),
h) Incorrectly caused a debit balance of €81,013.08 on the client’s ledger account mentioned at (g) when he transferred the above sum of €93,816.69 therefrom,
i) Caused transfers to be made between accounts in the clients’ ledger without maintaining supporting documents to enable the transfers to be appropriately vouched, in breach of the regulations,
j) Caused entries in the books of accounts to be backdated from March 2008 to October 2007, with the result that a debit balance of approximately €337,000 on the ledger account of a named client was concealed.
The tribunal ordered the Society to bring the matter forward to the High Court and, on Monday 11 January 2010, the President of the High Court ordered:
1) That the respondent solicitor should not be permitted to practise as a sole practitioner or in partnership, that he be permitted only to practise as an assistant solicitor or consultant 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) That the Law Society do recover the costs of the proceedings in the High Court and the costs of the proceedings before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, to include witness expenses as against the respondent when taxed or ascertained. -
Michael Gleasure
Michael Gleasure & Co, Solicitors, 7 Maine Street, Tralee, Co Kerry
Date of Order14/12/2009In the matter of Michael Gleasure, a solicitor formerly practising as Michael Gleasure & Co, Solicitors, 7 Maine Street, Tralee, Co Kerry, and in the matter of the
Solicitors Acts 1954-2008 [6697/DT80/08 and High Court record no 2009 no 107 SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Michael Gleasure (respondent solicitor)
On 8 October 2009, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:
a) Misappropriated client funds by improperly transferring monies from the client account to the office account and, in particular, improperly transferred monies from the client account to the office account in circumstances where he had failed to furnish fee notes and where there was no evidence of work done to justify the transfer of funds in respect of fees,
b) Misappropriated monies totalling in or about €18,150 from the client ledger account of a named client by improperly transferring monies in or about that amount to the office account,
c) Misappropriated monies totalling in or about €42,670 from the client account of named clients by improperly transferring monies in or about that amount to the office account,
d) Misappropriated monies totalling in or about €50,820 from the client deposit account of a named client by improperly withdrawing monies in or about that amount from the client deposit account,
e) Improperly withdrew monies totalling in or about €11,154 (or a part thereof) from the client account of a named client,
f) Failed to apply monies received to the credit of named clients for the purpose for which they were received, namely, failed to discharge the balance due to redeem capital on an outstanding loan and misapplied the said monies, or a part thereof, by improperly transferring the sum of in or about €7,865 from the client account to the office account,
g) Misappropriated the sum of in or about €8,470 from the client account of named clients by improperly transferring monies in or about that amount to the office account,
h) Misappropriated monies from the client account of named clients by converting monies received for payment of stamp duty and land registry fees to his own use by transferring monies totalling in or about €3,628.79 from the client account to the office account,
i) Misappropriated funds of in or about €3,630 from the client ledger account of named clients by way of an allocation of a payment previously made out of the client account in the amount of €1,210 to the client ledger account of the above named clients, together with a further transfer from their client ledger account to the office account of €2,420,
j) Misappropriated monies from the client account of a named client by improperly transferring monies to the office account such that the sum of in or about €95,462 remained on the client ledger as at 29 August 2006, in circumstances where a balance of in or about €100,519 was due to the client,
k) Misappropriated monies totalling in or about €3,025 from the client account of a named client by improperly transferring monies in or about that amount to the office account,
l) By his acts, caused a deficit in funds payable to and/or on behalf of clients of his former practice, by the compensation fund of the Society, as at 28 August 2008, of in or about €116,112.66,
m) Improperly transferred monies from deposits received in conveyancing matters from the client account to the office account,
n) Breached regulation 7 of the Solicitors’ Accounts Regulations 2001 (SI no 421 of 2001) by withdrawing monies from the client account that were not properly available to be so withdrawn in accordance with the provisions of that regulation,
o) Breached regulation 11 of the Solicitors’ Accounts Regulations 2001 by failing to furnish bills of costs in accordance with the provisions of that regulation.
The tribunal directed that:
i) The respondent solicitor is not a fit person to be a member of the solicitors’ profession,
ii) The name of the respondent solicitor be struck off the Roll of Solicitors,
iii) The respondent solicitor pay the whole of the costs of the Law Society of Ireland, to be taxed by a taxing master of the High Court, in default of agreement.
The tribunal directed that the matter be referred forward to the High Court and, on 14 December 2009, the President of 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 do recover the costs of the proceedings herein and the costs of the proceedings before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal as against the respondent when taxed or ascertained. -
John Duffy
John Duffy & Co, Solicitors, Main Street, Monasterevin, Co Kildare
Date of Order12/10/2009In the matter of John Duffy, a solicitor formerly practising as John Duffy & Co, Solicitors, at Main Street, Monasterevin, Co Kildare, and in the matter of the
Solicitors Acts 1954-2008 [7660/DT01/09 and High Court record 2009 no 87 SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
John Duffy (respondent solicitor)
On 17 June 2009, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:
a) Falsely represented by letter dated 19 February 2007 that a deposit of €7 million had been paid on behalf of a named client to the respondent solicitor to act as a deposit for the sale of the shares in a named limited liability company to the above-mentioned named client in circumstances where no such sum was in fact paid by the named client,
b) Falsely represented by letter dated 19 February 2007 that a deposit of €7 million had been paid on behalf of a named client to the respondent solicitor to act as a deposit for the sale of the shares in a named limited liability company to the above-mentioned named client in circumstances where no such sum was in fact paid by the named client and in circumstances where that letter was furnished as security to a named third-party financial institution in order to secure a loan for a named limited liability company in the sum of €8.825 million,
c) Falsely represented to a named third-party financial institution by email dated 19 July 2007 that he had served a notice on a named client threatening to forfeit the deposit if the sale was not closed by return in circumstances where he had not served such a notice,
d) Falsely represented, by implication, to a named third-party financial institution by email dated 19 July 2007 that he continued to hold a deposit in the sum of €7 million that had been paid on behalf of a named client to the respondent solicitor to act as a deposit for the sale of the shares in a named limited liability company to the above-mentioned named client in circumstances where no such sum was in fact paid by the named client,
e) Falsely represented, by implication, to a named third-party financial institution by email dated 7 November 2007 that he continued to hold a deposit in the sum of €7 million that had been paid on behalf of a named client to the respondent solicitor to act as a deposit for the sale of the shares in a named limited liability company to the above-mentioned named client in circumstances where no such sum was in fact paid by the named client,
f) Falsely represented to a named firm of solicitors, solicitors for a named third-party financial institution, by letter dated 13 November 2007, that he continued to hold a deposit in the sum of €7 million that had been paid on behalf of a named client to the respondent solicitor to act as a deposit for the sale of the shares in a named limited liability company to the above-mentioned named client in circumstances where no such sum was in fact paid by the named client,
g) Falsely represented to another named firm of solicitors, solicitors for the receiver, by telephone conversation dated 31 January 2008, that he continued to hold a deposit in the sum of €7 million in his client account, which had been paid on behalf of the same named client to the respondent solicitor to act as a deposit for the sale of the shares in a named limited liability company to the above-mentioned named client in circumstances where he did not hold such funds.
The tribunal directed that:
i) The respondent solicitor is not a fit person to be a member of the solicitors’ profession,
ii) The name of the respondent solicitor be struck off the Roll of Solicitors,
iii) The respondent solicitor pay the whole of the costs of the Law Society of Ireland, including witnesses’ expenses, to be taxed in default of agreement.
The tribunal directed that the matter be referred forward to the High Court and, on 12 October 2009, the President of the High Court ordered:
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 do recover the costs of the proceedings herein and the costs of the proceedings before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal to include witness expenses as against the respondent when taxed or ascertained. -
Joan Quinn
Quinn & Co, Solicitors, at 23A The Village Green, Tallaght, Dublin 24
Date of Order12/10/2009In the matter of Joan Quinn, a solicitor formerly practising as Quinn & Co, Solicitors, at 23A The Village Green, Tallaght, Dublin 24, and in the matter of the
Solicitors Acts 1954-2008 [6646/DT25/09 and High Court Record 2009 no 82 SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Joan Quinn (respondent solicitor)
On 9 June 2009, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in her practice as a solicitor in that she:
a) Caused and allowed a deficit on the client account to arise in the sum of €918,060 as at 4 February 2008,
b) Permitted a deficit on the client account to arise due to unallocated transfers to office account of €722,263 and caused and allowed a debit balance in the sum of €195,797,
c) Caused claims in the sum of €937,576.33 to be paid from the compensation fund,
d) Caused a net sum of €303,076, after taking account of recoveries of €634,500, to be paid from the compensation fund,
e) Caused and permitted transfers from client account to office account without there being any valid reason or invoice to transfer the said money, and in doing so breached regulation 7(i)(ii) and regulation 7(i)(iii),
f) Permitted a debit balance to arise on the estate of a deceased named client of €195,797, in breach of regulation 7(2),
g) Caused a debit balance to appear on the estate of a deceased named client by paying out two cheques in the sum of €225,000 each to an executor,
h) Caused and permitted fees, not invoiced, to be held in the client account amounting to the sum of €255,038, which were originally not invoiced and posted to the books of account, in breach of regulation 5(2)(c).
The tribunal directed:
i) That the respondent solicitor is not a fit person to be a member of the solicitors’ profession,
ii) That the name of the respondent solicitor be struck off the Roll of Solicitors.
The tribunal directed that the matter be referred forward to the High Court and, on 12 October 2009, the President of the High Court ordered:
1) That the name of the respondent solicitor shall be struck from the Roll of Solicitors,
2) The court made no order as to the costs of the proceedings herein. -
Ciaran R Callan
Callan & Company, Solicitors, River Bank House, Dodder Park Drive, Dublin 14
Date of Order13/07/2009In the matter of Ciaran R Callan, a solicitor formerly practising as Callan & Company, Solicitors, River Bank House, Dodder Park Drive, Dublin 14, and in the matter of the
Solicitors Acts 1954-2008 [4316/DT09/08 and High Court record no 2009 no 73 SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Ciaran R Callan (respondent solicitor)
On 25 June 2008, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:
a) Failed to honour an undertaking given to the complainant contained in a letter dated 13 June 2002, whereby he undertook to furnish a certificate of title and title documents to a named property formerly belonging to a named client, deceased, to the complainant’s client, a named financial institution,
b) Failed to honour an undertaking given to the Complaints and Client Relations Committee on 12 September 2007, whereby he undertook to send a written report by 5 October 2007 to the Society regarding the current position as to his compliance with the undertaking given to the complainant.
The tribunal directed that:
a) The respondent solicitor is not a fit person to be a member of the solicitors’ profession,
b) The name of the respondent solicitor be struck off the Roll of Solicitors,
c) The respondent solicitor pay the whole of the costs of the Law Society of Ireland, including witness expenses, to be taxed by a taxing master of the High Court in default of agreement.
The tribunal directed that the matter be referred forward to the High Court and, on 13 July 2009, the President of the High Court ordered that:
1) The name of the respondent solicitor shall be struck from the Roll of Solicitors,
2) The Law Society do recover the costs of the proceedings herein and the costs of the proceedings before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal as against the respondent when taxed or ascertained. -
Ciaran R Callan
Callan & Company, Solicitors, River Bank House, Dodder Park Drive, Dublin 14
Date of Order13/07/2009In the matter of Ciaran R Callan, a solicitor formerly practising as Callan & Company, Solicitors, River Bank House, Dodder Park Drive, Dublin 14, and in the matter of the
Solicitors Acts 1954-2008 [4316/DT07/08 and High Court record no 2009 no 72 SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Ciaran R Callan (respondent solicitor)
On 25 June 2008, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:
a) Failed to honour an undertaking given to the complainant in letter dated 11 January 2000, whereby he undertook to deal with all reasonable Land Registry queries in relation to a transaction involving a named property for a named client,
b) Failed to honour an undertaking given to the Complaints and Client Relations Committee on 12 September 2007, whereby he undertook to send a written report by 5 October 2007 to the Society regarding the current position as to his compliance with the undertaking given by him to the complainant,
c) Misled the Society in a telephone conversation on 12 July 2007, informing the Society that the matter was resolved, when it was not,
d) Misled the Society in a letter dated 19 July 2007, stating that the deed was re-executed, whereas it still required a second signature.
The tribunal recommended that:
a) The respondent solicitor is not a fit and proper person to be a member of the solicitors’ profession,
b) The name of the respondent solicitor be struck off the Roll of Solicitors,
c) The respondent solicitor pay the whole of the costs of the Law Society of Ireland, including witness expenses, to be taxed by a taxing master of the High Court in default of agreement.
The tribunal directed that the matter be referred forward to the High Court and, on 13 July 2009, the President of the High Court ordered that:
1) The name of the respondent solicitor shall be struck from the Roll of Solicitors,
2) The Law Society do recover the costs of the proceedings herein and the costs of the proceedings before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal as against the respondent when taxed or ascertained. -
Ciaran R Callan
Callan & Company, Solicitors, River Bank House, Dodder Park Drive, Dublin 14
Date of Order13/07/2009In the matter of Ciaran R Callan, a solicitor formerly practising as Callan & Company, Solicitors, River Bank House, Dodder Park Drive, Dublin 14, and in the matter of the
Solicitors Acts 1954-2008 [4316/DT79/08 and High Court record no 2009 no 78 SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Ciaran R Callan (respondent solicitor)
On 12 March 2009, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:
a) Admitted an estimated deficit of €1,900,000 to exist on the client account as at 12 November 2007,
b) Failed to keep proper books of accounts in compliance with regulation 12(1) of the Solicitors’ Accounts Regulations 2001,
c) Failed to kept such proper books of account, in compliance with regulation 12(2) of the Solicitors’ Accounts Regulations 2001, that would show the true financial position in relation to each client and the monetary transactions of the client,
d) Failed to keep the minimum books of accounts, in breach of regulation 20 of the Solicitors’ Accounts Regulations 2001, including failing to keep cash books showing all monies received and paid on behalf of each client, failing to keep proper office and client ledgers, failing to keep a proper record of all monies as lodged, failing to keep a record of all monies transferred between ledger accounts, failing to keep copies of each draft obtained in connection with any client matters, failing to keep copies of each bill of costs furnished to clients,
e) Failed to keep the books of account written up to date in breach of the regulations,
f) Transferred monies between the ledger accounts of different clients, in breach of regulation 9 of the Solicitors’ Accounts Regulations 2001, so as to conceal the underlying deficit he created in the client accounts,
g) Caused a deficit to arise on client accounts by paying monies to clients where funds were not held for those clients, in breach of regulation 7(2)(b), and caused debit balances to arise,
h) Failed to prepare balancing statements on client accounts within two months of the balancing date, in breach of regulation 12(7),
i) Failed to prepare balancing statement on office account within two months of the end of the accounting year,
j) Transferred monies for outlays not yet disbursed to office account, in breach of regulation 7(1)(a)(ii),
k) Failed to maintain proper books of account and caused fundamental errors to arise on the books of accounts, thus discrediting the reliability of the accounting records as at 30 April 2006 and earlier dates due to errors found on ledger cards as detailed in appendix 1 to the interim investigation report dated 15 March 2007,
l) Overstatement of client balances in Leixlip office of €288,000 and overstatement of client balances in Ennis office of €11,000,
m) Failed to stamp and register deeds on certain client files, despite being put in funds to carry out stamping and registration of deeds. The respondent solicitor failed to stamp and register deeds on the following files: i) File C/16/04 for the sum of €8,400, (ii) File M/13/05 stamp duty due €43,410, (iii) File B/11/05 stamp duty due €31,125, (iv) File P/4/05 stamp duty due €223,200, (v) File Leixlip T/1/06 stamp duty due €39,600.
The tribunal directed:
a) That the respondent solicitor is not a fit and proper person to be a member of the solicitors’ profession,
b) That the name of the respondent solicitor be struck off the Roll of Solicitors,
c) That the respondent solicitor pay the whole of the costs of the Law Society of Ireland, to be taxed by a taxing master of the High Court, in default of agreement.
The tribunal directed that the matter be referred forward to the High Court and, on 13 July 2009, the President of the High Court ordered:
1) That the name of the respondent solicitor shall be struck from the Roll of Solicitors,
2) That the Law Society do recover the costs of the proceedings herein and the costs of the proceedings before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal as against the respondent when taxed or ascertained. -
Ciaran R Callan
Callan & Company, Solicitors, River Bank House, Dodder Park Drive, Dublin 14
Date of Order13/07/2009In the matter of Ciaran R Callan, a solicitor formerly practising as Callan & Company, Solicitors, River Bank House, Dodder Park Drive, Dublin 14, and in the matter of the
Solicitors Acts 1954-2008 [4316/DT13/08 and High Court record no 2009 no 77 SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Ciaran R Callan (respondent solicitor)
On 25 June 2008, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:
a) Failed to honour an undertaking given to the complainant contained in a letter of 29 September 2000, whereby he undertook to furnish a certificate of compliance relating to a transaction between his named client and the complainant’s named clients in respect of a named property,
b) Failed to provide an adequate response to the complainant’s enquiries and, in particular, to the complainant’s letters dated 19 February 2001, 12 March 2001, 25 April 2001, 11 May 2001, 21 June 2001, 9 August 2001, 14 November 2001, 28 February 2002, 16 August 2002, 3 September 2002, 5 December 2002, 3 March 2005 and 16 August 2005 respectively,
c) Persisted to misrepresent the position in relation to an undertaking by giving assurances to the complainant, which subsequently were not honoured, by letters dated 5 March 2002 and 21 August 2002,
d) Failed to honour an undertaking given to the Complaints and Client Relations Committee on 12 September 2007, whereby he undertook to send a written report to the Society by 3 October 2007 regarding the current position in relation to compliance with the undertakings previously given by him to the complainant,
e) Failed to provide any adequate response to the Society’s enquiries during this investigation and, in particular, failed to respond properly or at all to the Society’s letters of 21 November 2005, 8 June 2006, 30 June 2006, 20 July 2006, 17 August 2006, 31 August 2006, 19 October 2006, 3 November 2006, 13 November 2006, 24 April 2007, 30 April 2007, 31 May 2007, 11 June 2007 respectively.
The tribunal directed:
a) That the respondent solicitor is not a fit person to be a member of the solicitors’ profession,
b) That the name of the respondent solicitor be struck off the Roll of Solicitors,
c) That the respondent solicitor pay the whole of the costs of the Law Society of Ireland, including witness expenses, to be taxed by a taxing master of the High Court in default of agreement.
The tribunal directed that the matter be referred forward to the High Court and, on 13 July 2009, the President of the High Court ordered:
1) That the name of the respondent solicitor shall be struck from the Roll of Solicitors,
2) That the Law Society do recover the costs of the proceedings herein and the costs of the proceedings before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal as against the respondent when taxed or ascertained. -
Ciaran R Callan
Callan & Company, Solicitors, River Bank House, Dodder Park Drive, Dublin 14
Date of Order13/07/2009In the matter of Ciaran R Callan, a solicitor formerly practising as Callan & Company, Solicitors, River Bank House, Dodder Park Drive, Dublin 14, and in the matter of the
Solicitors Acts 1954-2008 [4316/DT10/08 and High Court record no 2009 no 74 SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Ciaran R Callan (respondent solicitor)
On 25 June 2008, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:
a) Failed to honour an undertaking given to the complainant contained in letter of 10 May 2002, whereby he undertook to furnish certificate of title together with the title deeds to a named financial institution in respect of a named property,
b) Failed to provide an adequate response to the same named financial institution’s letters to him dated 25 October 2005 and 2 December 2005 respectively, and to the complainant’s letters dated 20 October 2006, 8 November 2006, 8 December 2006 and 7 February 2007 respectively,
c) Failed to honour an undertaking given to the Complaints and Client Relations Committee on 12 September 2007, whereby he undertook to send a written report to the Society by 3 October 2007 regarding the current position with regard to compliance with the undertakings previously given by him to the complainant,
d) Failed to reply in a timely manner to the Society’s correspondence, in particular to letters from the Society dated 21 March 2007, 1 May 2007, 23 May 2007 and 12 June 2007.
The tribunal directed that:
a) The respondent solicitor is not a fit person to be a member of the solicitors’ profession,
b) The name of the respondent solicitor be struck off the Roll of Solicitors,
c) The respondent solicitor pay the whole of the costs of the Law Society of Ireland, including witness expenses, to be taxed by a taxing master of the High Court in default of agreement.
The tribunal directed that the matter be referred forward to the High Court and, on 13 July 2009, the President of the High Court ordered that:
1) The name of the respondent solicitor shall be struck from the Roll of Solicitors,
2) The Law Society do recover the costs of the proceedings herein and the costs of the proceedings before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal as against the respondent when taxed or ascertained. -
Ciaran R Callan
Callan & Company, Solicitors, River Bank House, Dodder Park Drive, Dublin 14
Date of Order13/07/2009In the matter of Ciaran R Callan, a solicitor formerly practising as Callan & Company, Solicitors, River Bank House, Dodder Park Drive, Dublin 14, and in the matter of the
Solicitors Acts 1954-2008 [4316/DT11/08 and High Court record no 2009 no 75 SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Ciaran R Callan (respondent solicitor)
On 25 June 2008, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:
a) Failed to honour an undertaking given to the complainant contained in a letter of 14 December 2005 whereby he undertook to furnish an amended scheme map and to deal with all Land Registry queries regarding the registration of named clients’ title to a named property,
b) Failed to provide an adequate response to the complainant’s enquiries and, in particular, to the complainant’s letters dated 18 April 2006, 1 February 2007, 15 February 2007, 26 March 2007 and 10 April 2007 respectively,
c) Failed to honour an undertaking given to the Complaints and Client Relations Committee on 12 September 2007, whereby he undertook to send a written report to the Society by 3 October 2007 regarding the current position with regard to compliance with the undertakings previously given by him to the complainant.
The tribunal directed:
a) That the respondent solicitor is not a fit person to be a member of the solicitors’ profession,
b) That the name of the respondent solicitor be struck off the Roll of Solicitors,
c) That the respondent solicitor pay the whole of the costs of the Law Society of Ireland, including witness expenses, to be taxed by a taxing master of the High Court in default of agreement.
The tribunal directed that the matter be referred forward to the High Court and, on 13 July 2009, the President of the High Court ordered:
1) That the name of the respondent solicitor shall be struck from the Roll of Solicitors,
2) That the Law Society do recover the costs of the proceedings herein and the costs of the proceedings before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal as against the respondent when taxed or ascertained. -
Ciaran R Callan
Callan & Company, Solicitors, River Bank House, Dodder Park Drive, Dublin 14
Date of Order13/07/2009In the matter of Ciaran R Callan, a solicitor formerly practising as Callan & Company, Solicitors, River Bank House, Dodder Park Drive, Dublin 14, and in the matter of the
Solicitors Acts 1954-2008 [4316/DT12/08 and High Court record no 2009 no 76 SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Ciaran R Callan (respondent solicitor)
On 25 June 2008, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:
a) Failed to honour an undertaking given to the complainant contained in letter of 1 July 2004, whereby he undertook to furnish an original deed of assurance dated 4 March 1998 duly registered,
b) Failed to honour an undertaking given in a letter dated 1 July 2004 to the complainant, whereby he undertook to extract a grant of probate to the estate of a named client, deceased, and upon issue of same, execute a deed of assignment of the leasehold interest in the premises to a named client,
c) Failed to honour an undertaking given in a letter dated 1 July 2004 to the complainant, whereby he undertook to furnish a vesting certificate duly registered in the Registry of Deeds,
d) Failed to honour an undertaking given in a letter dated 1 July 2004 to the complainant, whereby he undertook to furnish a certificate of clearance from capital acquisitions tax in the estate of a named client,
e) Failed to honour an undertaking given in a letter dated 1 July 2004 to the complainant, whereby he undertook to discharge any outstanding waste charges if necessary,
f) Misrepresented the position to the complainant from in or around July 2004 by stating all was in order in respect of the extraction of the grant of probate to the estate of a named client, when in fact it was not,
g) Misrepresented to the Society in a series of letters dated 5 September 2006, 15 December 2006, 30 January 2007 and 14 March 2007 that the matter of the complaint was being resolved and that an application in respect of de bonis non grant in the estate was being made, when it is apparent that no progress has been made on this issue,
h) Failed to honour an undertaking given to the Complaints and Client Relations Committee meeting on 12 September 2007, whereby he undertook to send a written report to the Society regarding the current position with regard to compliance with the undertakings previously given by him to the complainant by 3 October 2007,
i) Failed to provide an adequate response to the Society’s enquiries during this investigation and, in particular, failed to respond properly or at all to the Society’s letters of 9 October 2006, 18 October 2006, 26 October 2006, 22 March 2007, 20 April 2007, 15 May 2007, 31 May 2007, 8 June 2007, 18 June 2007, 19 July 2007, 29 August 2007, 13 September 2007, 9 October 2007 and 23 October 2007 respectively.
The tribunal directed:
a) That the respondent solicitor is not a fit person to be a member of the solicitors’ profession,
b) That the name of the respondent solicitor be struck off the Roll of Solicitors,
c) That the respondent solicitor pay the whole of the costs of the Law Society of Ireland, including witness expenses, to be taxed by a taxing master of the High Court in default of agreement.
The tribunal directed that the matter be referred forward to the High Court and, on 13 July 2009, the President of the High Court ordered:
1) That the name of the respondent solicitor shall be struck from the Roll of Solicitors,
2) That the Law Society do recover the costs of the proceedings herein and the costs of the proceedings before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal as against the respondent when taxed or ascertained. -
Fergal T Kelly
Harmony Hill, Sligo, Co Sligo
Date of Order06/07/2009In the matter of Fergal T Kelly, solicitor, of Harmony Hill, Sligo, Co Sligo, and in the matter of the
Solicitors Acts 1954-2002 [9451/DT21/08 and High Court record no 2009 no 37 SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Fergal T Kelly (respondent solicitor)
On 13 January 2009, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that:
a) He caused a deficit in client account of €3,044 at 30 September 2006,
b) He caused debit balances of €21,615.42 in the clients’ ledgers,
c) In the course of acting for a named client in a purchase of property, interest and penalty on the stamp duty of €7,630 were avoided because he ‘updated’ the deed to a date close to when the deed was submitted to the Revenue,
d) In the course of acting for a named client in a purchase of property, interest and penalty on the stamp duty of €86,850 were avoided because he ‘updated’ the deed to a date close to when the deed was submitted to the Revenue,
e) In the course of acting for named clients in a purchase of property, interest and penalty on the stamp duty of €9,880 were avoided because he ‘updated’ the deed to a date close to when the deed was submitted to the Revenue,
f) In the course of acting for the same named clients in a purchase of another property, interest and penalty on the stamp duty of €8,198.79 were avoided because he ‘updated’ the lease to a date close to when the lease was submitted to the Revenue,
g) In the course of acting for named clients in a purchase of a property, interest and penalty on the stamp duty of €14,300 were avoided because he ‘updated’ the lease to a date close to when the lease was being submitted to the Revenue,
h) In the course of acting for a named client (being the same client as referred to in paragraph (d)) in a purchase of another property, interest and penalty on the stamp duty of €72,000 were avoided because he ‘updated’ the deed to a date close to when the deed was submitted to the Revenue,
i) In the course of acting for a named client in a purchase of a property, interest and penalty on stamp duty of €33,000 were avoided because he ‘updated’ the deed to a date close to when the deed was submitted to the Revenue,
j) In the course of acting for the same named client in a purchase of another property, interest and penalty on the stamp duty of €5,100 were avoided because he ‘updated’ the deed to a date close to when the deed was submitted to the Revenue,
k) In the course of acting for named clients in a purchase of a property, interest and penalty on the stamp duty of €4,350 were avoided because he ‘updated’ the deed to a date close to when the deed was submitted to the Revenue,
l) In the course of acting for a named client (being the same client referred to in paragraphs (d) and (h)) in a purchase of another property, interest and penalty on the stamp duty of €18,000 were avoided because he ‘updated’ the deed to a date close to when the deed was submitted to the Revenue,
m) In the course of acting for named clients in a purchase of a property, interest and penalty on the stamp duty of €2,760 were avoided because he ‘updated’ the deed to a date close to when the deed was submitted to the Revenue,
n) In the course of acting for named clients in a purchase of a property, interest and penalty on the stamp duty of €5,555 were avoided because he ‘updated’ the deed to a date close to when the deed was submitted to the Revenue,
o) He delayed in completing stamping and registration,
p) He provided incorrect information to the Revenue in a letter dated 6 June 2006, while in the course of acting for a named client (being the same client referred to in paragraph (j)), when he stated that the deed of transfer was sent to the Revenue on 21 April 2006,
q) He provided incorrect information to a named bank when he informed the bank that 12 contracts had been executed in relation to a development being carried out by a client who is a builder,
r) During the investigation, he gave incorrect information to the investigating accountant when he stated that the transfer to his named clients was exempt from stamp duty because the clients were first-time buyers, and also when he stated that he had no unstamped deeds that should have been stamped,
s) He failed to keep copies of some stamped deeds,
t) Fees were debited to the office ledger when the costs were received instead of when the bills were issued.
The tribunal recommended that the respondent solicitor:
a) Not be permitted to practise as a sole practitioner; that he be permitted only to practise as a solicitor under the direct control and supervision of another solicitor of at least ten years’ standing, to be approved in advance by the Law Society,
b) Pay the whole of the costs of the Law Society of Ireland, to be taxed by a taxing master of the High Court, in default of agreement.
The tribunal directed that the matter be referred forward to the High Court and, on 27 April 2009 and 6 July 2009, the President of the High Court ordered that:
1) The respondent solicitor should not be permitted to practise as a sole practitioner; that he be permitted only to practise as a solicitor 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 Law Society do recover the costs of the proceedings herein and before the said tribunal as against the respondent when taxed or ascertained. -
Michael Mooney
Osborne MacGettigan and Co, Solicitors, Milford, Co Donegal
Date of Order18/05/2009Notice: the High Court
Record no: 2009 no 52 SA
In the matter of Michael Mooney, a solicitor formerly practising under the style and title of Osborne MacGettigan & Co, Solicitors, Milford, Co Donegal and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2002
Take notice that, by order of the High Court made on Monday 18 May 2009, it was ordered:
1) That the name of the respondent solicitor shall be struck from the Roll of Solicitors,
2) That the respondent solicitor do cooperate fully in any further application that might have to be made to the Circuit Court on behalf of named clients in order to cancel the original registration of them as full owners as of 28 July 2005 of folio 4296F Co Donegal, grounded as it was on the admitted forged deed of transfer dated 22 December 2004, in order that the named clients are again registered as full owners of the said folio on foot of their beneficial interest deriving from other named clients, whose interest derived from the purchase transaction closed by the respondent solicitor on behalf of those other named clients on 22 August 1995 and the deed of transfer delivered on that date from a named third party (as legal personal representative of another named third party, deceased, the then registered full owner) to the said other named clients, whose resulting legal entitlement to be registered as full owners has never taken place or, apparently, noted in any way by the Property Registration Authority, formerly the Land Registry,
3) That the respondent solicitor pay the sum of €10,000 as compensation to the Compensation Fund of the Law Society of Ireland,
4) That the Law Society recover the costs of the proceedings herein and the costs of the proceedings before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal as against the respondent when taxed or ascertained.
John Elliot, Registrar of Solicitors
June 2009
-
John B McGlynn
11 Castle Street, Athlone, Co Westmeath
Date of Order16/02/2009In the matter of John B McGlynn, a solicitor formerly carrying on practice as John McGlynn & Company at 11 Castle Street, Athlone, Co Westmeath, and in the matter of the
Solicitors Acts 1954-2002 [7068/DT90/07 and High Court record no 2009 no 5 SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
John B McGlynn (respondent solicitor)
On 21 October 2008, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:
a) Failed to extract a grant of probate to the estate of a named client and did not gather in liquid assets of approximately IR£100,000,
b) Misappropriated clients’ money from three other clients’ ledger accounts, including IR£60,000 from one of the three ledger accounts, to pay the beneficiaries of the estate of a named client,
c) Misappropriated clients’ money of €4,000 from the ledger account of a named client and used the money to make a payment for another client,
d) Misappropriated two client account cheques for a total of either €3,000 or €5,000 for his own personal purposes and caused the cheques to be debited to the clients’ ledger account of a named client,
e) Misappropriated IR£50,000 for his own personal use out of IR£120,000 received for a named client,
f) Misappropriated €106,703.56 from the clients’ ledger account of a named client to discharge the mortgage of another named client, after having previously misappropriated the money that should have been used to discharge the mortgage,
g) Falsely entered on the cheque stub for the above cheque for €106,703.56 that the payment related to a named client, which caused the bookkeeper to make a false entry in the books of account,
h) Misappropriated €30,000, €3,723 and €5,500 from the clients’ ledger account of a named client,
i) Falsely entered on the cheque stubs for the above three cheques that the payments related to a named client, which caused the bookkeeper to make three false entries in the books of account,
j) Falsely entered on a client account lodgement stub that the sum of €65,000 was received for a named client, when it was actually received for another named client, which caused the bookkeeper to make a false entry in the books of account,
k) Caused a debit balance of €15,484.70 on the clients’ ledger account of a named client because he had previously misappropriated the named client’s money,
l) Failed to discharge the mortgage on a named client’s property because he was unable to do so, as he had previously misappropriated the named client’s money,
m) Misappropriated €5,000 or €6,000 from an estate and used the money to buy things for his new house,
n) Misappropriated the amounts of IR£20,000 and €1,200 received from clients to pay stamp duty,
o) Obtained €100,000 from a named client after telling him untruthfully that there was an investment opportunity that would earn 30% after six months; he then misappropriated €92,500 of the €100,000,
p) Untruthfully represented to his former solicitor partner in a named firm of solicitors and his reporting accountant that the €100,000 obtained from a named client was a loan to him (the respondent solicitor) from the named client; this caused his reporting accountant in his report dated 28 June 2005 to understate the deficit in client monies by €100,000,
q) Misappropriated €100,000 from the clients’ ledger account of a named client; he paid the €100,000 to his brother,
r) Obtained a total of €100,000 from a named client and another named client on the false pretence that the money would be invested in a building development for a return of 30% or 35%, and he then used the money to reimburse the clients’ ledger account of another named client,
s) Concealed his misappropriations of clients’ moneys through a system of systematic teeming and lading in the books of account of a named firm of solicitors and another named firm of solicitors,
t) Failed to keep books of account while in sole practice,
u) Left deficits totalling €166,278 on four files when he left a named firm of solicitors,
v) Left deficits totalling €484,533 on various files when he left another named firm of solicitors, €63,500 of which was carried forward from the practice of another named firm of solicitors,
w) Created a deficit of €147,051 in the client account of John McGlynn & Co, €128,655 of which was created when he paid that amount to clear part of the deficit in his previous practice,
x) Obtained a total of €185,000, to clear part of the deficit in a named firm of solicitors, from two relatives and a named client by stating to his relatives that he had “financial commitments on leaving the practice” of the same named firm of solicitors and he informed the same named client that he needed the money to set up in practice,
y) Gave a loan of €12,000 to a named client from a client account, which was a personal loan and was not authorised by the client whose ledger account was debited with the payment,
z) A number of times failed to make a full disclosure when given the opportunity to do so.
The tribunal recommended that:
a) The respondent solicitor is not a fit and proper person to be a member of the solicitors' profession, and
b) His name be struck off the Roll of Solicitors.
The tribunal directed that the matter be referred forward to the High Court and, on 16 February 2009, the President of 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 from the Roll of Solicitors,
3) The Law Society do recover the costs of the proceedings herein and the costs of the proceedings before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal as against the respondent when taxed or ascertained. -
Thomas Byrne
Thomas Byrne & Co, 78 Walkinstown Road, Dublin 12
Date of Order16/06/2008In the matter of Thomas Byrne, a solicitor formerly practising under the style and title of Thomas Byrne & Co at 78 Walkinstown Road, Dublin 12, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2002 [6095/DT60/06, 6095/DT36/08 and High Court record no 2008 no 52SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Thomas Byrne (respondent solicitor)
On 20 February 2008, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:
1) Failed to comply in a timely manner or at all with undertakings given to Allied Irish Banks plc, and failed to do so despite repeated requests for compliance by the bank,
2) Failed in particular to perfect the bank’s security for the borrowings of his clients, in breach of the said undertakings,
3) Failed to furnish the bank with title documentation and/or mortgage deeds, in breach of the said undertakings,
4) Failed to furnish the bank with information regarding the perfection of the bank’s security, and in particular information relating to the execution and registration of mortgage charges under the terms of the said undertakings, and failed to provide such information despite repeated requests from the bank,
5) Furnished the bank with misleading and/or erroneous information relating to the said undertakings, and in particular in relation to the registration of mortgage charges,
6) Failed to comply with the direction of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee, as communicated to the respondent solicitor by letter of 28 July 2005, that he comply with the undertakings given to the bank,
7) Failed to comply with the direction of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee, as communicated to the respondent solicitor by letter of 28 July 2005, that he provide information relating to the undertakings given to the bank, as requested by the Law Society in its letter of 18 May 2005, by way of, in particular, a comprehensive response to the bank’s letter of 1 March 2005.
The tribunal ordered the Law Society to bring the report of the tribunal in respect of the respondent solicitor before the High Court, with recommendations that the respondent solicitor be struck off the Roll of Solicitors and pay the whole of the costs of the Law Society, to be taxed in default of agreement.
On 22 May 2008, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:
1) Fraudulently caused or permitted the signature of an assistant solicitor in his practice to be forged on an undertaking furnished to Irish Nationwide Building Society by his practice, dated 29 March 2007,
2) Fraudulently furnished/permitted to be furnished the said undertaking to Irish Nationwide Building Society, dated 29 March 2007, knowing that the signature thereon, which purported to be the signature of an assistant solicitor in his practice, had been forged,
3) Dishonestly obtained a loan for his own personal use and benefit from Irish Nationwide Building Society of in or about €4,545,000 on 30 March 2007 on foot of the said fraudulent undertaking furnished by him/his practice to the said building society, dated 29 March 2007, on his behalf as borrower, in circumstances where he caused or permitted the name of the signatory of the said undertaking to be forged,
4) Dishonestly represented to Irish Nationwide Building Society the authenticity of the said undertaking by furnishing the undertaking to them under cover of a letter dated 29 March 2007, signed by him, confirming that an assistant solicitor in his practice is an authorised signatory, in circumstances where he knew that the name of the purported authorised signatory of the said undertaking had been forged,
5) Failed to comply with the said undertaking given by his practice to Irish Nationwide Building Society, dated 29 March 2007, in respect of a loan to him in the amount of in or about €4,545,000, and in particular breached the terms of the undertaking by failing to ensure that he had good marketable title to the properties listed in the said undertaking as security for the loan, and further failed to execute, stamp and register charges against the properties in favour of Irish Nationwide Building Society,
6) Forged the signature of a solicitor in his practice on an undertaking furnished to EBS Building Society in respect of a loan to him of, in or about, €1 million secured/secured in part on 103 Clonard Road, Crumlin, Dublin 12,
7) Dishonestly caused or permitted undertakings to be given to two financial institutions, namely EBS Building Society and IIB Bank, secured in part on the same property, 103 Clonard Road, Crumlin, Dublin12,
8) Dishonestly repeatedly caused or permitted undertakings to be furnished by his practice to multiple financial institutions in respect of borrowings advanced by financial institutions to him/to him and a third party, secured on the same property/properties,
9) Abandoned his practice on or about 19 October 2007 in breach of his duty to his clients and without notification to his clients and/or the Law Society,
10) Dishonestly abandoned his practice on or about 19 October 2007 in circumstances where undertakings given by his practice to financial institutions in respect of loans advanced personally to him, and in respect of which loan monies had been drawn down, had not been complied with,
11) Prior to abandoning his practice, dishonestly removed files from the practice and, in particular, removed file BYT2010001 (described as relating to lands at Clonee, Co Meath),
12) Dishonestly obtained personal loans totalling in or around €21 million by causing or permitting undertakings to be furnished by his practice on his behalf to four financial institutions, namely Irish Nationwide Building Society, Anglo Irish Bank, IIB Bank and EBS Building Society, in respect of personal borrowings secured/secured in part on the same six properties, namely: 165 Cherrywood Drive, Clondalkin; 112 Grangeview Road, Clondalkin; 12 Grangeview Grove, Clondalkin; 15 Grangeview Lawn, Clondalkin; 32 Westbourne Avenue, Clondalkin; and 27 Westbourne Park, Clondalkin (‘the six properties’),
13) Fraudulently failed to disclose to some/all of the aforesaid four financial institutions that undertakings had already been furnished to other financial institution(s) secured on the six properties,
14) Failed to comply in full with some/all of the said undertakings furnished to INBS, Anglo Irish Bank, IIB Bank and EBS Building Society in respect of the six properties,
15) Failed to comply with an undertaking given by his practice to INBS on or about 12 October 2006 in respect of monies advanced to him personally and secured in part on the six properties,
16) Failed to return title documentation in respect of the said six properties furnished to him by Anglo Irish Bank on trust on 5 September 2007, despite demand pursuant to the terms of accountable trust receipts given by/on behalf of his practice to the said bank,
17) Failed to comply with undertakings given by his practice to IIB, dated 6 September 2007, in respect of monies advanced to him in the amount of €9,000,000 and secured in part on the six properties, and in particular failed to submit title documentation to IIB in accordance with the terms of the said undertakings,
18) Failed to comply with an undertaking given by/on behalf of his practice, dated 25 June 2007, to EBS Building Society in respect of monies advanced to him in the amount of €3,000,000 and secured in part on the six properties,
19) Failed to comply with an undertaking given by/on behalf of his practice, dated 8 August 2007, to EBS Building Society in respect of monies advanced to him in the amount of €1,000,000 and secured in part on the six properties,
20) Failed to maintain adequate client and accounting records in respect of transactions involving 102 Boot Road, Clondalkin, Dublin 22 (102 Boot Road),
21) Dishonestly caused or permitted multiple undertakings to be given by his practice to numerous financial institutions secured/secured in part on 102 Boot Road,
22) Failed to comply with multiple undertakings given by his practice to financial institutions in respect of the borrowings of the respondent solicitor and/or third parties secured/secured in part on 102 Boot Road and failed in particular to register charges in favour of financial institutions against the said property,
23) Dishonestly gave an undertaking to ACC Bank on or about 22 April 2004 in respect of a loan to a client in the amount of in or around €1,000,000, secured in part on 102 Boot Road, in circumstances where the said client was not the owner of the said property and further failed to comply with the said undertaking by, in particular, failing to ensure the bank obtained a valid first legal mortgage on the property,
24) Dishonestly caused or permitted an undertaking to be given by his practice to EBS Building Society on or about 31 May 2004 in respect of a loan advanced to him in the amount of €945,000, secured in part on 102 Boot Road, in circumstances where he was not the owner of the said property and further in circumstances where he had given a prior and conflicting undertaking dated 22 April 2004 to ACC Bank in respect of a loan to a client and, further, failed to comply with the said undertaking to EBS Building Society and in particular failed to register a first legal mortgage against the property in favour of EBS Building Society,
25) Dishonestly caused or permitted an undertaking to be given on behalf of his practice to Irish Nationwide Building Society on 29 March 2007 in respect of a loan to him in the amount of in or about €4,545,000 and secured in part on 102 Boot Road in circumstances where prior undertakings given by his practice in respect of the property remained outstanding and further failed to comply with the terms of the said undertaking by failing to execute and register a first legal mortgage against the said property in favour of Irish Nationwide Building Society,
26) Dishonestly sought to mislead Irish Nationwide Building Society by writing to Irish Nationwide Building Society by letter dated 18 October 2007 undertaking to complete the certificate of title and to comply with the undertaking given to Irish Nationwide Building Society dated 29 March 2007, which referred to Irish Nationwide Building Society obtaining a first legal mortgage in respect of 102 Boot Road, knowing that similar undertakings had been given by his practice to ACC Bank and EBS Building Society and further in circumstances where he had personally secured a loan of €9 million secured in part on 102 Boot Road from IIB Bank on 7 September 2007 on foot of a further undertaking furnished by his practice,
27) Dishonestly offered 102 Boot Road as security for his personal borrowings, knowing that the property was the subject of multiple prior undertakings to other financial institutions, which remained outstanding,
28) Dishonestly obtained a loan from IIB Bank in the amount of €9,000,000 on or about 7 September 2007, secured in part on 102 Boot Road, on foot of an undertaking given by his practice to the said bank dated 6 September 2007 in circumstances where the property had previously been offered as security for loans from other financial institutions and in respect of which undertakings given by his practice to register charges against the property in favour of those financial institutions remained outstanding,
29) Dishonestly obtained a loan from Irish Nationwide Building Society in the amount of €4,545,000 on or about 30 March 2007, secured in part on 102 Boot Road, on foot of an undertaking given by his practice to the said bank dated 29 March 2007 in circumstances where the property had previously been offered as security for loans from other financial institutions and in respect of which undertakings given by his practice to register charges against the property in favour of those financial institutions remained outstanding,
30) Dishonestly obtained loans from Bank of Scotland in the amounts of €3,550,000 and €450,000, secured in part on 102 Boot Road, on or about 1 December 2004 on foot of an undertaking given by his practice to the said bank on 29 November 2004 in circumstances where the property had previously been offered as security for loans from other financial institutions and in respect of which undertakings given by his practice to register charges against the property in favour of those financial institutions remained outstanding,
31) Dishonestly obtained a loan from EBS Building Society in the amount of €945,000, secured in part on 102 Boot Road, on foot of an undertaking given by his practice dated 3 June 2004 in circumstances where the property had previously been offered as security for a loan to a third party from another financial institution and in respect of which an undertaking to register a charge given by his practice against the property in favour of that financial institution remained outstanding,
32) Failed to ensure the payment of stamp duty in respect of the sale of 102 Boot Road on or about 10 October 2002,
33) Failed to ensure the payment of stamp duty on time and within 30 days of the completion of the purchase of 102 Boot Road by a client on or about 4 August 2000,
34) Failed to maintain any or any proper records in relation to the payment of stamp duty on transactions involving 102 Boot Road,
35) Failed to maintain adequate client and accounting records in respect of transactions involving the property known as Otterbrook, Kilquade, Co Wicklow (Otterbrook),
36) Failed to ensure the payment of stamp duty on time and within 30 days of the completion of the purchase of Otterbrook by a client in or about November 2002,
37) Failed to maintain any or any adequate vouching documentation in respect of the payment of stamp duty in respect of the said purchase of Otterbrook by the same client,
38) Dishonestly caused or permitted multiple undertakings to be given by his practice to multiple financial institutions in respect of borrowings of the same client secured/secured in part on Otterbrook, in circumstances where prior and conflicting undertakings were outstanding and charges in favour of financial institutions were not registered against the said property,
39) Failed to comply with undertakings given by him in respect of loans advanced to the same client by ACC Bank (dated 12 August 2003 and 20 June 2007 – loans of €746,218.37 and €1 million), EBS Building Society (dated 28 May 2003 and 31 January 2005 – loans of €1 million and €3 million) and Irish Nationwide Building Society (dated 20 December 2006 – loan of €1,500,000) by failing to register first legal mortgages/charges in favour of the said financial institutions against Otterbrook in accordance with the terms of the said undertakings,
40) Dishonestly gave an undertaking to EBS Building Society, dated 26 June 2007, in respect of a loan to the same client in the amount of €1,500,000, secured in part on Otterbrook, in which he undertook to hold all documents of title on accountable trust receipt from EBS Building Society and to return all title documents to EBS Building Society as soon as possible or on demand, in circumstances where the said undertaking was in direct conflict with an undertaking he had given to ACC Bank six days earlier, dated 20 June 2007, by which he undertook to secure a first legal mortgage for ACC Bank against Otterbrook and hold all title documents in trust for ACC Bank,
41) Dishonestly gave undertakings to Ulster Bank Ireland Limited, dated 10 March 2004 and 1 April 2004, in respect of a loan advanced to the same client in the amount of in or about €1,400,000, secured in part on Otterbrook, by which his practice confirmed to the bank that the title to the said property was unencumbered and undertook if required to attend to the registration of a first legal charge of Ulster Bank Ireland Limited on the property, in circumstances where he/his practice had given prior undertakings to other financial institutions to register first legal mortgages against the said property, which remained outstanding,
42) Failed to maintain adequate client and accounting records in respect of transactions involving The Lodge (St Mary’s), Blackberry Lane, Delgany, Co Wicklow (The Lodge),
43) Dishonestly caused or permitted multiple undertakings to be given by his practice to multiple financial institutions in respect of borrowings of a client secured/secured in part on The Lodge, in circumstances where prior undertakings remained outstanding and charges in favour of financial institutions were not registered against the said property,
44) Failed to comply with an undertaking given to EBS Building Society dated 31 January 2005 in respect of a loan advanced to the same client, secured in part on The Lodge, in the amount of €3 million and in particular failed to register a first legal mortgage/charge in favour of EBS Building Society against the said property in accordance with the terms of the said undertaking,
45) Dishonestly gave an undertaking to Ulster Bank Ireland Limited, dated 27 July 2007, in respect of loans advanced to the same client in the amounts of €1,400,000 and €1,300,000 and secured in part on The Lodge, in which he undertook to hold all documents of title for The Lodge to the order of Ulster Bank Ireland Limited pending completion of the sale of the property, in circumstances where the said undertaking was in direct conflict with an undertaking given by him to EBS Building Society, dated 26 June 2007, in respect of a loan advanced to the same client in the amount of €1,500,000, secured in part on The Lodge, by which his practice undertook to hold the documents of title for The Lodge on accountable trust receipt to EBS Building Society,
46) Failed to maintain adequate client and accounting records in respect of transactions involving 14 Liberty View, Pim Street, Dublin 8 (14 Liberty View),
47) Dishonestly caused or permitted multiple undertakings to be given by his practice to multiple financial institutions in respect of borrowings of a client secured/secured in part on 14 Liberty View, in circumstances where prior undertakings remained outstanding and charges in favour of financial institutions were not registered against the said property,
48) Failed to comply with an undertaking given by him, dated 22 September 2005, to National Irish Bank in respect of a loan advanced to the same client in the amount of €2 million and an overdraft facility in the amount of €2 million secured in part on 14 Liberty View, and in particular failed to register a first legal mortgage/charge against the said property in favour of National Irish Bank in accordance with the terms of the said undertaking,
49) Failed to comply with an undertaking given by him, dated 22 November 2005, to EBS Building Society in respect of a loan advanced to him personally in the amount of €1,607,000, secured in part on 14 Liberty View, and in particular failed to register a first legal mortgage/charge against the said property in favour of EBS Building Society in accordance with the terms of the said undertaking,
50) Dishonestly caused or permitted the undertaking dated 22 November 2005 to be given to EBS Building Society, which said undertaking required him to secure a first legal mortgage/charge on 14 Liberty View for EBS Building Society in circumstances where, eight days previously, his practice had given an undertaking to Bank of Scotland, dated 14 November 2005, in relation to a loan also secured in part on 14 Liberty View, by which his practice undertook not to do any act that would enable the property to be mortgaged or assigned without the consent of Bank of Scotland,
51) Dishonestly obtained a loan from EBS Building Society on or about 25 November 2005 in the amount of €1,607,000, secured in part on 14 Liberty View, in circumstances where he was not at that time the owner of the said property or, in the alternative, failed to maintain any client or accounting records in relation to the transfer of the property to him,
52) Dishonestly caused or permitted multiple undertakings (dated 22 November 2005, 31 January 2007, 25 June 2007 and 8 August 2007) to be given by his practice to EBS Building Society in relation to loans advanced to him personally and secured in part on 14 Liberty View, by which he undertook that a first legal mortgage would be registered in favour of EBS Building Society against the said property and further undertook that his practice would hold the documents of title on accountable trust receipt from EBS Building Society in circumstances where he knew/ought to have known that prior undertakings had been given by his practice in relation to the borrowings of a client also secured in part on 14 Liberty View,
53) Allowed continuing deficits on the client account of in or around €5,793,948 at 30 April 2006, in or around €6,867,015 at 31 July 2006 and in or around €7,085,276 at 31 August 2006,
54) Caused or permitted deficits to arise on the client account at 30 April 2006 through the use of client monies in a manner not permitted by the Solicitors’ Accounts Regulations (the regulations),
55) Allowed a deficit on the client account of in or around €185,000 as of 31 May 2007,
56) Dishonestly sought to conceal/permit the concealment of the fact that a deficit had arisen on the client account as of 31 May 2007 and did so by causing or permitting the transfer of funds into the client account on or about 31 May 2007, which represented a date in respect of which an accounting report was required to be drawn up and filed with the Law Society,
57) Failed to ensure payment of stamp duty on transactions in respect of which his practice acted and/or failed to maintain proper client and accounting records of payment of stamp duty,
58) Caused or permitted flagrant and widespread breaches of the regulations in the keeping of the accounts of his practice,
59) Allowed debit balances to arise on the client account in the amount of approximately €185,000 at 31 May 2007, in breach of regulation 7(2)(a) of the regulations,
60) Used client monies in a manner not permitted by regulation 7 of the regulations,
61) Used client monies for his own personal use in breach of regulation 7(2)(b) of the regulations and/or used client monies for other clients and failed to properly account for such use, in breach of regulation 7(1)(a)(i) and 7(1)(a)(ii) of the regulations,
62) Failed to maintain adequate client and accounting records, in breach of regulation 12, and in particular in breach of regulation 12(1), 12(2), 12(3)(a) and 12(3)(b) of the regulations,
63) Used suspense accounts in breach of regulation 12(1) and 12(2) of the regulations,
64) Failed to maintain accounting records of each client matter and all documents generated in the course of each client matter, in breach of regulation 20(1)(h) of the regulations.
The tribunal ordered the Law Society to bring the report of the tribunal in respect of the respondent solicitor before the High Court, with recommendations that the respondent solicitor be struck off the Roll of Solicitors, pay a monetary penalty of €1,000,000, and pay the whole of the costs of the Law Society to be taxed in default of agreement.
On 16 June 2008, the President of the High Court ordered:
i) That the name of the respondent solicitor be struck off the Roll of Solicitors,
ii) That the respondent solicitor pay a monetary penalty of €1,000,000 to the Law Society, and
iii) That the Law Society recover from the respondent solicitor the costs of the proceedings before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal and the costs of the application to the High Court when taxed in default of agreement. -
Michael Lynn
Capel Law, Unit 5, The Capel Buildings, Mary’s Abbey, Dublin 7
Date of Order23/05/2008In the matter of Michael Lynn, a solicitor formerly practicing under the style and title of Capel Law, Unit 5, The Capel Buildings, Mary’s Abbey, Dublin 7, and in the matter of the
Solicitors Acts 1954-2002 [7153/DT115/08 and 7153/DT16/08 and High Court record no. 2007/50SA and 2008/32SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant}
Michael Lynn (respondent solicitor)
On 23 May 2008, the President of the High Court ordered that the name of the respondent solicitor be struck off the Roll of Solicitors.
-
Joseph Fahey
Ballygar Road, Mountbellew, Co Galway
Date of Order07/04/2008In the matter of Joseph Fahey, solicitor, of Ballygar Road, Mountbellew, Co Galway, and in the matter of the
Solicitors Acts 1954-2002 [6687/DT68/06 and High Court record no 2SA 2008]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Joseph Fahey (respondent solicitor)
On 6 November 2007, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that:
a) At the early stages of the investigation, it was not possible to determine the true clients’ fund position because the books of account were in arrears. The accountant’s report for 28 February 2003 showed a deficit of €270,083 as of the reporting date. This deficit was mainly caused by debit balances. The accountant’s report for the year ended 29 February 2004 showed a deficit in client funds of €116,103 at the date, again mainly caused by debit balances. The accountant’s report for the year ended 28 February 2005 showed a deficit in client account of €64,216 as of the reporting date.
b) Subject to the matters set out in paragraph 2.2 of the investigating accountant’s report, there was an apparent deficit of €32,687 in the client account as of 31 August 2005.
c) Debit balances amounted to €32,687 as of the date of 31 August 2005.
d) In June 2004, the books of account were almost two years in arrears. Since October 2004, the books were written up by a very competent bookkeeper and at the time of the investigation they were approximately five weeks in arrears.
e) In a purchase by a named client from a named vendor, the stamp duty amounted to €5,142. Interest and penalties were avoided because the transfer deed was ‘updated’ to 12 May 2004, although the purchase closed in January 2002.
f) In another purchase by the aforementioned named client, it would appear that stamp duty at 9% plus interest and penalty may have been avoided because the deed was ‘updated’ from on or about 30 October 2001 to 20 November 2002.
g) In the course of acting for a named client in relation to a purchase of property, interest and penalty on stamp duty of €7,140 were avoided because the transfer deed was ‘updated’ from in or about September 2003 to 20 August 2004.
h) In the course of acting for a named client in relation to the purchase of a property, interest and penalty on stamp duty of €9,560 were avoided because the transfer deed was ‘updated’ from 2 February 2004 to 4 April 2005.
i) In the course of acting for two named clients in relation to the purchase of one site each, interest and penalty on the stamp duty amounts of €1,125 were avoided because the transfer deeds were ‘updated’ from in or about August 2004 to 20 April 2005 and 25 August 2005 respectively.
j) The solicitor acted for a named builder in relation to the sale of new houses, and in six cases he also acted for the purchasers of the houses, in breach of the Solicitors (Professional Practice Conduct and Discipline) Regulations of 1997 (SI no 85 of 1997).
The tribunal directed that the matter be referred forward to the High Court and, on 7 April 2008, the President of the High Court ordered, pursuant to section 8 of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act 1960, as substituted by section 18 of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act 1994 and amended by section 9 of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act 2002:
i) That the respondent solicitor should not be permitted to practise as a sole practitioner or in partnership, that he be permitted only to practise as an assistant solicitor 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,
ii) That the respondent solicitor do deliver to Fair & Murtagh Solicitors all or any documents, files and papers in his possession or within his procurement arising from his practice as a solicitor, including all ledger cards and funds held for and on behalf of clients files,
iii) That the Law Society do recover the costs of the proceedings in the High Court and the costs of the proceedings before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal. -
Michael T Petty
M Petty & Company, Solicitors, Parliament Street, Ennistymon, Co Clare
Date of Order10/03/2008In the matter of Michael T Petty, a solicitor formerly of M Petty & Company, Solicitors, Parliament Street, Ennistymon, Co Clare, and in the matter of the
Solicitors Acts 1954-2002 [3387/DT21/07 and High Court record no 3SA 2008]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Michael T Petty (respondent solicitor)
On 27 November 2007, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:
a) Failed to comply with an undertaking given to the complainant that he would deal with outstanding Land Registry queries, which undertaking was given at the time of closing of the sale in 1994, in a timely manner or at all,
b) Failed to respond to the Society’s correspondence, and in particular the Society’s letters of 19 July 2006, 1 August 2006, 10 August 2006, 13 September 2006, 20 October 2006, 13 November 2006 and 11 December 2006 in a timely manner or at all,
c) Failed to respond to correspondence from the complainant to him in connection with the outstanding undertaking,
which correspondence spanned a number of years.
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal ordered that the Law Society of Ireland do bring such findings of the tribunal in respect of the respondent solicitor before the High Court, together with the report of the tribunal to the High Court, which report includes the opinion of the tribunal as to the fitness or otherwise of the respondent solicitor to be a member of the solicitors’ profession, having regard to their findings and the recommendations of the tribunal as to the sanction that should be imposed, having regard to their findings in respect of the respondent solicitor.
On 10 March 2008, the President of the High Court ordered, pursuant to section 8 of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act 1960 (as substituted by section 18 of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act 1994 and amended by section 9 of the Solicitors(Amendment) Act 2002), that:
1) The respondent solicitor shall not be permitted to practise as a sole practitioner or in partnership, that he be permitted only to practise as an assistant solicitor 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 do deliver to Marian Petty, solicitor, all or any documents, files and papers in his possession or within his procurement arising from his practice as a solicitor, including all ledger cards and funds held for or on behalf of clients’ files,
3) The Law Society do recover the cost of the proceedings herein and the cost of the proceedings before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal. -
Thomas Flood
2 The Gap, Barndarrig, Co Wicklow
Date of Order06/03/2006THE HIGH COURT 2006
No 7 SA
In the matter of Thomas Flood, solicitor, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954 to 2002
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Thomas Flood (respondent solicitor)
On 6 March 2006, the president of the High Court, having considered and noted the solicitor’s previous disciplinary findings, ordered:
1) That the name of the respondent solicitor be struck off the Roll of Solicitors;
2) That the ICS Bank and Ulster Bank shall furnish any information in its possession that the Society may
require relating to any aspect of the financial affairs of the practice of the solicitor, with liberty to the Society to apply to the court for further orders relating to specified banks if necessary;
3) That the respondent solicitor swear an affidavit disclosing all information as to his assets, either in his possession or control or within his procurement, that have been, but are no longer, in his possession, control or within his procurement, and if no longer in his possession or control or within his procurement, his belief as to the present whereabouts of those assets, such affidavit to be sworn within four weeks of the date of this order;
4) That the respondent solicitor do pay to the applicant the costs of this application and the costs of the proceedings before the Disciplinary Tribunal, such costs to be taxed in default of agreement.
The president had before him the report of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal dated 27 September 2005. The tribunal had found that there had been misconduct on the part of the respondent solicitor in respect of the following complaints:
a) Up to the swearing of the Society’s affidavit, the respondent solicitor failed to register his clients as owners of their property, which was purchased in 1998, in a timely manner or at all;
b) Failed to respond to correspondence from his clients and to explain the failure to register the said property in a timely manner or at all;
c) In his letter of 5 November 2002 to his clients, inferred that their deed had been stamped when this was not in fact the position;
d) Misled the Registrar’s Committee on 17 December 2003 by telling them that duty had been paid on the deed when this was not in fact the position;
e) Failed to comply with an undertaking given to the Registrar’s Committee on 17 December 2003 to assist the clients’ new solicitor in rectifying the matter;
f) Failed to respond to correspondence from the Society, and in particular the Society’s letters dated 27 November 2003, 4 December 2003, 19 December 2003, 19 January 2004, 25 February 2004, 21 April 2004, 10 May 2004 and 30 July 2004;
g) Failed to comply with the direction made by the Registrar’s Committee at its meeting on 24 March 2004 that he make a contribution of €500 towards the complainant’s new solicitor’s costs. -
Sean Bourke
Sean Bourke, 29 Upper Fitzwilliam Street, Dublin 2
Date of Order11/07/2005Record no 2005 no 36 SA
Solicitors Acts 1954-2002
In the matter of Sean Bourke, a solicitor practising as Sean Bourke, 29 Upper Fitzwilliam Street, Dublin 2, and in the matter of the
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Sean Bourke (respondent solicitor)
On 11 July 2005, the president of the High Court ordered:
1) That the name of Sean Bourke, the respondent solicitor, be struck off the roll of solicitors;
2) That the respondent solicitor do pay to the applicant the costs of the proceedings before the Disciplinary Tribunal and also the costs of and incident to the society’s motion and order, to be taxed in default of agreement, and that execution on foot of said order be stayed for a period of six months from the date of the order;
3) That the respondent solicitor do pay to the complainants named in the application to the High Court the costs of rectifying their title to the premises named in the application – said costs to be taxed in default of agreement
4) Liberty to apply.
The president had before him the report of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal dated 4 May 2005. The tribunal had found that there had been misconduct on the part of the respondent solicitor in respect of the following complaints for the following reasons:
a) Failed to stamp and register the purchase document of his clients in a timely fashion;
b) Retained and did not submit to the Revenue a ‘particulars delivered’ form completed by the vendor’s solicitor and showing that the date of the conveyance was 6 October 2000;
c) Incorrectly dated the deed 16 October 2002 to avoid the imposition of interest and penalties by the Revenue Commissioners;
d) Misled the society in a letter dated 24 April 2003, in which he represented that the deed of conveyance had been “fully stamped” when it had not;
e) Failed to make full disclosure to his former clients in relation to his failure to properly stamp and register their title deed;
f) Engaged in correspondence with the society which was disingenuous and calculated to conceal his own default in relation to the stamping and registration of his clients’ deed;
g) Failed to take steps to remedy the situation up to the date of the swearing of the affidavit of the society, sworn the 7 October 2003. -
Raymond Jameson
Jameson & Company, Fitzwilliam Square, Wicklow
Date of Order29/11/2004In the matter of Raymond Jameson, solicitor, practising as Jameson & Company, Fitzwilliam Square, Wicklow, and in the matter of the
Solicitors Acts, 1954-2002 [6806/DT436]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Raymond Jameson (respondent solicitor)
On 24 September 2004, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found that the respondent solicitor was guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that had:
a) Failed to file an accountant’s report with the Law Society of Ireland within six months of his accounting date of 30 April 2002, in breach of regulation 21(1) of the Solicitors’ Accounts Regulations no 2 of 1984
b) Created multiple debit balances, in breach of regulation 7(2)(a) of the Solicitors’ Accounts Regulations 2001
c) Maintained books of accounts that were six months in arrears, in breach of regulation 12(2)(a) of the Solicitors’ Accounts Regulations 2001
d) Failed to comply with one of the conditions laid down by the Compensation Fund Committee on 10 July 2003, which was a prerequisite for the granting of an adjournment in that he failed to clear the deficit on his client account within seven days
e) Allowed a representation to be made in a letter to the society dated 2 September 2003 that the deficit identified by his reporting accountant had been cleared when it had not
f) Failed to discharge a further deficit of €238,739 by close of business on 2 September 2003, notwithstanding the representation made to the society to this effect in a letter to the society dated 2 September 2003
g) Failed to retain a deposit of £6,000 received in March 2000 until October 2001 when the sale closed
h) Used other client monies to pay expenses and the beneficiaries of an estate
i) Created a debit balance in relation to the client account of the estate in the amount of £60,000 or €76,184.24, in breach of regulation 7(2)(a) of the Solicitors’ Accounts Regulations no 2 of 1984
j) Lodged sale proceeds of €76,184.28 relating to a named estate (being the euro equivalent of £60,000), being client monies, to the office account in February 2002, in breach of regulation 4(1) and regulation 6(4)(a) of the Solicitors’ Accounts Regulations 2001
k) Failed to hold the deposit received in respect of the above sale until the transaction was closed
l) Used other client monies totalling €108,014.69 to make a distribution in a named estate on 6 December 2002
m) Advanced other client monies totalling €333,000 to a client builder on 14 April 2003
n) Failed to create and maintain a ledger account for his client builder, in breach of regulation 12(1) and (2)of the Solicitors’ Accounts Regulations 2001
o) Advanced other client monies of €146,027 to the vendor of a property on behalf of his client purchaser
p) Was six months in arrears with the writing-up of the client account, in breach of regulation 12(2)(a) of the Solicitors’ Accounts Regulations 2001
q) Retained a number of old balances on the client ledger account, which included fees, in breach of regulation 5(2) and 5(4) of the Solicitors’ Accounts Regulations 2001
r) Failed to maintain separate ledger accounts for each client matter, in breach of regulation 12(3)(a) of the Solicitors’ Accounts Regulations 2001
s) Failed to procure from his bank the return of paid cheques drawn on the client account, in breach of regulation 20(1)(f) of the Solicitors’ Accounts Regulations 2001.
The tribunal reported to the High Court, and on 29 November 2004 the president of the High Court ordered that:
i) The name of the respondent solicitor be struck off the roll of solicitors
ii) The respondent solicitor do make delivery to any person appointed by the applicant of all or any of the documents in the possession, control or within the procurement of the solicitor arising from his practice as a solicitor
iii)The respondent solicitor do pay to the applicant the costs of the application and the costs of the proceedings before the Disciplinary Tribunal, such costs to be taxed in default of agreement. -
Damian P Moynihan
Moynihan Mulvihill & Co, 6 Cornmarket Street, Cork
Date of Order12/07/2004In the matter of Damian P Moynihan and Sean A Mulvihill, solicitors, formerly carrying on practice under the style and title of Moynihan Mulvihill & Co at 6 Cornmarket Street, Cork, and in the matter of the
Solicitors Acts, 1954 to 2002 [S8171/S8208/DT]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Damian P Moynihan (first respondent solicitor)
Sean A Mulvihill (second respondent solicitor)
Reference to ‘regulation’ is a reference to the Solicitors’ Accounts Regulations (no 2) of 1984, statutory instrument no 304 of 1984.
On 12 July 2004, the president of the High Court made an order that the name of the first respondent solicitor, Damian P Moynihan, be struck off the roll of solicitors.
The president had before him the report of the Disciplinary Tribunal dated 18 May 2004 in which the tribunal found that the first-named respondent had been guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he had:
i) Failed to maintain proper books of account in breach of regulation 10 so that there was uncertainty as to the true position in respect of client funds
ii) Failed to enter full details, and in some cases failed to enter any details at all, on cheque stubs and lodgment stubs in breach of regulation 19(1)(c)
iii) Failed to enter virtually any information in the books of account as to the sources of money received and details of cheque payees in breach of regulation 19(1)(c)
iv) Created debit balances on the client account in breach of regulation 7
v) Allowed a deficit to arise in client monies which stood at £31,805 as at 8 October 2001 and which subsequently rose to £56,662 in breach of regulation 7
vi) Failed to disclose the misappropriation of client monies of £7,500
vii) Misled the reporting accountant by leading him to believe that a sum of £7,500 introduced into the client account in 2001 was to clear a deficit arising in the financial practice year end 31 December 2000 when in fact it related to the misappropriation of monies by Mr Moynihan in July 2001 to purchase a car
viii) Misled the Compensation Fund Committee on 6 December 2001, representing to the committee that the sum of £7,500 had been introduced into the client account to clear a deficit arising in the financial practice year end 31 December 2000 when in fact it related to the misappropriation of monies by Mr Moynihan in July 2001 to purchase a car
ix) Advanced approximately £10,000 of clients’ monies to a client when these monies did not stand to the credit of that client and therefore advanced to him other client monies in breach of regulation 7
x) Concealed from the society and the reporting accountant the misappropriation of £7,500 by Mr Moynihan
xi) Failed to file the accountant’s report covering the firm’s financial year ended 31 December 2000 within six months of the accounting date in breach of regulation 21(1).
The tribunal further found that there had been misconduct on the part of the first-named respondent solicitor, Damian P Moynihan, in that he:
a) Misappropriated £7,500, being stamp duty and outlay received from a client
b) Falsified the books of account to conceal his misappropriation of client monies
c) When questioned about the matter, untruthfully stated that the deed had been stamped
d) Falsely stated to the Compensation Fund Committee at its meeting on 4 October 2001 that £15,000 had been introduced into the client account to clear the deficit when no such monies, or any monies, had been paid into the client account
e) Untruthfully advised the society’s accountant that an army deafness case had been settled for £47,500 and that the settlement cheque was awaited when the case had not in fact been settled
f) Advanced £10,615 and £15,357, totalling £25,972, to the client, the claimant in the army deafness case referred to at (e), when there were no monies to the credit of the client and thereby advanced other clients’ monies to him
g) Forged his partner’s name on the cheque for £15,357 advanced to the client in the army deafness case referred to at (f) above
h) Falsely represented to the credit union of the client referred to at (e) and (f) above in a letter of undertaking that the client’s case had been settled for £47,500
i) Caused his client’s credit union to advance £20,000 on foot of the false representation referred to at (g) above
j) Allowed a further undertaking to be given to the said credit union by Mr Mulvihill causing the said credit union to advance a further £12,000
k) Falsely represented to the practice’s reporting accountant that a loan of £7,500 was lodged to the client account to clear a deficit identified by the reporting accountant for the practice year ended 31 December 2000
l) Falsely represented to the society that he had obtained a loan of £7,500 which was to be paid into the client account to rectify the deficit in this amount caused by his own misappropriation
m) Forged and uttered a document purporting to be an order of the District Court contrary to sections 3 and 6 of the Forgery Act 1913.
On 22 April 2004, the Disciplinary Tribunal found the second-named respondent solicitor, Sean A Mulvihill, guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:
a) Failed to maintain proper books of account in breach of regulation 10, so that there was uncertainty as to the true position in respect of client funds
b) Failed to enter full details, and in some cases failed to enter any details at all, on cheque stubs and lodgment stubs in breach of regulation 19(1)(c)
c) Failed to enter virtually any information in the books of account as to the sources of money received and details of cheque payees in breach of regulation 19(1)(c)
d) Created debit balances in breach of regulation 7
e) Allowed a deficit to arise in client monies which stood at £31,805 as at 8 October 2001 and which subsequently rose to £56,662 in breach of regulation 7
f) Failed to disclose the misappropriation of client monies by the first-named respondent solicitor of £7,500
g) Advanced approximately £10,000 of clients’ monies to a client when these monies did not stand to the credit of that client and therefore advanced to him other client monies in breach of regulation 7
h) Failed to file an accountant’s report covering the firm’s financial year ended 31 December 2000 within six months of the accounting date in breach of regulation 21(1).
The tribunal made an order in respect of the second-named solicitor as follows:
a) Censuring the respondent solicitor
b) Directing the respondent solicitor to pay a sum of €5,000 to the compensation fund
c) Pay the whole of the costs of the Law Society of Ireland as taxed by a taxing master. -
Peter Fortune
Peter M Fortune & Co, Solicitors, at 38 Molesworth Street, Dublin 2
Date of Order26/04/2004Before the president the High Court: in the matter of Peter Fortune, solicitor, formerly practising under the style and title of Peter M Fortune & Co, Solicitors, at 38 Molesworth Street, Dublin 2, and in the matter of the
Solicitors Acts, 1954-2002 [2003 no 33 SA]
On 26 April 2004, the president of the High Court ordered:
1) That the name of Peter Fortune be struck off the roll of solicitors
2) That the said Peter Fortune do pay to the society its costs of the proceedings before the Disciplinary Tribunal and also the costs of and incident to the application to the High Court, to be taxed in default of agreement, and that execution on foot thereof be stayed for a period of four months from the date of the order
3) That the Law Society be at liberty to re-enter the matter in relation to the question of restitution by the said Peter Fortune.
The president had before him the report of the Disciplinary Tribunal to the High Court, dated 12 December 2002.
Reference to ‘society’ refers to the Law Society of Ireland. Reference to ‘regulations’ refers to the Solicitors’ Accounts Regulations No 2 of 1984 (SI no 304 of 1984).
The said report recorded the following findings of misconduct against the said Peter Fortune in his practice as a solicitor, in that he had:
a) Failed to disclose the existence of a judgment against him in his application for a practising certificate for the period 6 January 1993 to 5 January 1994
b) Breached regulation 21(1) in failing to file an accountant’s report covering his financial year ended 30 April 1992 within the period prescribed by the said regulation
c) Failed to keep proper books of account in breach of regulation 10
d) Misrepresented to the Compensation Fund Committee at its meeting on 17 June 1993 that there would be no shortfall in client funds when his books of account were written up
e) Failed to lodge clients’ funds to the client account, as evidenced by the qualifications attaching to his reporting accountant’s report dated 24 March 1993, in breach of regulation 3
f) Drew monies from the client account in excess of funds held for the time being in such account, causing the client bank account to go into overdraft as set out at paragraph 2.4 of the society’s investigation report, dated 7 May 1993, in breach of regulation 7
g) Failed to comply with a direction of the Compensation Fund Committee of 13 May 1993 that his books of account were to be written up to date within two weeks of the date of that meeting
h) Failed to reply to correspondence from the society’s investigating accountant and the registrar of solicitors in respect of the writing-up of his books of account
i) Breached the terms of a consent order of the High Court, made on 23 July 1993, in failing to discharge the amount of £39,890.88, necessitating the initiation of contempt proceedings against him by the society
j) By his own admission, utilised client monies to fund the day-to-day running of his solicitor’s practice
k) By his own admission, admitted the misappropriation of the monies of a client in the amount of £2,500
l) Breached a solicitor’s undertaking to the Bank of Ireland to discharge a sum of £2,500 to the bank on completion of a conveyancing transaction
m) Failed to account to the Bank of Ireland for the sum of £2,500 in respect of the said conveyancing transaction, causing the society to have to pay the sum of £2,500 to the bank out of its compensation fund
n) Understated in his books of account the amount received and held by him in respect of the said conveyancing transaction by the amount of £1,500
o) Failed to stamp and register a purchase deed in relation to the purchase of a property by a client, notwithstanding receipt of £3,990 for stamp duty and a further sum of £26 in respect of registration
p) Failed to account to the client in respect of the monies referred to at (o) above
q) Failed to account to the client referred to at (o) above or her estate for a further sum of £109.15
r) Caused the society, in respect of the transaction at (o) above, to have to pay out of its compensation fund the sum of £4,151.15 in respect of the estate of the client referred to at (o) above
s) Failed to account to two clients for the sum of £10,978 received on their behalf for the purpose of stamping and registration deeds of purchase and mortgage
t) Caused the society to have to pay out of its compensation fund to the clients referred to at (s) above the amount of £10,978
u) Failed to stamp and register a purchase deed and mortgage on behalf of a client, notwithstanding the receipt of a total of £11,002 in respect of such stamping and registration
v) Failed to account to his client for the sum of £11,094.05 received from them, causing the society to have to make a payment out of its compensation fund of £11,094.05.
In relation to the allegation that the respondent solicitor had caused a substantial deficit in client monies resulting in claims totalling £169,230 being admitted by the society on its compensation fund, the respondent solicitor was found guilty of professional misconduct in respect of the amount agreed at £39,890.88.
