Published 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

In the matter of Donal Chambers, a solicitor formerly practising as Chambers Law, ‘The Lamp’, No 1 Bridge Street, Kilcock, Co Kildare, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2015[2019/DT65]

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)

Donal Chambers respondent solicitor)

On 29 November 2022, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of professional misconduct, in that he:

1)   Continued to practise as a solicitor after 31 May 2018, being the date of the cessation of his practice as notified by his accountants and subsequently confirmed by him to the Society,

2)   As principal of a firm, did not provide to the Society evidence that the firm had established and was maintaining qualifying insurance for the indemnity period starting on 1 December 2018, as required by regulation 4(k) of the regulations,

3)   As principal of a firm, carried on a practice from 1 January 2019 without a valid practising certificate in place, as required by regulation 3(a) of the regulations.

The tribunal ordered that the respondent solicitor:

·      Stand censured,

·      Pay a sum €3,000 to the compensation fund,

·      Pay the sum of €3,024 as a contribution towards the whole of the costs of the applicant.

In the matter of Philip Meagher, a solicitor practising as Midland Legal Solicitors, Fitzmaurice House, Bank Place, Portlaoise, Co Laois, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2015[2021/DT03]

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)

Philip Meagher (respondent solicitor)

On 3 November 2022, 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 2 July 2007 in respect his named clients and borrowers and property at Mountrath, Co Laois, in a timely or at all,

2)      Failed to respond to letters from the Society in a timely manner, within the time provided, or at all, dated 30 August 2013, 24 January 2014, 2 April 2014, 28 July 2014, 20 August 2014, 2 October 2014, 5 February 2015, 9 March 2015, 21 August 2015, 22 October 2015, 22 June 2016, 21 July 2016, 23 January 2017, 13 July 2017, 9 January 2018, 10 April 2018, 17 July 2018, and 1 November 2019.

The tribunal ordered that the respondent solicitor:

·      Stand advised and admonished,

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

·      Pay the sum a €2,512 as a contribution towards the whole of the costs of the applicant.

In the matter of Barry G O’Meara, a solicitor practising as Barry G O’Meara & Co, Solicitors, at Pembroke House, Pembroke Street, Cork, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2015 [2020/DT07]

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)

Barry G O’Meara (respondent solicitor)

On 3 November 2022, 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 furnished to a named financial institution on 5 March 2010 in respect of his named clients and borrowers and property at Churchfield, Cork, in a timely manner or at all,

2)   Failed to respond to correspondence from the Society within a timely manner, within the time, provided or at all, dated 15 January 2014, 14 March 2014, 29 April 2014, 28 September 2017, 19 October 2017, 12 January 2018, 30 January 2018, 22 August 2018, 26 September 2018, 4 December 2018, 17 December 2018, and 30 January 2019,

3)   Failed to attend a meeting of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee on 22 January 2019, despite being required to attend that meeting by letter dated 14 January 2019.

The tribunal ordered that the respondent solicitor:

·      Stand censured,

·      Pay a sum of €15,000 to the compensation fund,

In the matter of James Walsh, solicitor, of Keaveny Walsh & Co, Solicitors, Headford Place, Kells, Co Meath, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2015[2021/DT04]

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)

James Walsh (respondent solicitor)

On 20 October 2022, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of professional misconduct in that he failed to comply with an undertaking furnished on 16 October 2007 to a named bank on behalf of his named client and borrower and a property at Slane, Co Meath, in a timely manner or at all.

The tribunal ordered that the respondent solicitor:

1)    Stand censured,

2)    Pay the sum of €5,000 to the compensation fund,

3)    Pay the sum of €2,262 as a contribution towards the whole of the costs of the applicant.

In the matter of Linda Whelan, a solicitor previously practising as Ramsbottom Solicitors at College Street, Carlow, Co Carlow, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2015[2019/DT37]

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)

Linda Whelan (respondent solicitor)

On 13 October 2022, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of professional misconduct in that she 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 (SI 516 of 2014) in a timely manner or at all, having ceased practice on 30 November 2016.

The tribunal ordered that the respondent solicitor:

1)    Stand advised and admonished,

2)    Pay the sum of €100 to the compensation fund,

3)    Pay the sum of €2,274 as a contribution towards the whole of the costs of the applicant.

In the matter of Barry G O’Meara, a solicitor practising as Barry G O’Meara & Co, Solicitors, at Pembroke House, Pembroke Street, Cork, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2015[2021/DT14]

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)

Barry G O’Meara (respondent solicitor)

On 13 September 2022, 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 furnished to the complainant bank on 4 May 2017 in respect of his named clients and borrowers and a named property in Youghal, Co Cork, in a timely manner or at all,

2)   Failed to respond to letters from the applicant in a timely manner or at all, dated 29 August 2019, 8 January 2020, 18 February 2020, 18 March 2020, 25 September 2020, 27 November 2020, 12 July 2021, 4 August 2021,

3)   Failed to comply with the direction made by the Complaints and Client Relations Committee at its meeting of 30 July 2020 that he confirm to the applicant by 10 September 2020 that, on completion of the dealing, he would be in a position to certify title and return the title documents to the complainant, which direction was communicated to the solicitor by letter dated 30 July 2020.

The tribunal ordered that the respondent solicitor:

·      Stand censured,

·      Pay a sum of €8,000 to the compensation fund,

·      Pay the sum a €1,512 as a contribution towards the whole of the costs of the applicant.

In the matter of Maureen Lane, a solicitor previously practising as Lane & Co, Solicitors, at Ducart Suite, Castletroy Park Commercial Campus, Limerick, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2015[2019 DT71]

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)

Maureen Lane (respondent solicitor)

On 19 July 2022,the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in that she 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 (SI516 of 2014)in a timely manner or at all,having ceased practice on 8 August 2018.

The tribunal ordered that the respondent solicitor:

1)    Stand advised and admonished,

2)    Pay a sum of €300 to the compensation fund,

3)    Pay the sum of €1,212 as a contribution towards the whole of the costs of the Society.

In the matter of Thomas K Madden, a solicitor practising as Thomas K Madden and Company, Solicitors, 1 Camlin View, Longford, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2015[2018/DT14]

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)

Thomas Madden (respondent solicitor)

On 23 May 2022, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of professional misconduct, in that he:

1)    Drew costs (fees and other amounts due to the solicitor) from the client account by means of client account cheques payable to the clients, some of which were endorsed on the back by the solicitor and the clients,

2)    Made misleading entries in the books of accounts regarding payment to clients, which payments were actually made to the solicitor,

3)    Caused or allowed a personal injury claim client to endorse the back of a blank client account cheque,

4)    Failed to comply with the current anti-money-laundering client identification requirement in the sample of files examined,

5)    Breached one of the conditions of his 2015 practising certificate by issuing a number of client cheques that had not been countersigned as required,

6)    Failed to lodge to the office account and to record the receipt in the office account books of the practice certain costs drawn from the client account by means of client account cheques payable to the client,

7)    Conducted a number of transactions involving cash received from the client account in 2013 and/or 2014 off the books.

The tribunal ordered that the respondent solicitor:

1)    Stand censured,

2)    Pay a sum of €5,000 to the compensation fund,

3)    Pay a sum of €5,651 as a contribution towards the whole of the costs of the applicant.

In the matter of Helen Jeffords, a solicitor previously practising as Helen Jeffords and Co at Plunkett Chambers Business Centre, 21/23 Oliver Plunkett Street, Cork, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2015[2020/DT09, 2020/DT10, and High Court record 2022 no 158 SA]

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)

Helen Jeffords (respondent solicitor)

2020/DT09

On 4 May 2022, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct, in that she:

1)   Failed to comply with a section 10 notice, served on her on 15 November 2019, requiring her to transmit the original file in relation to the complaint to the Law Society,

2)   Failed to comply with the direction made by the Complaints and Client Relations Committee at its meeting on 11 February 2020 that she transmit the original file to the complainant’s new solicitor within seven days of the date of notification of the decision, which was on 17 February 2020,

3)   Failed to respond to the Society’s letters in a timely manner, adequately, or at all and, in particular, to letters dated 21 June 2019, 27 August 2019, 12 September 2019, 8 October 2019, 4 November 2019, 28 January 2020, 5 February 2020, and 17 February 2020.

In the matter of Helen Jeffords, a solicitor previously practising as Helen Jeffords and Co at Plunkett Chambers Business Centre, 21/23 Oliver Plunkett Street, Cork, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2015[2020/DT09, 2020/DT10, and High Court record 2022 no 158 SA]

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)

Helen Jeffords (respondent solicitor)

2020/DT10

On 4 May 2022, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct, in that she:

1)      Failed to comply with her client’s instruction and authorisation dated 25 February 2019 to pass her original personal-injuries file to her new solicitor, the complainant,

2)      Failed to comply with the direction of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee made at their meeting on 11 June 2019 that she provide a full and detailed response to the complaint within 14 days,

3)      Failed to respond in a timely matter or at all to the letters from Society dated 23 May 2019, 11 July 2019, 9 October 2019, 30 July 2019, 9 October 2019, and 11 December 2019,

4)      Failed to attend the meetings of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee on 22 October 2019 and 21 January 2020, despite being required to do so.

The tribunal referred the two matters to the High Court and, on 28 October 2022, in High Court record 2022 no 158 SA, the High Court ordered:

1)   That the respondent solicitor 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 a 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 sum of €5,024 as a contribution towards the costs of the applicant in the disciplinary proceedings,

3)   That the respondent solicitor pay the measured sum of €2,472 to the applicant for its measured costs and outlay for the High Court application.

In 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.

In 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.

In 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.

In 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.

In the matter of Ian McSweeney, a solicitor practising as McSweeney Solicitors, 2 Capel Street, Dublin 1, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2015 [2019/DT66]

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)

Ian McSweeney (respondent solicitor)

On 21 October 2021, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of professional 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 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 within three months the sum of €5,500 to the compensation fund,

3) Pay the sum of €1,212 as a contribution towards the whole of the costs of the applicant.

In the matter of Peter Downey, a solicitor previously practising as Eagleton Downey Solicitors, Triton Road, Bettystown, Co Meath, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2015 [2019 DT69 and High Court record 2021 no 63SA]

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)

Peter Downey (respondent solicitor)

On 3 June 2021, 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 end 31 January 2019 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 Law Society bring its findings and report before the High Court, with a recommendation that the solicitor be suspended from practice until such time as he was compliant with the Solicitors Accounts Regulations by filing his accountant’s report for the year ended 31 January 2019 with the Society.

On 18 October 2021, the High Court ordered that the respondent solicitor:

1) Pay the sum of €1,000 to the compensation fund,

2) Pay the sum of €1,362 towards the costs of the Law Society before the disciplinary tribunal,

3) Pay the Law Society the sum of €1,756 in respect of the measured costs of the High Court application.

The respondent solicitor had already been suspended from practice by order of the High Court on 11 August 2021 in proceedings 2021 no 40 SA.

In the matter of Shane Allen, a solicitor previously practising as Allen & Associates, Mountkennedy Town Centre, Newtownmountkennedy, Co Wicklow, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2015 [2020/DT01]

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)

Shane Allen (respondent solicitor)

On 1 July 2021, 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 March 2019 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 the sum of €250 to the compensation fund,

£) Pay the sum of €1,212 as a contribution towards the whole of the costs of the applicant.

In the matter of Ann Houlihan, a solicitor practising as Ann Houlihan Solicitors at Alexandra House, The Sweepstakes, Ballsbridge, Dublin 4, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2015 [2019/DT68]

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)

Ann Houlihan (respondent solicitor)

On 10 June 2021, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in that she 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.

The tribunal ordered that the respondent solicitor:

• Stand censured,
• Pay the sum of €1,500 to the compensation fund,
• Pay the sum a €1,212 as a contribution towards the whole of the costs of the applicant.

In the matter of Barry G O’Meara, a solicitor practising as Barry G O’Meara & Co, Solicitors, at Pembroke House, Pembroke Street, Cork, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2015 [2019/DT67]

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)

Barry G O’Meara (respondent solicitor)

On 10 June 2021, 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 2018 within six months of that date, in breach of regulation 26(1) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations 2014 (SI 516/2014).

The disciplinary tribunal ordered that the respondent solicitor:

1) Be censured,

2) Pay the sum of €1,500 to the compensation fund,

3) Pay the sum of €1,212 as a contribution towards the whole of the costs of the applicant.

In the matter of Patrick McGonagle, a solicitor practising as McGonagle Solicitors, No 1 Main Street, Dundrum, Dublin 14, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2015 [2019/DT63]

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)

Patrick McGonagle (respondent solicitor)

On 3 June 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 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.

The tribunal ordered that the respondent solicitor:

• Stand censured,
• Pay the sum of €1,500 to the compensation fund,
• Pay the sum a €1,362 as a contribution towards the whole of the costs of the applicant.

In the matter of George Wright, solicitor, practising as Wright Solicitors, incorporating Martin & Brett Solicitors, Mill Street, Monaghan, Co Monaghan, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2015 [2019/DT48]

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)

George Wright (respondent solicitor)

On 15 April 2021, the tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in that he:

1) Caused or allowed a shortfall in the sum of €10,001 on his client account as at 31 December 2018,

2) Failed to insert the word ‘client’ into three client bank accounts of named clients, all held with AIB, contrary to regulation 2 of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations 2014 (SI 516/2014),

3) Acted on both sides in six named clients’ conveyancing transactions, in breach of the Solicitors (Professional Practice, Conduct and Discipline – Conveyancing Conflict of Interest) Regulation 2012 (SI 375/2012),

4) Failed to stamp deeds on three named clients’ transactions within a reasonable time or at all,

5) Failed to stamp deeds in respect of two named clients’ historical matters,

6) Failed to ensure that persons involved in the conduct of the solicitor’s business were (a) instructed on the law relating to money-laundering and terrorist financing, and (b) provided with ongoing training on identifying a transaction or other activity that may be related to money-laundering or terrorist financing, and on how to proceed once such a transaction or activity is identified, in breach of regulation 5(5) of the Solicitors (Money-Laundering and Terrorist Financing) Regulations 2016,

7) Failed to apply due diligence by not obtaining proof of address and evidencing same on four named client files, sales and purchases, in breach of regulation 13(1) and 13(2) of the Solicitors (Money-Laundering and Terrorist Financing) Regulations 2016,

8) Failed to adopt policies and procedures in relation to the solicitor’s business to which the regulations of the Solicitors (Money-Laundering and Terrorist Financing) Regulations 2016 apply, to prevent and detect the commission of money-laundering and terrorist financing, in breach of regulation 5 of the 2016 regulations.

The tribunal ordered that the respondent solicitor:

1) Stand censured,

2) Pay €5,000 to the compensation fund,

3) Pay the applicant’s measured costs of €3,322.50.

In the matter of Gerard O’Reilly, a solicitor practising as Gerard O’Reilly & Co, Solicitors, Mylerstown, Clonmel, Co Tipperary, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2015 [2019/DT12]

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)

Gerard O’Reilly (respondent solicitor)

On 21 October 2020 and15 April 2021, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal heard a case against the respondent solicitor and found him guilty of professional misconduct in that he:

1) Failed to ensure that there was furnished to the Society an accountant’s report for the financial year ended 30 April 2017 within six months of that date, in breach of regulation 26(1) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations 2014 (SI 516 of 2014), and which report was not received by the Society until 23 February 2018, and

2) Failed to ensure that there was furnished to the Society an accountant’s report for the financial year ended 30 April 2018 within six months of that date, in breach of regulation 26(1) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations.

The tribunal ordered that the respondent solicitor:

1) Stand advised and admonished,

2) Pay the sum of €1,212 as a contribution towards the whole of the costs of the Society.

In 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.

In 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.

In the matter of Thomas Ryan, a solicitor previously practising as Thomas Ryan & Co, Solicitors, at 145 Navan Road, Dublin 7, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2015 [2020/DT12]

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)

Thomas Ryan (respondent solicitor)

On 30 November 2021, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of professional misconduct, in that he:

1) Failed to account to the named complainant for the sum of €10,500 received in 2014 in a timely manner or at all, having

2) Received that €10,500 into his personal bank account, in breach of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations, and

3) Informed the Society on a number of occasions that he did not receive the sum of €10,500 from the complainant.

The tribunal ordered that the respondent solicitor:

1) Be censured,

2) Pay a sum of €7,500 to the compensation fund,

3) Pay the sum of €2,263 towards the costs of the Society.

In 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.

In the matter of Joanne Kangley, a solicitor previously practising as Joanne Kangley Solicitors at Anne Street, Baileborough, Co Cavan, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2015 [2018/DT90 and High Court record 2020 33 SA]

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)

Joanne Kangley (respondent solicitor)

On 23 January 2020, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in her practice as a solicitor in that she:

1) Failed to maintain adequate records to vouch a payment to a named person of €30,000 from the client ledger, out of settlement moneys of a named client,

2) Made or allowed a misleading entry to be placed in the books of account and client ledger of that named client, indicating that a payment of €30,000 made to a named individual was a survey fee, when this was not true,

3) Produced an authority from her client dated 7 January 2016, purporting to authorise the payment of €30,000 to the named individual,

4) Described the deduction of €30,000 as the repayment of a loan or loans to a named individual, in circumstances where her client denied any knowledge of the named individual.

The tribunal ordered the Law Society to bring these findings and report before the High Court, with its recommendations as to sanction as follows:

1) The respondent solicitor be censured,

2) The respondent solicitor pay the sum of €5,000 to the compensation fund,

3) The respondent solicitor pay the sum of €30,000 as restitution or part restitution to the respondent solicitor’s former client without prejudice to any legal right of such party,

4) The respondent solicitor pay measured costs to the Law Society.

On 27 July 2020, the High Court, on consent, made orders as to sanction being those recommended by the tribunal, together with the measured costs of the tribunal and the High Court.

In 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.

In 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.

In the matter of Ian McSweeney, a solicitor practising as McSweeney Solicitors, 2 Capel Street, Dublin 1, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2015 [2019/DT47]

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)

Ian McSweeney (respondent solicitor)

On 5 March 2020, 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 to letters from the Society – dated 17 October 2018, 20 November 2018, 12 December 2018, 10 January 2019, 17 January 2019 and 7 February 2019 – in a timely manner, within the time provided, or at all,

2)      Failed to attend meetings of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee on 5 February 2019 and 14 March 2019, despite being required to do so,

3)      Failed to comply with the High Court order dated 8 April 2019 to reply to the complaint of his named client within seven days of that date,

4)      Failed to inform his client of a hearing date and no legal representation attended the hearing, resulting in costs awarded against his client.

The tribunal ordered that the respondent solicitor:

1)      Be censured,

2)      Pay the sum of €3,200 to the compensation fund,

3)      Pay the sum of €1,812 as a contribution towards the whole of the costs of the applicant.

And the tribunal required that the respondent solicitor provide the following undertaking to the applicant Law Society and the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal in the following terms:

1)      To reply to any correspondence received from the applicant and/or the Legal Services Regulatory Authority within 14 days of the date of the letter,

2)      To engage in a meaningful and constructive way with the applicant and/or the Legal Services Regulatory Authority with regard to correspondence and any requirement to attend meetings of either body,

3)      To attend a practice management course for a minimum of five hours’ duration, within six months of 5 March 2020, and to provide details of the said course to the applicant in advance of same, and evidence of attendance to the applicant within 14 days of completion,

4)      The said course attendance to be in addition to the respondent solicitor continuing professional development requirements for 2020.

The tribunal directed that the duration of undertakings (1) and (2) continue for three years from 5 March 2020.

In the matter of Barry G O’Meara, a solicitor practising as Barry G O’Meara & Co, Solicitors, at Pembroke House, Pembroke Street, Cork, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2015 [2018/DT27]

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)

Barry G O’Meara (respondent solicitor)

On 30 January 2020, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of professional misconduct in that he:

1) Failed to comply expeditiously, within a reasonable time, or at all with three undertakings, each dated 23 September 2010, furnished by him on behalf of his named clients on 23 September 2010 to the named complainant in respect of a named client and in respect of the property,

2) Failed to reply adequately or at all to correspondence from the Society and, in particular, letters dated 24 October 2016, 22 November 2016, 13 January 2017 and 7 March 2017,

3) Failed to comply adequately or at all with the directions of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee made at its meeting on 23 May 2017,

4) Failed to reply adequately or at all to the complainant’s correspondence.

The tribunal ordered that the respondent solicitor:

1) Stand advised and admonished,

2) Pay the sum of €500 to the compensation fund,

3) Pay the sum a €2,112 as a contribution towards the whole of the costs of the applicant.

In the matter of Oisin Murphy, a solicitor practising as Oisin Murphy, Station House, Station Road, Shankill, Dublin 18, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2015 [2019/DT42]

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)

Oisin Murphy (respondent solicitor)

On 14 January 2020, 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, as required by regulation 26(1) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations (SI 516 of 2014), for the year ended 31 July 2018 within six months of that date.

The tribunal ordered that the respondent solicitor:

1) Stand advised and admonished,

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

3) Pay the sum a €760 as a contribution towards the whole of the costs of the applicant.

In the matter of Oisin Nolan, a solicitor practising as Oisin Nolan, Richmond House, 15A Main Street, Blackrock, Co Dublin, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2015 [2019/DT26]

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)

Oisin Nolan (respondent solicitor)

On 14 January 2020, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of professional misconduct in that he failed to cooperate with the investigation of his practice by failing to furnish a full response to all the matters raised by the Society’s investigating accountant and the report on his practice dated 30 May 2018.

The tribunal ordered that the respondent solicitor:

1) Stand advised and admonished,

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

In 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.

In the matter of John B O’Connor, solicitor, practising as John B O’Connor & Co, Solicitors, 37 Upper Mount Street, Dublin 2, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2015 [2018/DT57]

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)

John B O’Connor (respondent solicitor)

On 19 November 2019, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in that he:

1) Failed to transmit all requested documents of title and files belonging to named complainants, despite being requested to do so        by the named complainants,

2) Failed to comply with the direction of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee dated 7 March 2017, whereby he was              directed to hand over all files requested by the named complainants, either originals or, if not possible, complete copy files,

3) Failed to comply with the direction of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee at its meeting on 29 May 2017, whereby he      was again directed to forward original files and documents or, if the originals were not available, complete copy files and                  documents to the named complainants,

4) Failed to reply adequately or all to the Society’s correspondence and, in particular, letters dated 8 September 2016, 29                    September 2016, 2 December 2016, 15 December 2016, 13 January 2017, 10 February 2017, 9 March 2017, 4 April 2017, 11          May 2017, 25 May 2017, 19 July 2017, 15 August 2017, 14 September 2017, 4 October 2017, 9 January 2018 and 16 January          2018, respectively,

5) Failed to attend a meeting of the complainants and Client Relations Committee on 7 March 2017, despite being required to do so,

6) Failed to attend a meeting of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee on 9 May 2017, despite being required to do so,

7) Failed to attend a meeting of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee on 24 October 2017, despite being required to do so,

8) Failed to attend a meeting of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee of 8 February 2018, despite being required to do so.

The tribunal ordered that the respondent solicitor:

1) Stand censured,

2) Pay the sum of €7,500 to the compensation fund,

3) Pay the sum of €4,909 as a contribution towards the whole of the costs of the Law Society of Ireland.

In the matter of Mark Edmund Doyle, Mark Newman, and Michael Doyle, formerly practising under the style of Actons Newman, Newmount House, 22-24 Lower Mount Street, Dublin 2, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2015 [2018/DT94]

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)

Mark Edmund Doyle (first-named respondent solicitor)

Mark Newman (second-named respondent solicitor)

Michael Doyle (third-named respondent solicitor)

On 13 November 2019, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitors guilty of professional misconduct in that they failed to ensure that there was furnished to the Law Society a final reporting accountant’s report, in breach of regulation 33(2) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations 2014 (SI 516 of 2014).

The tribunal ordered that the respondent solicitors:

1)   Stand advised and admonished,

2)   That the first-named respondent solicitor pay a sum of €606 as a contribution towards the whole of the costs of the applicant,

3)   That the second-named respondent solicitor and the third-named respondent solicitor each pay a sum of €303 as a contribution towards the whole of the costs of the applicant.

In the matter of Mark Edmund Doyle, Mark Newman, and Michael Doyle, formerly practising under the style of Actons Newman, Newmount House, 22-24 Lower Mount Street, Dublin 2, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2015 [2018/DT94]

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)

Mark Edmund Doyle (first-named respondent solicitor)

Mark Newman (second-named respondent solicitor)

Michael Doyle (third-named respondent solicitor)

On 13 November 2019, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitors guilty of professional misconduct in that they failed to ensure that there was furnished to the Law Society a final reporting accountant’s report, in breach of regulation 33(2) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations 2014 (SI 516 of 2014).

The tribunal ordered that the respondent solicitors:

1)   Stand advised and admonished,

2)   That the first-named respondent solicitor pay a sum of €606 as a contribution towards the whole of the costs of the applicant,

3)   That the second-named respondent solicitor and the third-named respondent solicitor each pay a sum of €303 as a contribution towards the whole of the costs of the applicant.

In the matter of Mark Edmund Doyle, Mark Newman, and Michael Doyle, formerly practising under the style of Actons Newman, Newmount House, 22-24 Lower Mount Street, Dublin 2, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2015 [2018/DT94]

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)

Mark Edmund Doyle (first-named respondent solicitor)

Mark Newman (second-named respondent solicitor)

Michael Doyle (third-named respondent solicitor)

On 13 November 2019, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitors guilty of professional misconduct in that they failed to ensure that there was furnished to the Law Society a final reporting accountant’s report, in breach of regulation 33(2) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations 2014 (SI 516 of 2014).

The tribunal ordered that the respondent solicitors:

1)   Stand advised and admonished,

2)   That the first-named respondent solicitor pay a sum of €606 as a contribution towards the whole of the costs of the applicant,

3)   That the second-named respondent solicitor and the third-named respondent solicitor each pay a sum of €303 as a contribution towards the whole of the costs of the applicant.

In the matter of Ronan O’Brien, a solicitor practising as principal of Ronan O’Brien & Company, Solicitors, 69 Church Street, Cavan, Co Cavan, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2015 [2018/DT88]

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)

Ronan O’Brien (respondent solicitor)

On 7 November 2019, the tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in that he, between March 2012 and February 2013, received a Social Welfare payment, to wit, Jobseekers Benefit, at a time when he ought to have known he was not entitled to receive such benefit.

The tribunal ordered that the respondent solicitor:

1) Stand censured,

2) Pay the sum of €3,000 to the compensation fund,

3) Pay a contribution of €4,000 towards the whole of the costs of the Law Society of Ireland.

In the matter of Declan O’Callaghan, solicitor, formerly practising in the firm of Kilrane O’Callaghan & Co, Solicitors, Pound Street, Ballaghaderreen, Co Roscommon, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2015 [2019/DT22]

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)

Declan O’Callaghan (respondent solicitor)

On 5 November 2019, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in that he:

1) Unlawfully and without authority retained client moneys in his client account due to be paid to a firm of named solicitors on              behalf of litigation costs and expenses from the estate of a named client,

2) Failed to remit costs and outlays to a firm of named solicitors arising out of litigation between their named client against the              respondent solicitor’s named client, resulting in court proceedings being issued against the complainant’s client,

3) Failed to provide an explanation as to why client moneys had been retained by the respondent solicitor for a period of, in or              around, four years, and not properly remitted to a firm of named solicitors in discharge of their legal costs and outlays in the said      litigation.

The tribunal ordered that the respondent solicitor:

1) Stand censured,

2) Pay the sum of €10,000 to the compensation fund, to be paid within 12 months from the date of the order of the tribunal,

3) Pay the sum of €7,500 as a contribution towards the whole of the costs of the applicant, to be paid within 12 months from the          date of the order of the tribunal.

In the matter of Gary Matthews , a solicitor practising as Gary Matthews Solicitors, 27 Rosses Quay, Rostrevor, Co Down, BT34 3GL, and in the matter of an application by the Law Society of Ireland to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal [8178/DT164/14]

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)

Gary Matthews (respondent solicitor)

On 24 October 2019, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in the following matters:

1) On or around 26 July 2010, he failed to disclose to his client that he had compromised the matter with a named insurance                company for a sum of €23,000,

2) On or around 26 July 2010, he arranged for a cheque that was crossed and made payable to his client to be lodged to an account      under his control, contrary to section 66(17) of the Solicitors Act 1954 (as amended by section 76 of the Solicitors (Amendment)      Act 1994),

3) He misrepresented by way of an email dated 23 August 2010 to the complainant, that a named insurance company had made the      payment in respect of the settlement directly into the complainant’s bank account, when he knew or ought to have known that          this payment, in fact, originated from his firm, and

4) He misrepresented on one or more occasions to the complainant that the settlement of €23,000 made by the named insurance          company included a specific amount(s) to cover legal fees and outlays, when he was aware or ought to have been aware that no      part of the €23,000 was attributable to legal fees.

The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal made the following orders on 24 October 2019:

1)   That the respondent solicitor stand censured,

2)   That the respondent solicitor pay the sum of €5,000 to the compensation fund of the applicant,

3)   That the respondent solicitor pay the agreed costs of the applicant to be taxed by a taxing master of the High Court in default of        agreement.

In 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.

In the matter of Peter Downey, a solicitor practising as Eagleton Downey Solicitors at Triton Road, Bettystown, Co Meath, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2015 [2019/DT20 and High Court reference 2019 no 59 SA]

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)

Peter Downey (respondent solicitor)

On 11 July 2019, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of professional misconduct in that he failed to ensure there was furnished to the Society an accountant’s report for the year ended 31 January 2018 within six months of that date, in breach of regulation 26(1) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations 2014.

The tribunal sent the matter forward to the High Court and, on Monday 21 October 2019, the High Court (noting that the accountant’s report had been filed) ordered that, within six months from that date, the respondent solicitor:

1)   Pay a sum of €500 to the compensation fund,

2)   Pay the costs of the Society in the disciplinary and High Court proceedings.

In 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.

In 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.

In 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.

In 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.

In the matter of Paul Cagney, a solicitor previously practising as Paul Cagney & Co, Solicitors, at Main Street, Charleville, Co Cork, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2015 [2019/DT28]

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)

Paul Cagney (respondent solicitor)

On 1 October 2019, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of professional misconduct in that he failed to ensure 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 of 2014) in a timely manner or at all, having ceased practice on 30 November 2016.

The tribunal ordered that the respondent solicitor:

1)   Stand advised and admonished,

2)   Pay a sum a €812 as a contribution towards the whole of the costs of the applicant.

In the matter of Noel J Gargan, a solicitor practising as a partner in the firm of Christie & Gargan, Solicitors, Unit 2 Stewart Hall, Parnell Street, Dublin 1, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2015 [2018/DT93]

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)

Noel J Gargan (respondent solicitor)

On 30 September 2019, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of professional misconduct in that he:

1) Failed to comply with an undertaking dated 12 September 2005 furnished to the complainants in respect of his named client and      the borrower and property in Co Louth in a timely manner,

2) Failed to respond to the Society’s correspondence in a timely manner or at all and, in particular, the Society’s letters of 25                November 2015, 12 January 2016, 26 January 2016, 2 November 2016, 19 December 2016, 20 March 2017, 25 April 2017, 3          November 2017, and 28 November 2017.

The tribunal ordered that the respondent solicitor:

1)   Stand censured,

2)   Pay a sum a €750 to the compensation fund,

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

In the matter of Noel J Gargan, a solicitor practising as a partner in the firm of Christie & Gargan, Solicitors, Unit 2, Stewart Hall, Parnell Street, Dublin 1, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2015 [2018/DT92]

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)

Noel J Gargan (respondent solicitor)

On 30 September 2019, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of professional misconduct in that he:

1)   Failed to comply with an undertaking dated 25 May 2007 furnished to the complainants in respect of his named clients and the borrowers and the property at Tallaght, Dublin 24 in a timely manner or at all,

2)   Failed to respond to the Society’s correspondence in a timely manner or at all and, in particular, the Society’s letters of 25 November 2015, 12 January 2016, 26 January 2016, 2 November 2016, 19 December 2016, 20 March 2017, 25 April 2017 and 3 November 2017.

The tribunal ordered that the respondent solicitor:

1)   Stand censured;

2)   Pay a sum a €750 to the compensation fund,

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

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

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)

James Dorney (respondent solicitor)

2018/DT80

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

2018/DT106

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2)   In the event that the respondent solicitor does become compliant with the provisions of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations to the satisfaction of the Law Society of Ireland, the respondent solicitor is to apply to the High Court to lift the suspension order if he intends to resume practice and, in that event, that he not be permitted to practise as a sole practitioner or in a partnership, but only to practise as an assistant solicitor in the employment and under the direct control and supervision of another solicitor of at least ten years’ standing, to be approved in advance by the Law Society of Ireland,

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

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

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

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

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)

David Doyle (respondent solicitor)

On 27 June 2019, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of professional misconduct in that he:

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

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

The tribunal ordered that the respondent solicitor:

1)   Stand censured,

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

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

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)

Alan Lloyd (respondent solicitor)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)

Áine Kilfeather (respondent solicitor)

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

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

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

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

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

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

The tribunal ordered that the respondent solicitor:

1)   Stand advised and admonished,

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

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

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

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)

Thomas D’Alton (respondent solicitor)

2017/DT114

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

2018/DT03

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)

Moya O’Donnell (respondent solicitor)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)

Damien Cassidy (respondent solicitor)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)

Thomas O’Donoghue (respondent solicitor)

8824/DT40/15

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

1)   Failed to comply with an undertaking dated 18 September 2007, provided to the complainant, in a timely manner or at all,

2)   Failed to respond adequately or at all to some or all of the correspondence sent to him by the complainant.

8824/DT41/15

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

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

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

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

On 3 December 2018, the High Court ordered that:

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

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

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

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)

Paul Cunningham (respondent solicitor)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In the matter of Neil Corbett, a solicitor formerly practising as principal of Neil Corbett Solicitors, Davis Building, Lower Main Street, Mallow, Co Cork, and in the matter of an application by the Law Society of Ireland to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2015 [3429/DT62/15; 3429/DT63/15; High Court record 2018/105 SA]

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)

Neil Corbett (respondent solicitor)

On 31 August 2018, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:

3429/DT62/15

Up to the date of expiry of the stay of referral of this matter to the tribunal, the respondent solicitor had:

1)   Failed to comply with part or all of the undertaking dated 15 April 2005 to the complainant in a timely manner or at all, and/or

2)   Failed to comply with the directions of the committee dated 11 December 2012 when required to do so, and/or

3)   Failed to attend at a meeting of the committee on 11 December 2012 when required to do so, and/or

4)   Failed to attend at a meeting of the committee on 19 February 2013 when required to do so, and/or

5)   Failed to attend at a meeting of the committee on 16 July 2013 when required to do so, and/or

6)   Failed to respond adequately or at all to letters dated 24 February 2012, 12 March 2012, 10 April 2012 and 30 May 2012 sent to him by the complainant, and/or

7)   Failed to respond adequately or at all to letters dated 24 July 2012, 29 August 2012 and 10 May 2013 sent to him by the Society.

3429/DT63/15

Up to the date of expiry of the stay of referral of this matter to the tribunal, the respondent solicitor had

1)   Failed to comply with one or more of the following undertakings in a timely manner or at all:

      a)   Undertakings dated 27 October 2005 and 24 April 2006 in respect of his named clients in respect of a named property,              and/or

      b)   Undertaking dated 26 January 2004 in respect of his named clients in respect of a named property, and/or

      c)   Undertaking dated 26 September 2007 in respect of his named clients in respect of a named property, and/or

      d)   Undertaking dated 26 January 2004 in respect of his named clients in respect of a named property, and/or

      e)   Undertakings dated 10 December 2008 and 5 January 2009 in respect his named clients in respect of named properties,            and/or 

      f)   Undertaking dated 20 January 2004 in respect of his named clients in respect of a named property, and/or

      g)  Undertaking dated 16 November 2006 in respect of his named clients in respect of named properties,

2)   Failed to respond adequately or at all to some or all of the correspondence sent to him by the complainant: 

      a) In respect of the first undertaking, particularly letters dated 22 November 2006, 27 April 2007, 23 May 2007, 26 October            2007, 21 November 2007, 12 December 2007, 25 April 2008, 16 May 2008, 4 January 2010, 26 April 2010, 2 July 2010, 29        November 2010, and 8 March 2011, and/or

      b) In respect of the second undertaking, particularly letters dated 11 February 2005, 12 August 2005, 10 February 2006, 3            March 2006, and 5 February 2009, and/or

      c) In respect of the third undertaking, particularly letters dated 8 March 2011, 30 March 2011, and 1 June 2011, and/or

      d) In respect of the fourth undertaking, particularly letters dated 11 February 2005, 12 August 2005, 10 February 2006, 3              March 2006, and 28 January 2009, and/or 

      e) In respect of the sixth undertaking, particularly letters dated 11 February 2005, 12 August 2005, 10 February 2006, and 3          March 2006, 

3)   Failed to respond adequately or at all to some or all of the correspondence sent to him by the Society:

      a) In respect of the first undertaking, particularly letters dated 5 August 2011, 6 September 2011, 27 September 2011, 22              November 2011, and 9 January 2012, and/or

      b) In respect of the second undertaking, particularly letters dated 8 December 2011 and 10 January 2012, and/or

      c) In respect of the third undertaking, particularly letters dated 25 October 2011 and 9 January 2012, and/or

      d) In respect of the fifth undertaking, particularly letters dated 19 October 2011, 4 November 2011, and 10 January 2012,              and/or

      e) In respect of the sixth undertaking, particularly a letter dated 28 September 2011, and/or

      f) In respect of the seventh undertaking, particularly letters dated 19 October 2011 and 9 January 2012, and/or

      g) In respect of all undertakings, particularly letters dated 9 May 2012, 22 June 2012, 17 July 2012, 9 November 2012, and 1        March 2013,

4) Failed to attend at meetings of the committee on 4 September 2012, 11 December 2012, 14 May 2013 and 16 July 2013 when required to do so.

The tribunal ordered that the Law Society of Ireland bring its findings and reports in both matters before the High Court. On 22 October 2018, the High Court, in proceedings entitled 2018 no105 SA, ordered that:

1)   The respondent solicitor not be permitted to practise as a sole practitioner or in partnership, and that he be permitted only to practise as an assistant solicitor in the employment and under the direct control and supervision of another solicitor of at least ten years’ standing, to be approved in advance by the Law Society of Ireland,

2)   The respondent solicitor pay a sum of €5,000 to the compensation fund of the Law Society of Ireland,

3)   The respondent solicitor pay the Law Society €22,734.43 costs (including VAT and outlay) of the proceedings before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal,

4)   The respondent solicitor pay the Law Society €2,075 costs (including VAT and outlay) of the High Court proceedings.

In the matter of Lyndsey Clarke, solicitor, practising as Keith Flynn & Company, 414 The Capel Building, Mary’s Street, Dublin 7, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2015 [2017/DT46 and High Court record 2018 no 99 SA]

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)

Lyndsey Clarke (respondent solicitor)

On 12 July 2018, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in her practice as a solicitor in that she:

1)   Improperly and/or dishonestly caused or allowed a minimum deficit of in or around €40,302.70 on the client account as at 16 November 2016,

2)   Ceased practice on or around 21 November 2016 with a deficit on the client account in respect of a client matter of up to €80,000,

3)   Failed to notify the client the subject of the deficit at (2) above of the deficit in a timely manner or at all and, further, that they were ceasing practice without rectifying a deficit in his funds,

4)   Failed over an ongoing period of time, in 2015 and 2016, to maintain proper books of account, in breach of regulation 13 and, in particular, failed to maintain books of account that showed the true financial position in relation to transactions with clients’ moneys and with other moneys transacted through the client account, in breach of regulation 13(2)(a),

5)   On or around 17 October 2016, improperly and/or dishonestly caused or allowed two transfers of clients’ moneys in the amounts of €10,085 and €16,370 respectively to reduce a deficit on the client account, which moneys were not properly available to reduce the deficit, in breach of regulation 10,

6)   Improperly and/or dishonestly caused or allowed the transfer of €29,000 of clients’ funds to the office account, by way of transfers of €25,000 and €4,000 on 26 October 2016 and 15 November 2016 respectively, in breach of regulation 7,

7)   Failed to complete stamping in a purchase matter in a timely manner or at all,

8)   Caused or allowed fees of €1,150 to be transferred to the office account on 23 August 2016 before receipt of funds on 29 August 2016, creating a debit balance of €1,150, in breach of regulation 7(2)(a),

9)   Ceased practice on or around 21 November 2016 without having made all appropriate arrangements for the wind-up of the practice, thereby showing disregard for the clients of the practice,

10) Failed to have any or any adequate regard for the safekeeping of client funds.

The tribunal ordered that the matter should go forward to the High Court and, on 22 October 2018, the High Court ordered that:

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

2)   The respondent solicitor pay the applicant’s measured costs.

In the matter of Keith Flynn, practising as Keith Flynn & Company, 414 The Capel Building, Mary’s Street, Dublin 7, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2015 [2017/DT46 and High Court record 2018 no 99 SA]

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)

Keith Flynn (respondent solicitor)

On 12 July 2018, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:

1)   Improperly and/or dishonestly caused or allowed a minimum deficit of in or around €40,302.70 on the client account as at 16 November 2016,

2)   Ceased practice on or around 21 November 2016 with a deficit on the client account in respect of a client matter of up to €80,000,

3)   Failed to notify the client the subject of the deficit at (2) above of the deficit in a timely manner or at all and, further, that they were ceasing practice without rectifying a deficit in his funds,

4)   Failed over an ongoing period of time, in 2015 and 2016, to maintain proper books of account, in breach of regulation 13 and, in particular, failed to maintain books of account that showed the true financial position in relation to transactions with clients’ moneys and with other moneys transacted through the client account, in breach of regulation 13(2)(a),

5)   On or around 17 October 2016, improperly and/or dishonestly caused or allowed two transfers of clients’ moneys in the amounts of €10,085 and €16,370 respectively to reduce a deficit on the client account, which moneys were not properly available to reduce the deficit, in breach of regulation 10,

6)   Improperly and/or dishonestly caused or allowed the transfer of €29,000 of clients’ funds to the office account, by way of transfers of €25,000 and €4,000 on 26 October 2016 and 15 November 2016 respectively, in breach of regulation 7,

7)   Failed to complete stamping in a purchase matter in a timely manner or at all,

8)   Caused or allowed fees of €1,150 to be transferred to the office account on 23 August 2016 before receipt of funds on 29 August 2016, creating a debit balance of €1,150, in breach of regulation 7(2)(a),

9)   Ceased practice on or around 21 November 2016 without having made all appropriate arrangements for the wind-up of the practice, thereby showing disregard for the clients of the practice,

10) Failed to have any or any adequate regard for the safekeeping of client funds.

The tribunal ordered that the matter should go forward to the High Court and, on 22 October 2018, the High Court ordered that:

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

2)   The respondent solicitor pay the applicant’s measured costs.

In the matter of Liam M O’Brien, a solicitor formerly practising as Liam O’Brien, 21 Quinsboro Road, Bray, Co Wicklow, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2015 [3508/DT140/12; 3508/DT01/15; High Court record 2018 no 74 SA]

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)

Liam M O’Brien (respondent solicitor)

On 9 November 2017, in an application bearing record no 3508/DT01/15, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:

1)   Caused or allowed a deficit on the client account in the sum of €426,080 as at 5 July 2012,

2)   Failed to maintain proper books of account and such relevant supporting documents as would enable client moneys handled and dealt with by the solicitor to be duly recorded and the entries relevant thereto in the books of account to be appropriately vouched, in breach of regulation 12(1) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations 2001,

3)   Caused or allowed a debit balance to arise on the client side of client ledger account due to unidentified transactions of €234,682 as at 5 July 2012, in breach of regulation 7(2)(a) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations,

4)   Caused or allowed a debit balance to arise on the client side of the client ledger account of Liam M O’Brien in the sum of €151,041 as at 5 July 2012, in breach of regulation 7(2)(a) of regulations,

5)   Caused or allowed a debit balance to arise on the client side of the client ledger account of a named client in the sum of €19,302 as at 5 July 2012, in breach of regulation 7(2)(a),

6)   Caused or allowed a debit balance to arise on the client side of the client ledger account of a named client in the sum of €12,936 as at 5 July 2012, in breach of regulation 7(2)(a),

7)   Through his conduct, obstructed and delayed the Society’s investigation into his books of account and the true financial status of his practice, in breach of regulation 12(2) of the regulations.

In a separate application bearing record no 3508/DT140/12, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he failed to ensure that there was furnished to the Society an accountant’s report for the year ended 31 December 2010 within six months of that date, in breach of regulation 21(1) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations 2001.

The tribunal ordered that the matters should go forward to the High Court and, on 15 October 2018, the High Court ordered that the name of the respondent solicitor be struck from the Roll of Solicitors.

In the matter of Imelda Leahy, a solicitor formerly practising as Imelda Leahy and Company, Solicitors, Kilree Street, Bagenalstown, Co Carlow, and in the matter of an application by the Law Society of Ireland to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2011 [8250/DT158/15 and High Court record 2018/66SA]

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)

Imelda Leahy (respondent solicitor)

On 23 June 2018, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in her practice as a solicitor in that she:

1)   Took €173,543 from the estate of a named person in circumstances where she was not entitled to do so,

2)   Failed to pay a specific bequest from the estate in a timely manner,

3)   Took two payments of €15,000 each on 18 November 2014, together with travel expenses of €1,300.20, which payments were not recorded in the office ledger account for that client,

4)   Failed to keep proper books of account and records to show the amounts of settlement received and failed to provide evidence of same when requested in respect of certain cases,

5)   Allowed a shortfall of €36,810 in relation to clients’ funds due to third parties because of the transfer of excess amounts for costs in respect of certain cases,

6)   Failed to provide sufficient documentary evidence to ensure that clients were informed of the correct amount of their settlements,

7)   In respect of a specific estate, failed to issue a section 68(1) letter to the client or the residuary legatees setting out the fees payable or the basis to be used to calculate those fees,

8)   In relation to a specific estate, took costs of €47,150 before VAT on a piecemeal basis without instructions or authority of the client,

9)   In respect of a specific case, failed to furnish a section 68(6) account to the client for costs deducted and failed to furnish a bill of costs to the client for fees taken,

10) Was in breach of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations as set out at paragraph 4.11 of the report and, in particular, in breach of:

a          a) Regulation 12(1) of the 2001 regulations and 13(1) of the 2014 regulations by failing to keep proper books of account that                showed the true financial affairs of the clients,

            b) Regulations 10(2) and 10(5) of the 2001 regulations and 11(2) and 11(5) of the 2014 regulations by failing to lodge all costs            received to the client account and reflect these properly in the client ledger account,

c)         c) Regulation 7(1)(iii), taking moneys across to the office account in respect of fees when it had not been made known to such              clients that moneys so held would be used in satisfaction of professional fees due to the respondent solicitor,

            d) Regulation 7(1)(ii) by the creation of debit balances,

            e) Regulation 11(1) of the 2001 regulations and regulation 12(1) of the 2014 regulations by failing to furnish clients with bills of            costs dealing with professional fees and outlay,

            f) Regulation 11(3) of the 2001 regulations and 12(3) of the 2014 regulations by taking moneys not properly payable to the                  respondent solicitor at the time of taking,

            g)Regulation 13 of the 2001 regulations and regulation 14 of the 2014 regulations in instances where the solicitor was a                      controlling trustee and failed to lodge moneys received without delay to a controlled trust bank account.

The tribunal ordered that the Law Society of Ireland bring its findings and reports before the High Court. On 23 July 2018, the High Court ordered that:

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

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

3)   The respondent solicitor pay the applicant’s costs before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal in proceedings bearing the record no 8250/DT158/15, to be taxed in default of agreement,

4)   The respondent solicitor pay the applicant’s costs before the court, to be taxed in default of agreement,

5)   The applicant furnish the papers lodged with the court, including the transcript of the hearings before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, to the National Bureau of Fraud Investigation.

In the matter of Imelda Leahy, a solicitor formerly practising as Imelda Leahy and Company, Solicitors, Kilree Street, Bagenalstown, Co Carlow, and in the matter of an application by the Law Society of Ireland to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2011 [8250/DT42/16; 8250/DT43/16; 8250/DT46/16; 2017/DT09; 2017/DT70; and High Court record 2018/69SA]

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)

Imelda Leahy (respondent solicitor)

On 22 June 2018, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in her practice as a solicitor in that she:

8250/DT42/16

1)   Acted in a manner unbecoming to a solicitor by sending texts and correspondence to her client that were unprofessional, offensive, and inappropriate, thereby bringing the solicitors’ profession into disrepute,

2)   Failed to release the balance of funds due to the complainant in a timely manner,

3)   Failed to comply with the direction of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee made on 28 July 2015 within the time specified,

4)   Failed to notify the complainant in a timely manner or at all of the significant increase in the level of fees,

5)   Misled the Society by indicating that the section 68 letter issued on 3 March 2015 was a forgery, notwithstanding the letter of 20 April 2015 to the client that referred to the fees sent out in the section 68 letter,

6)   Misled her client by letters dated 20, 22 and 25 May 2015 and text dated 19 May 2015, which stated that she had requested the bank’s solicitor to send the surplus funds to the client and that it was the bank’s solicitor who had erroneously paid the money into the respondent solicitor’s account, when in fact it was the respondent solicitor who instructed that the surplus be sent to her account,

7)   Expressly or by implication misled the Society by claiming that a named person drafted the quote for €1,500 and that she did not agree with this sum, notwithstanding her letter to the complainant of 20 April 2015,

8)   Made threats to her client by suggesting that she would report him to the Revenue Commissioners.

8250/DT43/16

Acted in a manner unbecoming to a solicitor by sending persistent texts and correspondence to her trainee, to the Society, and to third parties, the content and tenor of which were unprofessional, offensive, intemperate and inappropriate, thereby bringing the solicitors’ profession into disrepute.

8250/DT46/16

Acted in a manner unbecoming to a solicitor by sending abusive texts, and corresponded with her clients in an unprofessional, offensive, intemperate and inappropriate manner, thereby bringing the solicitors’ profession into disrepute.

2017/DT09

Acted in a manner unbecoming to a solicitor by sending abusive texts, and corresponded with her client in an unprofessional, offensive, intemperate and inappropriate way, thereby bringing the solicitors’ profession into disrepute.

2017/DT70

Failed to comply with the direction of the committee made on 1 March 2016 to refund moneys to the complainant in the amount of €16,540 within seven days of the meeting, as specified by the committee, or at all.

The tribunal ordered that the Law Society of Ireland bring its findings and reports before the High Court.

On 30 July 2018, the High Court declared that the respondent solicitor was not a fit and proper person to be a member of the solicitors’ profession, the respondent solicitor having been previously struck from the Roll by order of the court dated 23 July 2018.

In the matter of Helen Lucey, a solicitor practising as principal of Marshall & MacAulay Solicitors, The Square, Listowel, Co Kerry, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2015 [3012/DT106/12; 3012/DT20/14; High Court record 2015 no 68 SA and 2015 no 180 SA]

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)

Helen Lucey (respondent solicitor)

On 20 May 2015, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in her practice as a solicitor in matters bearing record numbers 3012/DT106/12 and 3012/DT20/14.

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

The respondent solicitor appealed against the findings of the tribunal.

On 12 June 2018, the High Court found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in her practice as a solicitor in that she:

3012/DT106/12

1)   Caused a substantial deficit in the amount of circa €257,960 to arise on a client account on or around 31 July 2011, which deficit was due or partly due to the withdrawal of client moneys from one or more client accounts, in breach of regulation 7(1) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations 2001-2006 (SI 421 of 2001 as amended),

2)   Withdrew moneys in the amount of in or around €259,000 from a client account, in breach of regulation 8(4) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations (as amended),

3)   Failed to distribute moneys in the amount of €21,128 to nominated charities on the probate file of a named former client in a timely manner,

4)   Failed to pay charitable bequests of a named client totalling €389,000 in a timely manner,

5)   Failed to send the following deeds to be stamped in a timely manner: deed of a named client in the amount of €4,800 dating from 2007; deed of a named client in the amount of €6,030 dating from 2006; deed of a named client in the amount of €11,145 dating from 2006; deed of a named client in the amount of €5,430 dating from 2005,

6)   Failed to pay over moneys in the amount of €20,546 retained on an account in respect of a named former client, deceased, even though the file was transferred to another solicitor in December 2007.

3012/DT20/14

1)   In withdrawing moneys in the amount of in or around €259,000 from a named client account on or around 30 March 2007, acted  improperly and/or in a manner tending to bring the solicitors’ profession into disregard, having regard to:   

a)         a) The conflict of interest that arose,

b)         b) The duty owed to a named person in view of both her position as client (pursuant to section 2 of the Solicitors Amendment                Act 1994) and in view of her age, 

c)         c) The fact that the respondent solicitor failed to liaise directly with the solicitors on record for the named person in the context             of the settlement of a purported counterclaim,

d)         d)The fact that the respondent solicitor acted without any express instructions from the named person,

2)   Withdrew the amount of in or around €259,000 from the named client account, in breach of regulation 7(1) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations 2001-2006 (SI 241 of 2001 as amended).

On 5 July 2018, the High Court ordered that:

1)   The respondent solicitor not be permitted to practise as a sole practitioner or in partnership, but only as an assistant solicitor in the employment and under the direct control and supervision of another solicitor of at least ten years’ standing – said order to be stayed until 1 December 2018 to facilitate a sale of the respondent solicitor’s practice,

2)   The respondent solicitor pay €15,000 to the compensation fund and pay half the costs of the Law Society before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, to be taxed in default of agreement,

3)   The respondent solicitor pay to the Law Society the costs of the High Court, less one day, to be taxed in default of agreement.

In the matter of Gary O’Flynn, a solicitor formerly practising as Gary O’Flynn, Solicitors, Unit 9 Nof Commercial Centre, Old Mallow Road, Cork, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2015 [10549/DT20/16 and High Court record 2018 13 SA]

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)

Gary O’Flynn (respondent solicitor)

On 26 September 2017, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of professional misconduct in that he:

1)   Was convicted before Cork Circuit Criminal Court on 28 May 2014 of 13 counts of making a gain or causing a loss by deception, contrary to section 6 of the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act 2001, having pleaded not guilty to each count. For these offences, the respondent solicitor was sentenced in respect of each count to a term of imprisonment of three years, to date from 28 May 2014 and to run concurrently, with the final two years of each term to be suspended for a period of two years on the respondent solicitor agreeing to be bound to keep the peace for the said period.

2)   Was convicted before Cork Circuit Criminal Court on three counts of soliciting another person to murder an individual on a date or dates unknown between 1 October 2012 and 13 February 2013 inclusive, contrary to section 4 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, and was sentenced in respect of each count to a term of imprisonment of five years, with the terms of imprisonment to date from 9 February 2015, to run concurrently, and with the final two years of each term to be suspended for a period of two years on the respondent solicitor agreeing to be bound to keep the peace for the said period.

3)   Was convicted before Cork Circuit Criminal Court on two counts of making a gain or causing a loss by deception, contrary to section 6 of the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act 2001. For these offences, the respondent solicitor was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of two years, to date from 9 February 2015.

4)   Was convicted before Cork Circuit Criminal Court on two counts of using an instrument that he knew or believed to be a false instrument with the intention of inducing another person to accept it as genuine, and by reason of so accepting the said instrument, to do some act or to make some omission or to provide some service to the prejudice of that person or any other person, contrary to section 26 of the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act 2001. For these offences, the respondent solicitor was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of three years, to date from 9 February 2015.

5) Has, through his criminal convictions, brought the solicitors’ profession into disrepute.

The tribunal ordered that the matter go forward to the High Court and, on 16 April 2018, in High Court proceedings 2018 no 13 SA, the High Court made orders that:

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

2)   The respondent solicitor pay a contribution of the sum of €6,000 towards the costs of the Law Society of Ireland in the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal proceedings,

3)   The respondent solicitor pay measured costs of the Law Society of Ireland in respect of the High Court application in the sum of €5,362.97 within three months of the order.

In the matter of Patrick Callanan, and in the matter of an application by the Law Society of Ireland to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2015 [7251/DT88/10]; High Court [2015/6 SA]; Court of Appeal [2015/237]

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)

Patrick Callanan (respondent solicitor)

On 27 August 2014, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:

1)   Provided a certificate of earnings in respect of a named person to Permanent TSB, dated 15 September 2004, knowing the contents of the certificate to be false,

2)   Provided a certificate of earnings in respect of a named person to ICS Building Society, dated 14 September 2004, knowing the contents of the certificate to be false,

3)   Provided a certificate of earnings in respect of a named person to IIB Homeloans Limited, dated 15 September 2004, knowing the contents of the certificate to be false,

4)   Provided a certificate to Permanent TSB and IIB Homeloans representing that a named person was employed as a law clerk with the firm Wells & O’Carroll Solicitors, when that person had never been employed by that firm,

5)   Gave or caused to be given multiple undertakings to the named lending institutions to register a first charge in their favour in respect of a property at Carrickmacross, Co Monaghan.

The tribunal ordered that the matter should go forward to the High Court and, on 13 April 2015, the High Court ordered that:

1)   The respondent solicitor be prohibited from practising as a solicitor or from holding himself out as a solicitor entitled to practise for a period of ten years from the date of the making of this order,

2)   The respondent, at the expiration of the ten-year prohibition period, apply to the court should he wish to resume practice as a solicitor,

3)   In the event of the respondent solicitor applying to the court to resume practice as a solicitor, that he not be permitted to practise as a sole practitioner or in partnership; that he be permitted only to practise as an assistant solicitor in the employment and under the direct control and supervision of another solicitor of at least ten years’ standing, to be approved in advance by the Law Society of Ireland,

4)   The respondent never be given cheque-signing rights over any client account,

5) The respondent, when seeking employment as a solicitor, must furnish any prospective solicitor employer with a copy of these findings,

6)   The respondent pay the sum of €5,000 to the compensation fund,

7)   The respondent solicitor pay the whole of the Society’s costs and witness expenses in the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal proceedings, to be taxed in default of agreement,

8)   The respondent pay the Society’s costs of the within application, to be taxed in default of agreement.

The respondent solicitor appealed the order to the Court of Appeal on 12 June 2015.

On 21 July 2017, the Court of Appeal ordered that the said judgment and order of the High Court made on 13 April 2015 be set aside and that the matter be remitted to the President of the High Court for consideration of the appropriate penalty to be imposed on the respondent, pursuant to the provisions of section 8 of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act 1960, as substituted by section 18 of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act 1994.

The matter was relisted before the High Court and, on 11 April 2018, the High Court ordered that:

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

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

3)   The respondent pay a contribution of €5,000 towards the costs of the applicant for the proceedings in the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal,

4)   The respondent pay the sum of €2,000 to Mr Enda O’Carroll, solicitor, in respect of his expenses for attendances at the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal proceedings,

5)   The respondent pay the Society’s costs of the within application, to be taxed in default of agreement and such costs to be set off against the costs awarded to the respondent against the applicant in the substantive appeal.

In the matter of John Mark McFeely, a solicitor previously practising as Hegarty & McFeely Solicitors at 10 Queen Street, Derry BT48 7EX, Northern Ireland, and at 27 Clarendon Street, Derry BT48 7EX, Northern Ireland, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2015 [2017/DT25; 2017/DT48; 2017/DT49; 2017/DT50; and High Court record 2017 91 SA]

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)

John Mark McFeely (respondent solicitor)

2017/DT25

On 20 September 2017, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of professional misconduct in that he:

1)   Failed to ensure that there was furnished to the Society a closing accountant’s report, as required by regulation 26(2) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations 2001 (SI 421 of 2001) in a timely manner or at all, having ceased practice on 31 December 2012,

2)   Failed to respond to the Society’s queries in relation to the balance of client funds held by him since he ceased practising.

2017/DT48

On 20 September 2017, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of professional misconduct in that he:

1)   Failed to comply with an undertaking dated 19 June 2007 furnished to Permanent TSB on behalf of his named clients and property at Newtowncunningham, Co Donegal, in a timely manner or at all,

2)   Failed to respond to the Society’s letter of 7 October 2016 in a timely manner, within the time prescribed, or at all,

3)   Failed to attend the meeting of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee on 29 November 2016, despite being required to do so by letter dated 22 November 2016.

2017/DT49

On 20 September 2017, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of professional misconduct in that he:

1)   Failed to comply with an undertaking furnished to named complainants on 30 December 2004 in respect of his named clients and property at Castlefinn, Co Donegal, in a timely manner or at all,

2)   Failed to comply with the direction made by the Complaints and Client Relations Committee at its meeting on 19 July 2016 that he furnish a full report to the Society by 29 July 2016, which decision was communicated to him by letter dated 20 July 2016,

3)   Failed to respond to letters from the Society dated 12 January and 29 January 2016 in a timely manner or at all.

2017/DT50

On 20 September 2017, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of professional misconduct in that he:

1)   Failed to comply with an undertaking dated 20 September 2007 furnished to Permanent TSB in respect of his named client and property at Newtowncunningham, Donegal, in a timely manner or at all,

2)   Failed to respond to the Society’s correspondence of 7 October 2016 and 2 November 2016 within the time provided, in a timely manner, or at all,

3)   Failed to attend the meeting of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee on 29 November 2016, despite being required to do so by letter dated 22 November 2016.

The tribunal sent all four matters forward to the High Court and, on 5 February 2018, in High Court proceedings 2017 no 91 SA, the High Court made an order that:

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

2)   The respondent solicitor pay a cumulative sum of €5,500 as a contribution towards the costs of the disciplinary proceedings within six months of the order,

3)   The respondent solicitor pay the whole of the costs of the applicant, such costs to be taxed by a taxing master of the High Court in default of agreement.

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

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)

Michele Caulfield (respondent solicitor)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)

John A Tobin (respondent solicitor)

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

4679/DT42/12

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

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

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

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

4679/DT50/12

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

2)   Failed to respond to correspondence from the complainant,

3)   Failed to respond to correspondence from the Society,

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

4679/DT43/12

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

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

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

4679/DT44/12

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

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

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

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

4679/DT45/12

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

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

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

4679/DT46/12

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

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

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

4679/DT47/12

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

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

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

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

4679/DT48/12

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

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

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

4679/DT49/12

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1)   That the appeal be dismissed,

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

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

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

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

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)

Barry Murphy (respondent solicitor)

On 18 May 2017, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:

1)   Caused or allowed a minimum deficit arise on the client account in the sum of €432,442.89, as at 30 June 2016,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)

Michael O’Neill (respondent solicitor)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)

Daniel (Donal) Downes (respondent former solicitor)

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

4298/DT46/14

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4298/DT87/14

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

11)  Failed to keep proper books of account.

4298/DT89/15

Failed to ensure that there was furnished to the Society a closing accountant’s report, as required by regulation 26(2) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations 2001 (SI 421 of 2001), in a timely manner or at all, having ceased practice on 28 April 2014.

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

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

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

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

In the matter of Paul Lambert, a former solicitor, previously practising as Merrion Legal, Butlers Court, 77 Sir John Rogerson’s Quay, Dublin 2, and in the matter of an application by the Law Society of Ireland to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2011 [8876/DT100/15 and High Court record 2017/43 SA]

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)

Paul Lambert (respondent former solicitor)

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

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

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

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

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

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

In the matter of Andrew G Morrow, solicitor, formerly practising as David Wilson & Co, Solicitors, Raphoe, Lifford, Co Donegal, and in the matter of an application by the Law Society of Ireland to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2011 [4674/DT04/15 and High Court record 2017/45 SA]

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)

Andrew Morrow (respondent solicitor)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)

David Herlihy (respondent solicitor)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5)   There be liberty to apply.

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

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

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)

Michael Hanrahan (respondent solicitor)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

7)   Took the foregoing amounts without raising fee notes,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The tribunal ordered that the matter should go forward to the High Court and, on 23 January 2017, by consent, the High Court ordered that:

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

2)   The respondent solicitor pay to the applicant the costs of the proceedings before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, including witness expenses, to be taxed in default of agreement – execution and registration of these on foot of said costs order be stayed for a period of 12 months from the date of the order,

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

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

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)

Henry Joseph Arigho (respondent solicitor)

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

3452/DT61/13

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

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

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

3452/DT62/13

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

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

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

3452/DT63/13

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

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

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

3452/DT176/13

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

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

3452/DT185/13

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

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

The tribunal ordered that the matter go forward to the High Court and, on 12 December 2016, the High Court ordered that any future practising certificate of the respondent solicitor limit him to practising as an assistant solicitor in the employment and under the direct control and supervision of another solicitor of at least ten years’ standing, to be approved in advance by the applicant.

In 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.

In 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.

In 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.

In 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.

In 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.

In 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.

In 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.

In 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.

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

In 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.

In 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.

In 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.

In 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.

In 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.

In 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.

In 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.

In 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.

In 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.

In 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.

In 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.

In 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.

In 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.

In 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.

In 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.

In 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.

In 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.

In 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.

In 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.

In 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.

In 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.

In 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.

In the matter of Brian Grogan, a solicitor practising as principal in the firm of Brian Grogan & Company, Solicitors, Main Street, Lucan, Co Dublin, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2011 [3291/DT100/13 and High Court record 2015 no 56SA)

Named beneficiary (applicant)

Brian Grogan (respondent solicitor)

On 13 January 2015 and 3 March 2015, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal sat to consider a complaint against the respondent solicitor and found him guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that the respondent solicitor executor of the estate of a named testator was guilty of misconduct and of conflict of interest in a sale as he is a co-beneficiary.

The tribunal directed that the matter would be sent forward to the President of the High Court, and the President of the High Court, on 20 July 2015, ordered:

1)    That the respondent solicitor not be permitted to practise in the area of probate for a period of seven years,

2)    That the respondent solicitor pay the sum of €15,000 restitution to the applicant without prejudice to her legal rights,

3)    That the respondent solicitor pay the sum of €3,000 in respect of the costs of the applicant in respect of the disciplinary proceedings,

4)    That the aforementioned payments be made to the applicant by 31 July 2015.

In 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.

In 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.

In 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.

In 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.

In 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.

In 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.

In 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.

In 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.

In 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,

In 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.

In 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.

In 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.

In 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.

In 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.

In 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.

In 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.

In 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.

In 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.

In 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.

In 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.

In 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.

In 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.

In 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.

In 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.

In 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.

In 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.

In 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.

In 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.

In 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.

In 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.

In 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.

In 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.

In 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.

In 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.

In 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.

In 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.

In 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.

In 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.

In 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.

In 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.

In 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.

In 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.

In 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.

In 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.

In 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.

In 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.

In 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.

In 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.

In 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.

In 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.

In 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.

In 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.

In 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.

In 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.

In 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.