¾«Æ·¹ú²ú×ÔÏßÎçÒ¹¸£Àû

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.