¾«Æ·¹ú²ú×ÔÏßÎçÒ¹¸£Àû

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.