In the matter of Daniel J Coleman, solicitor, formerly practising as Coleman & Co, Solicitors, Main Street, Ballinrobe, Co Mayo, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2008 [8347/DT20/09 and High Court record no 2010/65SA]

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)

Daniel J Coleman (respondent solicitor)

On 10 February 2010, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:

a) Caused or allowed the name of another named solicitor to be written on contracts for sale dated 19 May 2004 without the authority of that solicitor,

b) Caused or allowed a fictitious contract, dated 19 May 2004, to come into existence and purportedly made between the complainant’s clients and that other solicitor in trust for the purpose of misleading ACC Bank into advancing monies to a named client, knowing that the sale of the land from that named client had not closed and that the dwelling units had not been constructed,

c) Destroyed a file consisting of merely three contracts relating to the contested contract, dated 19 May 2004, without the express or implied instructions of both parties and, in particular, the complainant’s named clients,

d) Acted for both the vendor/builder, a named client, and purchasers of 13 newly constructed houses at Galway Road, Tuam, Co Galway, involving himself in a possible conflict of interest contrary to the provisions of article 4(a) of the Solicitors (Professional Practice, Conduct and Discipline) Regulations 1997, SI no 85 of 1997.

The tribunal directed that:

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

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

iii) The respondent solicitor pay the whole of the costs of the Law Society of Ireland (to include the Law Society’s costs of the adjourned hearing of 26 November 2009), to be taxed by a taxing master of the High Court in default of agreement.

On 26 July 2010, the President of the High Court ordered that:

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

2) The respondent pay the applicant the costs of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, to include witness expenses, same to be taxed in default of agreement,

3) The respondent do pay to the applicant the costs of the High Court proceedings, same to be taxed in default of agreement.

Subsequent to the making of that order, the respondent solicitor has lodged an appeal against the decision of the President of the High Court under Supreme Court appeal number 319/2010.

In the matter of Joseph Traynor, solicitor, formerly practising as Traynor & Company, Solicitors, 86 Clanbrassil Street, Dundalk, Co Louth, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2008 [5554/DT125/09 and High Court record no 2010 no 58 SA]

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)

Joseph Traynor (respondent solicitor)

On 18 March 2010, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:

a) Failed to honour an undertaking given to the complainant, dated 17 November 2004, whereby he undertook to do the following:

1) Execute security documents in that, prior to negotiating the loan cheque or the proceeds thereof, he failed to ensure that the borrower had executed a mortgage deed/charge in the lender’s standard form as produced by the lender over the property,

2) Ensure that the mortgage ranked as a first legal mortgage/charge on the property,

3) Register the mortgage in the appropriate registry so as to ensure that the lender/complainant obtained a first legal mortgage/charge on the property and, expeditiously, as soon as practicable thereafter, to lodge the following documents with the lender/complainant:

i) All deeds and documents to the property, stamped and registered as appropriate, including, if applicable, the assignment of the life policy, stamped collateral to the mortgage,

ii) The original mortgage (with certificate of charge endorsed thereon under rule 156 of the Land Registry Rules 1972, if Land Registry title),

iii) If Land Registry title, the land certificate or, if not issued, an up-to-date certified copy folio of the property showing the mortgage registered as a burden thereon,

iv) The complainant’s certificate of title in the Law Society’s standard form.

4) Hold all title documents of the property in trust for the lender/complainant.

b) Failed to adequately or at all respond to the complainant’s correspondence, in particular letters dated 18 July 2008, 6 October 2008 (twice), 22 October 2008, 7 January 2009, 9 January 2009 and 6 February 2009,

c) Failed to adequately respond to the Society’s correspondence, in particular letters dated 23 February 2009, 11 March 2009, 19 March 2009, 1 April 2009 and 3 June 2009 respectively.

The tribunal directed:

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

b) That the name of the respondent solicitor be struck off the Roll of Solicitors,

c) That the respondent solicitor pay the sum of €45,275.94 to KBC Mortgages Limited,

d) That the respondent solicitor pay the whole of the costs of the Law Society of Ireland, including witness expenses, to be taxed by a taxing master of the High Court in default of agreement.

The tribunal directed that the matter be referred forward to the High Court and, on 5 July 2010, the President of the High Court ordered:

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

2) That the respondent solicitor pay the sum of €45,275.94 as restitution to KBC Homeloans Limited,

3) That the applicant forward the papers in respect of this application to the Director of Public Prosecutions,

4) That the respondent solicitor surrender his passport forthwith to An Garda Síochána,

5) That the respondent solicitor pay the applicant the costs of the High Court proceedings, together with the costs of the disciplinary tribunal proceedings, to include witness expenses, to be taxed in default of agreement.

In the matter of Joseph Traynor, solicitor, formerly practising as Traynor & Company, Solicitors, 86 Clanbrassil Street, Dundalk, Co Louth, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2008 [5554/DT126/09 and High Court record no 2010 no 59 SA]

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)

Joseph Traynor (respondent solicitor)

On 18 March 2010, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:

a) Failed to honour an undertaking given to the complainant’s clients, Start Mortgages Limited, in respect of his named client, involving property at Rosehill, Mullagh, Co Cavan, in a solicitor’s undertaking dated 25 January 2008, whereby he undertook to do the following:

i) To register the mortgage in the appropriate registry to ensure that the complainant’s clients, Start Mortgages Limited, obtained the first legal charge on the property,

ii) To, as soon as practicable thereafter, register the first legal charge on the property and to lodge with the lender, Start Mortgages Limited, all deeds and documents properly stamped and registered,

iii) As soon as practicable after registration of Start Mortgages Limited first legal mortgage of the property, to lodge the original mortgage with the lender, Start Mortgages Limited,

iv) To ensure the borrowers acquiring the property obtained good marketable title to it or, where the borrower already owned the property, to satisfy himself that such borrower had good marketable title to it.

b) Failed to adequately or at all respond to the complainant’s correspondence, in particular letters dated 9 December 2008, 9 January 2009, 28 January 2009, 16 February 2009 and 26 February 2009 respectively.

The tribunal directed:

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

b) That the name of the respondent solicitor be struck off the Roll of Solicitors,

c) That the respondent solicitor pay restitution in the sum of €180,000 to Start Mortgages,

d) That the respondent solicitor pay the whole of the costs of the Law Society of Ireland, including witness expenses, to be taxed by a taxing master of the High Court in default of agreement.

The tribunal directed that the matter be referred forward to the High Court and, on 5 July 2010, the President of the High Court ordered:

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

2) That the respondent solicitor pay the sum of €180,000 as restitution to Start Mortgages Limited,

3) That the applicant forward the papers in respect of this application to the Director of Public Prosecutions,

4) That the respondent solicitor surrender his passport forthwith to An Garda Síochána,

5) That the respondent solicitor pay the applicant the costs of the High Court proceedings, together with the costs of the disciplinary tribunal proceedings, to include witness expenses, to be taxed in default of agreement.

In the matter of Joseph Traynor, solicitor, formerly practising as Traynor & Company, Solicitors, 86 Clanbrassil Street, Dundalk, Co Louth, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2008 [5554/DT75/09 and High Court record no 2010 no 54 SA]

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)

Joseph Traynor (respondent solicitor)

On 26 January 2010, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:

a) Failed to honour an undertaking on 25 August 2006 to lodge the title documents relating to lands at Castlewarden, Naas, Co Kildare, immediately upon the sale being completed,

b) Failed to honour an undertaking on 29 August 2006 to stamp and register the title documents relating to lands at Castlewarden, Naas, Co Kildare,

c) Failed to honour an undertaking on 26 September 2006 to stamp the deed of transfer in respect of the sale of lands at Castlewarden, Naas, Co Kildare,

d) Failed to honour an undertaking on 13 February 2007 to stamp the title documents relating to lands at Castlewarden, Naas, Co Kildare, and to arrange to have them lodged in the Land Registry within six weeks from that date,

e) Failed to comply with the direction of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee on 11 February 2009 to reply to the Society by 1 March 2009 with a copy of the stamped deed, the dealing number and copy correspondence to ACC Bank plc informing them that the deed was stamped.

The tribunal directed:

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

b) That the name of the respondent solicitor be struck off the Roll of Solicitors,

c) That the respondent solicitor pay a monetary penalty of €630,000 to the Revenue Commissioners,

d) That the respondent solicitor pay the whole of the costs of the Law Society of Ireland, including witness expenses, to be taxed by a taxing master of the High Court in default of agreement.

The tribunal urged that the papers in respect of this application be forwarded to the Director of Public Prosecutions.

The tribunal directed that the matter be referred forward to the High Court and, on 5 July 2010, the President of the High Court ordered:

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

2) That the respondent solicitor pay the sum of €630,000 to ACC Bank plc, who will remit said sum to the Revenue Commissioners if due in respect of stamp duty, or retain if not due,

3) That the applicant forward the papers in respect of this application to the Director of Public Prosecutions,

4) That the respondent solicitor surrender his passport forthwith to An Garda Síochána,

5) That the respondent solicitor pay the applicant the costs of the High Court proceedings, together with the costs of the disciplinary tribunal proceedings, to include witness expenses, to be taxed in default of agreement.

In the matter of Joseph Traynor, solicitor, formerly practising as Traynor & Company, Solicitors, 86 Clanbrassil Street, Dundalk, Co Louth, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2008 [5554/DT01/10 and High Court record no 2010 no 56 SA]

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)

Joseph Traynor (respondent solicitor)

On 11 May 2010, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:

a) Caused or allowed a fictitious contract for the purported sum of €7 million in relation to the purchase of lands at Castlewarden, being a false and misleading contract as to the purchase price, as there was an existing contract for the sum of €4.6 million,

b) Caused or allowed a fictitious contract for the purchase of lands at Castlewarden to bear the signature of the vendor and the complainant’s signature as witness, when such signatures were not the signatures of the vendor and the complainant,

c) Permitted or allowed a fictitious contract to be forwarded to the solicitors for a bank for the purchase of the site the bank placed reliance upon,

d) Failed to progress the true contract for the purchase price of €4.6 million, leaving a capital balance outstanding of €1,140,000 plus interest, which entailed proceedings for specific performance being issued and served by the complainant,

e) Failed to have the original deed of transfer signed by the purchaser dated, stamped and registered,

f) Failed to explain why €3.4 million occurred on the client ledger account when he claimed that he had no money to stamp the deed,

g) Failed to explain why there were two versions of a contract for the same lands,

h) Released title documents held on trust to the order of the complainant pending payment of the full amount of the purchase monies,

i) Failed to explain why he had not brought the matter of the fictitious contract and purported fraud to the immediate attention of the gardaí,

j) Failed to respond adequately or at all to the complainant’s correspondence, in particular letters dated 1 November 2006, 7 November 2006, 11 December 2006, 15 June 2007, 9 August 2007, 22 August 2007, 19 October 2007, 20 December 2007, 13 June 2008, 3 April 2009, 15 April 2009, 22 April 2009 and 27 April 2009,

k) Failed to respond adequately or at all to the Society’s correspondence, in particular letters dated 20 August 2009 and 21 September 2009.

The tribunal directed:

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

b) That the name of the respondent solicitor be struck off the Roll of Solicitors,

c) That the respondent solicitor pay the whole of the costs of the Law Society of Ireland, including witness expenses, to be taxed by a taxing master of the High Court in default of agreement.

The tribunal directed that the matter be referred forward to the High Court and, on 5 July 2010, the President of the High Court ordered:

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

2) That the applicant forward the papers in respect of this application to the Director of Public Prosecutions,

3) That the respondent solicitor surrender his passport forthwith to An Garda Síochána,

4) That the respondent solicitor pay the applicant the costs of the High Court proceedings, together with the costs of the disciplinary tribunal proceedings, to include witness expenses, to be taxed in default of agreement.

In the matter of Joseph Traynor, solicitor, formerly practising as Traynor & Company, Solicitors, 86 Clanbrassil Street, Dundalk, Co Louth, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2008 [5554/DT102/09 and High Court record no 2010 no 53 SA]

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)

Joseph Traynor (respondent solicitor)

On 26 January 2010, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he failed, up to the date of referral to this tribunal, in a timely manner or at all, to honour an undertaking given to the complainant by letter dated 22 February 2008, whereby he failed to discharge the mortgage on title in favour of ACC Bank plc from the proceeds of sale of property at Tullydonnell, Ardee, Co Louth, and to furnish a mortgage vacate of the said mortgage, together with a cheque in the sum of €25, in respect of Land Registry fees as soon as possible thereafter.

The tribunal directed:

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

b) That the name of the respondent solicitor be struck off the Roll of Solicitors,

c) That the respondent solicitor pay a monetary penalty of €800,000,

d) That the respondent solicitor pay the whole of the costs of the Law Society of Ireland, including witness expenses, to be taxed by a taxing master of the High Court in default of agreement.

The tribunal urged that the papers in respect of this application be forwarded to the Director of Public Prosecutions.

The tribunal directed that the matter be referred forward to the High Court and, on 5 July 2010, the President of the High Court ordered:

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

2) That the respondent solicitor pay the sum of €800,000 as restitution to a named client,

3) That the applicant forward the papers in respect of this application to the Director of Public Prosecutions,

4) That the respondent solicitor surrender his passport forthwith to An Garda Síochána,

5) That the respondent solicitor pay the applicant the costs of the High Court proceedings, together with the costs of the disciplinary tribunal proceedings, to include witness expenses, to be taxed in default of agreement.

In the matter of Joseph Traynor, solicitor, formerly practising as Traynor & Company, Solicitors, 86 Clanbrassil Street, Dundalk, Co Louth, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2008 [5554/DT11/10 and High Court record no 2010 no 55 SA]

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)

Joseph Traynor (respondent solicitor)

On 11 May 2010, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:

a) Failed to honour an undertaking given to the complainant on behalf of a named client for property at Lislin, Mullagh, Co Cavan, dated 31 August 2007, in which he undertook to register the mortgage of the complainant in the appropriate registry and to ensure that the lender/complainant obtained a first legal mortgage on the property and, as soon as practical thereafter, to lodge with the lender/complainant all deeds and documents properly stamped and registered as appropriate together with the original mortgage,

b) Failed to reply adequately to the complainant’s correspondence and to the complainant’s solicitors’ correspondence, in particular letters dated 9 December 2008, 9 January 2009, 28 January 2009, 16 February 2009 and 26 February 2009,

c) Failed to adequately respond to the Society’s correspondence, in particular letters dated 5 May 2009 and 20 May 2009,

d) Failed to attend or arrange representation before the Complaints and Client Relations Committee meeting on 9 October 2009, despite being directed to attend.

The tribunal directed:

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

b) That the name of the respondent solicitor be struck off the Roll of Solicitors,

c) That the respondent solicitor pay the sum of €570,000 as restitution to Start Mortgages,

d) That the respondent solicitor pay the whole of the costs of the Law Society of Ireland, including witness expenses, to be taxed by a taxing master of the High Court in default of agreement.

The tribunal directed that the matter be referred forward to the High Court and, on 5 July 2010, the President of the High Court ordered:

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

2) That the respondent solicitor pay the sum of €570,000 as restitution to Start Mortgages Limited,

3) That the applicant forward the papers in respect of this application to the Director of Public Prosecutions,

4) That the respondent solicitor surrender his passport forthwith to An Garda Síochána,

5) That the respondent solicitor pay the applicant the costs of the High Court proceedings, together with the costs of the disciplinary tribunal proceedings, to include witness expenses, to be taxed in default of agreement.

In the matter of Joseph Traynor, solicitor, formerly practising as Traynor & Company, Solicitors, 86 Clanbrassil Street, Dundalk, Co Louth, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2008 [5554/DT124/09 and High Court record no 2010 no 57 SA]

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)

Joseph Traynor (respondent solicitor)

On 18 March 2010, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:

1) Failed to honour an undertaking given to the complainant’s clients, Start Mortgages Limited, in respect of his named clients, involving property at Rathcore, Enfield, Co Meath, in the solicitor’s undertaking dated 4 March 2008, whereby he undertook to do the following:

a) To ensure that the mortgage ranked as the first legal mortgage/charge on the property,

b) As soon as practicable, to stamp and register the mortgage in the appropriate registry so as to ensure the lender obtained the first legal mortgage/charge on the property and, expeditiously, as soon as practicable thereafter, to lodge the following with the lender:

i) All deeds and documents to the property, stamped and registered as appropriate, including if applicable the assignment of the life policy, stamped collateral to the mortgage,

ii) The original mortgage (with certificate of charge endorsed thereon under rule 156 of the Land Registry Rules1972, if Land Registry title),

iii) The Land Registry certificate or, if not issued, an up-to-date certified copy folio of the property showing the mortgage registered as a burden thereon, and

iv) Certificate of title in the Law Society’s standard form.

2) Failed to adequately or at all respond to the complainant’s correspondence, in particular letters dated 31 August 2008, 28 October 2008, 21 November 2008 and 18 December 2008 respectively.

The tribunal directed:

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

b) That the name of the respondent solicitor be struck off the Roll of Solicitors,

c) That the respondent solicitor pay the sum of €50,000 as restitution to Start Mortgages Limited,

d) That the respondent solicitor pay the whole of the costs of the Law Society of Ireland, including witness expenses, to be taxed by a taxing master of the High Court in default of agreement.

The tribunal directed that the matter be referred forward to the High Court and, on 5 July 2010, the President of the High Court ordered:

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

2) That the respondent solicitor pay the sum of €50,000 as restitution to Start Mortgages Limited,

3) That the applicant forward the papers in respect of this application to the Director of Public Prosecutions,

4) That the respondent solicitor surrender his passport forthwith to An Garda Síochána,

5) That the respondent solicitor pay the applicant the costs of the High Court proceedings, together with the costs of the disciplinary tribunal proceedings, to include witness expenses, to be taxed in default of agreement.

In the matter of Desmond O’Brien, solicitor, Cregg, Lahinch, Co Clare, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954 to 2008 [4952/DT58/09 and High Court record 2010 no 44SA)

Law Society of Ireland

(applicant)

Desmond O’Brien

(respondent solicitor)

On 27 April 2010, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:

a) In April 2006, misappropriated €31,900 of clients’ monies to purchase a motor car.

b) In April 2006, misappropriated €6,000 of clients’ monies by means of a client account cheque payable to Bank of Ireland, which he used to purchase a bank draft payable to his wife, which was then lodged in their joint account in Bank of Ireland.

c) In May 2005, misappropriated €9,500 of clients’ money by means of a client account cheque payable to Bank of Ireland, which he used to purchase a bank draft payable to his wife, which was then lodged in their joint account in Bank of Ireland.

d) In February 2006, misappropriated €5,200 of clients’ money, which he then put into his credit card account.

e) In September 2006, misappropriated €21,500 of clients’ money, which, according to the bank, was lodged to an account in his own name in AIB.

f) Caused or allowed a possible underpayment of CGT in the case of a named client arising from an alteration in the computation by the solicitor.

g) Deducted costs from the estate of a named deceased, in breach of the regulations, without issuing a bill of costs, and the amount involved was €2,178.

h) In February 2006, misappropriated €3,224 of clients’ money, which he used to pay into his accounts in GE Money, Bank of Ireland mortgages, and into a Bank of Ireland loan account.

i) Deprived the elderly beneficiary of the estate of a named deceased of her money for the three years up to when he ceased practice, having misappropriated some of the estate money for his own personal benefit.

j) In February 2006, misappropriated €3,000 of clients’ money, with which he purchased an international bank draft payable to Bank Nationale de Paris and caused the cheque to be debited to the clients’ ledger account of a named client, described as ‘Bank of Ireland inheritance tax’.

k) On 3 July 2006, issued a client account cheque for €14,000 payable to the Revenue Commissioners, which was used with two other client account cheques to pay the stamp duty and penalty on a deed relating to a purchase by a named client that was completed in July 2004. He caused the cheque to be debited to the aforementioned named client’s ledger account.

l) Paid the second part of the stamp duty and penalty on a named client’s deed with a client account cheque for €3,684, which he caused to be debited to the client’s ledger account of another named client and which he caused to be described in the books of account as ‘Revenue Commissioners CGT’.

m) The third part of the stamp duty and penalty on a named client’s deed he paid with an AIB bank draft for €11,141, which, more than 18 months earlier, on 16 January 2005, the solicitor had drawn from a named client’s client account by means of a client account cheque payable to ‘Allied Irish Banks for Revenue’ and which the solicitor caused to be debited to the clients’ ledger account of a named client.

n) In February 2006, misappropriated €663 of clients’ money to pay his electricity bill.

o) In February 2006, misappropriated €417 of client’s money to pay his wife’s car insurance.

p) In February 2006, paid €665 to a named plant hire company and €283.22 to a named refuse and recycling company. These payments were debited to the client ledger account of a named deceased and there was nothing in that client’s file to support the payments.

q) On 17 November 2006, misappropriated €700 of clients’ money to pay his gas bill.

r) In February 2007, misappropriated clients’ money of €2,727.50 to pay his family’s VHI bill. The €2,727.50 was misappropriated as part of a larger amount of clients’ money, the balance of which was misappropriated as part of teeming and lading.

s) Misappropriated €4,250 of client’s money, which he lodged into his credit card account in March 2008.

t) In March 2008, misappropriated €2,000 of clients’ money, which he paid into a mortgage account in Bank of Ireland held in his own and his wife’s names.

u) In February 2008, misappropriated €5,000 of clients’ money, which he lodged to his credit card account.

v) In July 2006, misappropriated €4,800 of clients’ money, which he lodged to his credit card account.

w) In September 2005, misappropriated €5,000 of clients’ money, which he lodged to his credit card account.

x) On 17 August 2005, issued a client account cheque for €15,700 payable to a named client. The returned paid cheque shows that it was endorsed on the back with the name of a person bearing the same surname as the named client. The solicitor caused the cheque to be wrongly debited to the estate account in the clients’ ledger of a named client, described in the books as a named deceased’s bequest, although there was no such beneficiary in that estate. The books of account, however, show that the solicitor acted for the first-named client in the estate of a named deceased.

y) On 22 September 2006, misappropriated €13,250 of clients’ money, which he used to make a payment of €6,000 to a bank in France, €3,500 into his credit card account, and the balance of €3,750 was lodged into a joint account in his and his wife’s name.

z) Caused the bookkeeper/accountant to make false and misleading entries in the books of account.

The tribunal recommended that the matter be sent forward to the President of the High Court and, on 14 June 2010, the President of the High Court made an order that the name of the respondent solicitor shall be struck from the Roll of Solicitors and that the Law Society do recover the costs of the proceedings before the High Court and the costs of the proceedings before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal as against the respondent when taxed or ascertained.

In the matter of Michael J Murphy, a solicitor formerly practising as MJ Murphy & Co, Solicitors, 25 Lower Salthill, Galway, Co Galway, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2008 [4803/DT119/08 and High Court record no 2009/95 SA]

Michael J Murphy (respondent solicitor)

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)

On 1 September 2009, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:

1) Deducted an improper solicitor client fee of €15,000 from a named client’s settlement of €30,000, which represents a solicitor client fee of 50%, when he also received party-and-party costs of €7,978.26,

2) Failed to record the receipt of the above amount of €7,978.26 in the books of account,

3) Failed to lodge the above amount of €7,978.26 to client account or to office account,

4) Failed to maintain a copy of the party-and-party bill of costs or the letter received enclosing the party-and-party costs cheque on the client’s file in the case of a named client,

5) Misapplied the above party-and-party costs of €7,978.26 by lodging same to an account in his own name in a named credit union,

6) Deducted an improper solicitor client fee of €9,500 from a named client’s settlement of €22,500, which represents a solicitor client fee of 42.2%, when he also received party-and-party costs of €3,500,

7) Failed to record the receipt of the above amount of €3,500 in the books of account,

8) Failed to lodge the above amount of €3,500 to client account or to office account,

9) Failed to maintain a copy of the party-and party-bill of costs or the letter received enclosing the party-and-party costs cheque on the client’s file in the case of a named client,

10) Deducted an improper solicitor client fee of €2,000 from a named client’s settlement of €5,000, which represents a solicitor client fee of 40%, when he also received party-and-party costs of €928.41,

11) Failed to record the receipt of the above amount of €928.41 in the books of account,

12) Failed to lodge the above amount of €928.41 to client account or to office account,

13) Failed to maintain a copy of the party-and-party bill of costs or the letter received enclosing the party-and-party costs cheque on the client’s file in the case of a named client,

14) Deducted an improper solicitor client fee of €8,515.44 from a named client’s settlement of €22,515.44, which represents a solicitor client fee of 37.8%, when he also received party-and-party costs of €3,000,

15) Failed to record the receipt of the above amount of €3,000 in the books of account,

16) Failed to lodge the above amount of €3,000 to client account or to office account,

17) Misapplied the above party-and-party costs of €3,000 by lodging same to an account in his own name in a named credit union,

18) Failed to maintain a copy of the party-and-party bill of costs or the letter received enclosing the party-and-party costs cheque on the client’s file in the case of a named client,

19) Deducted an improper solicitor client fee of €15,000 from a named client’s settlement of €40,000, which represents a solicitor client fee of 37.5%, when he also received party-and-party costs of €7,050,

20) Failed to record the receipt of the above amount of €7,050 in the books of account,

21) Failed to maintain a copy of the party-and-party bill of costs or the letter received enclosing the party-and-party costs cheque on the client’s file in the case of a named client,

22) Deducted an improper solicitor client fee of €7,500 from a named client’s settlement of €20,000, which represents a solicitor client fee of 37.5%, when he also received party-and-party costs of €6,335.50,

23) Failed to record the receipt of the above amount of €6,335.50 in the books of account,

24) Failed to lodge the above €6,335.50 to client account or to office account,

25) Misapplied the above party-and-party costs of €6,335.50 by lodging same to an account in his own name in a named credit union,

26) Deducted an improper solicitor client fee of €5,699.14 from a named client’s settlement of €15,769.14, which represents a solicitor client fee of 36.1%, when he also received party-and-party costs of €5,886.32,

27) Failed to record the above €5,886.32 in the books of account,

28) Failed to lodge the above €5,886.32 to client account or to office account,

29) Failed to maintain the letter received enclosing the party-and-party costs cheque on the client’s file in the case of a named client,

30) Misapplied the above party-and-party costs of €5,886.32 by lodging same to an account in his own name in a named credit union,

31) Deducted an improper solicitor client fee of IR£3,500 from a named client’s settlement of IR£13,500, which represents a solicitor client fee of 25.9%, when he also received party-and-party costs of €3,850,

32) Deducted an improper solicitor client fee of €2,500 from a named client’s settlement of €10,000, which represents a solicitor client fee of 25%, when he also received party-and-party costs of €3,377.40,

33) Failed to record the receipt of the above €3,377.40 in the books of account,

34) Failed to lodge the above €3,377.40 to client account or to office account,

35) Failed to maintain a copy of the party-and-party bill or the letter received enclosing the party-and-party cheque on the client’s file in the case of a named client,

36) Misapplied the above party-and-party costs of €3,377.40 by lodging same to an account in his own name in a named credit union,

37) Deducted an improper solicitor client fee of €5,000 from a named client’s settlement of €20,000, which represents a solicitor client fee of 25%, when he also received party-and-party costs of €4,755.52,

38) Deducted an improper solicitor client fee of €3,000 from a named client’s settlement of €13,301, which represents a solicitor client fee of 22.5%, when he also received party-and-party costs of €6,620.13,

39) Deducted an improper solicitor client fee of €3,500 from a named client’s settlement of €16,500, which represents a solicitor client fee of 21.2%, when he also received party-and-party costs of €3,907.41,

40) Deducted an improper solicitor client fee of €20,000 from a named client’s settlement of €110,000, which represents a solicitor client fee of 18.2%, when he also received party-and-party costs of €35,888.79 in two instalments of €25,000 and €10,888.79,

41) Failed to record the receipt of the above instalment of party-and-party costs of €25,000 in the books of account,

42) Failed to lodge the above instalment of party-and-party costs of €25,000 to client account or to office account,

43) Failed to maintain a copy of the party-and-party bill or the letters received enclosing the party-and-party cheques on the client’s file in the case of a named client,

44) Misapplied the above party-and-party costs instalment of €25,000 by lodging same to an account in his own name in a named credit union,

45) Deducted an improper solicitor client fee of €5,000 from a named client’s settlement of €30,000, which represents a solicitor client fee of 16.67%, when he also received party-and-party costs of €20,378.33,

46) Failed to record the receipt of the above €20,378.33 in the books of account,

47) Failed to lodge the above €20,378.33 to client account or to office account,

48) Misapplied the above party-and-party costs of €20,378.33 by lodging same to an account in his own name in a named credit union,

49) Failed to record in the books of account the receipt of party-and-party costs of €3,194.66 received in the case of a named client,

50) Failed to lodge the party-and-party costs of €3,194.66 received in the case of a named client to client account or to office account,

51) Failed to maintain the letter received enclosing the party-and-party costs cheque of €3,194.66 on the client’s file in the case of a named client,

52) Failed to record in the books of account the receipt of party-and-party costs of €5,717.26 received in the case of a named client,

53) Failed to lodge the party-and-party costs of €5,717.26 received in the case of a named client to client account or to office account,

54) Failed to maintain the letter received enclosing the party-and-party costs cheque of €5,717.26 on the client’s file in the case of a named client,

55) Misapplied the above party-and-party costs of €5,717.26 by lodging same to an account in his own name in a named credit union,

56) Left the sum of €2,541.00, received to pay counsel in the case of a named client, in office account between October 2003 and June 2004,

57) Failed to record in the books of account the receipt of party-and-party costs of €8,384.77 received in the case of a named client,

58) Failed to lodge the party-and-party costs of €8,384.77 received in the case of a named client to client account or to office account,

59) Failed to maintain the letter received enclosing the party-and-party costs cheque of €8,384.77 on the client’s file in the case of a named client,

60) Misapplied the above party-and-party costs of €8,384.77 by lodging same to an account in his own name in a named credit union,

61) Failed to record in the books of account the receipt of party-and-party costs of €3,957.93 received in the case of a named client,

62) Failed to lodge the party-and-party costs of €3,957.93 received in the case of a named client to client account or to office account,

63) Failed to maintain the letter received enclosing the party-and-party costs cheque of €3,957.93 on the client’s file in the case of a named client,

64) Failed to record in the books of account the receipt of party-and-party costs of €3,591.95 received in the case of a named client,

65) Failed to lodge the party-and-party costs of €3,591.95 received in the case of a named client to client account or to office account,

66) Failed to maintain the party-and-party bill of costs and the letter received enclosing the party-and-party costs cheque of €3,591.95 on the client’s file in the case of a named client,

67) Failed to record in the books of account the receipt of party-and-party costs of €17,872.80 received in the case of a named client,

68) Failed to lodge the party-and-party costs of €17,872.80 received in the case of a named client to client account or to office account,

69) Failed to maintain the letter received enclosing the party-and-party costs cheque of €17,872.80 on the client’s file in the case of a named client,

70) Misapplied the above party-and-party costs of €17,872.80 by lodging same to an account in his own name in a named credit union,

71) Delayed in paying €1,875 to counsel from June 2003 to February 2005 in the case of a named client,

72) Untruthfully stated during the investigation that the party-and-party costs cheques that had not been lodged to client or office accounts and had not been recorded in the books of account had all been cashed “across the counter” and that they were not lodged to any account,

73) Drew costs from client account by means of cheques payable to Bank of Ireland in the sums of €250 and €2,000,

74) Deducted €315.99 for an itemised list of ‘specials’ from a named client’s settlement and subsequently misapplied the €315.99 to office account,

75) Informed the barrister in a named client’s case that that the claim had been settled for €5,000 when it had actually been settled for €7,500,

76) Deducted €18,000 from a named client’s settlement of €100,000 and lodged same to office account after the client had been informed that €8,000 of the deduction was for ‘specials’,

77) Drew €6,112.50, being part of a solicitor client fee of €8,000 in the case of a named client, from client account by means of a cheque payable to Bank of Ireland,

78) Failed to record the receipt of the €6,112.50 as a fee in the books of account in the case of a named client,

79) Deducted an improper solicitor client fee of €8,000 from a named client’s settlement of €33,000, which represents a solicitor client fee of 24.24%, when he was also entitled to charge party-and-party costs,

80) Misused €417 of clients’ money when he drew €662 from client account and the clients’ ledger account of a named client by means of a cheque payable to Galway City Council for his (the respondent solicitor’s) domestic refuse charges,

81) Delayed in paying the stamp duty of €12,050 in the case of a named client,

82) Failed to fully comply with section 68(6) of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act 1994 in respect of 36 clients’ files examined,

83) Deducted improper solicitor client fees ranging from 14% to 47.21% and ranging from €2,000 to €63,608 of the client’s settlements in up to 16 other cases documented in work papers provided by the reporting accountant,

84) Misused clients’ money when he caused debit balances on clients’ ledger accounts in his own name,

85) Failed to provide documentation, prior to his referral to the disciplinary tribunal, to enable the following amounts credited to his own accounts in the clients’ ledger to be verified: €28,498.82 on 7 March 2002; €24,760 on 9 April 2002; €10,204.82 on 13 June 2002; €7,000 on 14 June 2002; €17,478.62 on 20 June 2002; €10,000 on 28 June 2002; €21,254.84 on 12 July 2002; €24,660 on 29 January 2003; and €25,000 on 1 December 2004,

86) Failed to identify or provide documentation, prior to his referral to the disciplinary tribunal, to enable the following amounts lodged to his account in a named credit union to be verified:

• 16 July 2002 – €5,000,
• 5 June 2003 – €17,578.99,
• 1 July 2003 – €7,800,
• 1 August 2003 – €2,907,
• 13 April 2004 – €2,461.80,
• 24 April 2004 – €13,519.75,
• 21 May 2004 – €5,000,
• 6 August 2004 – €4,026.27,
• 6 August 2004 – €4,000,
• 17 August 2004 – €11,825.60,
• 24 August 2004 – €3,142.24,
• 27 August 2004 – €19,422.55,
• 7 September 2004 – €27,583.25,
• 7 September 2004 – €6,300.42,
• 5 October 2004 – €3,793.35,
• 17 November 2004 – €3,800,
• Total – €138,161,

87) Misled the Revenue by excluding solicitor client fees of €459,000 from income in his voluntary disclosure and informing the Revenue, through his representatives, that solicitor client fees of €459,000 were obtained in breach of the regulations and would be paid back to the clients, and then failed to repay the full €459,000 to the clients prior to his referral to the disciplinary tribunal,

88) Preferred 12 former clients by refunding them solicitor client fees totalling €83,545.95 plus interest, as per a letter dated 22 July 2008 from his legal representative, without explaining why these 12 clients were preferred and did not explain why any of the remainder of the €459,000 was not refunded,

89) Failed to refund all of the solicitor client fees to the clients as directed by the Regulation of Practice Committee at its meeting on 6 April 2006 prior to his referral to the disciplinary tribunal,

90) Failed to provide or failed to ensure, prior to his referral to the disciplinary tribunal, that the explanation required by the Regulation of Practice Committee was provided concerning the circumstances of an undertaking to Bank of Ireland over the sale proceeds of a house in a named location, as requested at the May 2006 meeting of the Regulation of Practice Committee.

The tribunal recommended that:

a) The respondent solicitor was not a fit person to be a member of the solicitors’ profession and that the name of the respondent solicitor be struck off the Roll of Solicitors,

b) The respondent solicitor pay the whole of the costs of the Society, including witness expenses, to be taxed by a taxing master of the High Court in default of agreement.

On 14 June 2010, the President of the High Court ordered:

1) That the respondent solicitor is not a fit person to be a member of the solicitors’ profession and the name of the respondent solicitor be struck off the Roll of Solicitors,

2) That the respondent solicitor shall pay the whole of the costs of the Society, including witness expenses before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, to be taxed by a taxing master of the High Court in default of agreement;

3) An order for the costs of the proceedings in the High Court to be taxed by a taxing master of the High Court, in default of agreement.

Subsequently, the respondent solicitor appealed to the Supreme Court against the decision of the President of the High Court.