In the matter of Oisin Nolan, a solicitor formerly practising at Richmond House, 15A Main Street, Blackrock, Co Dublin, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2015 [2019/DT17 and High Court record 2022 no 2 SA]

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)

Oisin Nolan (respondent solicitor)

On 26 October 2021, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct, in that he failed to ensure that there was furnished to the Society a closing accountant’s report, as required by regulation 33(2) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations 2014 (SI 516/2014), in a timely manner or at all, having ceased practice on 23 January 2019.

The tribunal ordered that the Law Society bring its finding and report before the High Court.

On 14 February 2022, the High Court ordered that the solicitor be suspended from practice until such time as he furnished the Law Society of Ireland with his closing accountant’s report, as required by regulation 33(2) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations.

The High Court also ordered that the respondent solicitor pay the measured costs of the Society before the disciplinary tribunal and before the High Court.

In the matter of Ann Houlihan, a solicitor previously practising as Ann Houlihan Solicitors at Alexandra House, The Sweepstakes, Ballsbridge, Dublin 4, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2015 [2020/DT05 and High Court record 2021 no 72 SA]

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)

Ann Houlihan (respondent solicitor)

On 5 October 2021, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of professional misconduct in that she:

1) Failed to maintain proper books of account, in breach of regulations 13 and 25 of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations,

2) Allowed a deficit of €380,461.79 in client funds as of 30 November 2019,

3) Failed to discharge a mortgage of €202,747.52 on behalf of a client, despite being in funds to do so, and instead misapplied this money,

4) Failed to pay a client settlement of €60,000 to her, despite being in funds to do so, and instead misapplied this money,

5) Failed to discharge stamp duty in relation to nine matters, and registration fees in each of those matters, along with an additional matter totalling €117,109, four of which appeared to contain undertakings to financial institutions, and instead misapplied this money,

6) Updated three deeds upon stamping to avoid interest and penalties,

7) Concealed the deficit on the client account by a process of teeming and lading,

8) Was in breach of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations and, in particular, in breach of regulations 7(1), 7(2), 9(2), 9(4), 11(4), 12(3), 13, and 25,

9) Took money directly from the client’s bank account of €30,497.72 in breach of regulations 9 and 7 of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations,

10) Transferred money to the office account in the guise of professional fees totalling €348,198.97, in breach of regulation 12(3) of the regulations,

11) Used other client’s money to conceal an overpayment of €20,000 in respect of a named client.

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

On 13 December 2021, the High Court ordered that:

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

2) The respondent solicitor pay a sum of €10,000 to the compensation fund,

3) The respondent solicitor pay the measured costs of the Society in the disciplinary and High Court proceedings.

In the matter of Shane O’Donnell, a solicitor practising as Flynn & O’Donnell Solicitors, Loft 3, The Grainstore, Distillery Lofts, Distillery Road, Drumcondra, Dublin 3, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2015 [2019/DT64]

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)

Shane O’Donnell (respondent solicitor)

On 25 March 2021, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of professional misconduct in that he failed to ensure that there was furnished to the Society an accountant’s report for the year ended 31 December 2018 within six months of that date, in breach of regulation 26(1) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations 2014 (SI 516 of 2014).

The tribunal ordered that the respondent solicitor:

1) Stand censured,

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

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

In the matter of Michael Keane, solicitor, Flynn & McMorrow, Solicitors, Bridge Street, Carrick-on-Shannon, Co Leitrim, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2015 [2018/DT21 and High Court record 2020 no 21 SA]

Named client (applicant)

Michael Keane (respondent solicitor)

On 15 December 2020, further to the determination of the applicant’s appeal of the decision of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, the High Court found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in respect of the following complaint, as set out in the applicant’s affidavit: failed and continues to fail to use his best endeavours to recover [the applicant’s] fees in respect of any, some, or all of the cases listed by the applicant.

The High Court ordered that:

1) The respondent solicitor stand censured,

2) The respondent solicitor pay 50% of the applicant’s legal costs, to be adjudicated in default of agreement.

In the matter of Kathleen Doocey, a solicitor practising as KM Doocey Solicitors at American Street, Belmullet, Co Mayo, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2015 [2018/DT83 and High Court 2020 no 40 SA]

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)

Kathleen Doocey (respondent solicitor)

On 23 July 2019, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in her practice as a solicitor in that she:

• Allowed a deficit of €169,152 to arise and be on her client account as of 31 December 2017,
• Concealed a deficit of €50,000 in relation to the C estate by using other clients’ money credited to their ledger account, thereby concealing that deficit,
• Put a statement of account dated 1 September 2015 on the client’s file that showed an incorrect sale price of €255,000, instead of the actual sale price of €205,000, and also showed a total of €100,000 paid to clients, which had the effect of concealing the irregularities in relation to this matter,
• Used €42,720 received from a client (JD) in respect of a purchase, which helped conceal the deficit that had arisen in relation to the C estate matter, leaving a shortfall of €42,658.50 on the JD client ledger account,
• Used €42,195.57 from the OD estate to help clear the deficit on the JD ledger account and thereby caused a shortfall on the OD estate ledger account,
• Took €37,831.78 from the estate of S (deceased) and credited that sum to the OD estate ledger account, which helped conceal the shortfall on that ledger account,
• Cleared the debit balance of €33,177 on the S estate ledger account with a transfer of that amount dated 30 June 2017 from the Suspense SUS16 client ledger account, which concealed the shortfall on the S estate ledger account and left a shortfall on the SUS16 client ledger account,
• Cleared the shortfall on the Suspense SUS16 client ledger account by the transfer of €35,900 dated 30 June 2017 from the client account of JG, which left a shortfall on his client ledger account,
• Cleared the shortfall on the JG client ledger account by a transfer of €35,900 from another client ledger, Suspense account SUS17, which left a debit balance on that ledger account, thereby concealing the shortfall on the JG client ledger account,
• Transferred €24,850 from the DC client ledger account to the Suspense SUS17 client account with a date of 13 December 2017, which contributed to a shortfall of €25,000 on the DC client ledger account,
• Paid €25,000 from the client account on 21 December 2017 to the Legal Aid Board on DC’s behalf, but failed to enter this payment in the books of account,
• Took €24,000 out of a sum of €64,659.06 received into the client account from MD, a client, on 11 July 2017 and lodged the amount to the office bank account on 12 July 2017 and failed to record the receipt and payment of this sum in the client books of account, thereby concealing the misappropriation,
• Wrongfully credited the €24,000 taken from MD’s money in the account to the office ledger account of the Suspense SUS17 account, describing it as “rectification” and wrongfully described the lodgment of €24,000 as “loan funds” in the office bank account,
• Wrongfully paid the sum of €8,581.41 from the client account to the office account and described it as “rectification” in the office bank account; on the same date, the €8,581.41 payment from the client account was debited to the Suspense SUS17 client ledger account and caused a debit balance on the SUS17 client ledger account to increase from €4,251.24 to €12,835.65,
• Misdescribed the sum of €34,772.30 in the client account books, which helped conceal the fact that it was mainly composed of clients’ money used to clear debit balances and deficits on other clients’ ledger accounts,
• Caused a debit balance of €18,225 to occur on the MD client ledger account in August 2017, mainly because of the misapplication of €24,000, and subsequently cleared this debit balance with a transfer dated 28 December 2017 of €18,225 from the Suspense SUS17 client ledger account,
• Lodged a total of €26,000 to the client account on 23 November 2017, composed of €13,500 belonging to BN clients and €12,500 belonging to BC client, which was incorrectly credited to the Suspense SUS17 client leger account, where it cleared a debit balance and was used with other clients’ moneys to cover various deficits on various client leger accounts, thereby concealing the shortfall and deficits on the client account,
• Between January and December 2017, drew various amounts totalling €20,090 from the client account to the office account and paid a probate fee of €319 out of the client account, resulting in a debit balance of €18,459 on the client ledger account of the TS estate,
• In January 2018, after clearance of the debit balance of €18,459, paid a further €6,150 and €4,920 from the TS estate to the office account, leaving a sum of €11,070 remaining to be refunded to the client account in relation to that estate as of January 2018,
• In the C estate, failed to enter a client account cheque for €4,322 written on 24 November 2017 in the books of accounts and, instead, the same amount was dated 1 November and was debited to the estate client ledger account and credited to the Suspense SUS17 client ledger account, with the effect of reducing the debit balance on that ledger account and increasing the debit balance on the C estate ledger account,
• Failed to show a receipt of €5,750 in the client ledger account of LOC client, notwithstanding the payment of same in September 2017, and credited this sum of €5,750 in the books of account to a number of clients’ ledger accounts in various amounts, thereby reducing the debit balances on those accounts,
• Drew amounts totalling €10,698 to the office account in the period 2015 to 2017, which were debited to the client ledger account of the C estate, leaving a shortfall of €6,177 as of 31 December 2017 in the C estate,
• Having received €5,000 into the client account of PR client in December 2017 for the purposes of discharging a liability in that amount in a family law matter, failed to pay that money until 2018, and instead moved the €5,000 to the credit of the Suspense SUS17 client ledger account with a date of 31 December 2017, thereby concealing a shortfall on that account,
• Drew amounts from the client account to the office account in the period February 2016 to December 2017 in the estate of JOD, exceeding the amount of costs agreed with the client by about €20,000.

The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal ordered that the Law Society bring its findings and report before the High Court.

On 16 November 2020, the High Court ordered that:

• The respondent solicitor’s name be struck off the Roll of Solicitors,
• The respondent solicitor pay a fine of €2,000 to the compensation fund,
• The respondent solicitor pay costs of €1,500 for the proceedings before the disciplinary tribunal,
• The respondent pay agreed costs of €11,527 for the proceedings before the High Court.

In the matter of Raphael M Gilmore, a solicitor previously practising as Gilmore Solicitors, 22 Bridge Street, Ringsend, Dublin 4, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2015 [2019/DT29 and High Court record 2020 32 SA]

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)

Raphael Gilmore (respondent solicitor)

On 16 January 2020, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:

1) Failed to keep proper books of accounts, in breach of regulations 13 and 25 of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations,

2) Allowed a deficit of €213,309 in client funds as of 11 November 2018,

3) Failed to stamp and register ten deeds, despite being in funds to do so,

4) Misled the Society and the Regulation of Practice Committee by producing a false closing accountant’s report,

5) Misled the Regulation of Practice Committee and the Society at the meeting of 27 June 2018 by denying that the closing accountant’s report that was produced was false,

6) Misled the Regulation of Practice Committee and the Society by producing false payment logs to indicate that the deficit in relation to a named client had been cleared, when this was not the case,

7) Misled the Regulation of Practice Committee by stating that the deficit in relation to another named client was cleared, when this was not the case,

8) Misled the Regulation of Practice Committee and the Society at its meeting of 6 December 2017 by indicating that the deficit was cleared,

9) Misled the Regulation of Practice Committee and the Society by indicating that nine out of the ten deeds had been stamped, when this was not the case,

10) Allowed an undated letter from his reporting accountant to be submitted to the Regulation of Practice Committee and the Society in January 2018, which was later shown to be falsified,

11) Failed to abide by his commitment to the Regulation of Practice Committee to have cheques co-signed by his reporting accountant and instead falsified his reporting accountant’s signature on client account cheques to circumvent this requirement,

12) Submitted a falsified office bank-account statement to his reporting accountant.

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

On 27 July 2020, the High Court made orders that:

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

2) The respondent solicitor pay a sum in measured costs to the Law Society.

In the matter of Anthony O'Gorman, solicitor, formerly practising as Anthony F O'Gorman and Co, Solicitors, at St Michael’s Road, Gorey, Co Wexford, and in the matter of an application by the Law Society of Ireland to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal [3163/DT160/15 and High Court record 2017/11SA]

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)

Anthony O'Gorman (respondent solicitor)

On 18 May 2016, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in the following matters:

1) The respondent solicitor failed, in the course of and arising from his practice as a solicitor, to maintain (as part of his accounting records) proper books of account and such relevant supporting documents as to enable clients’ moneys, handled and dealt with by the solicitor, to be duly recorded and the entries relevant thereto in the books of account to be appropriately vouched, and thereby failed to comply with regulation 12 of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations 2001-2013,

2) Between January 2013 and June 2014, the respondent solicitor transferred moneys by way of round sum transfers in cash from the client account to the office account, and thereby created a deficit in the client account of €321,386 as of 30 June 2014, and thereby failed to comply with regulation 7(1) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations,

£) Between January 2013 and June 2014, the respondent solicitor withdrew moneys totalling €321,386 by way of round-sum transfers from the client account to the office account, in breach of regulations 8(1) and/or 8(2) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations,

4) Between January 2013 and June 2014, the respondent solicitor ‘cashed’ cheques totalling €154,876.46, some of which may have been used for costs but which were not properly recorded, in breach of regulation 12 and/or regulation 8(1) and/or 8(2) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations,

5) In respect of a named matter, the respondent solicitor deducted costs from the client account prior to receipt of costs in the matter, thereby creating a debit balance of €31,376, in breach of regulation 7(2)(a) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations,

6) As of 30 September 2014, the respondent solicitor allowed debit balances to arise in respect of a client ledger account, in breach of regulation 7(2)(a) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations,

7) The respondent solicitor failed to complete balancing statements not later than two months after the balancing date to which they relate, and thereby failed to comply with regulation 12(7)(b) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations,

8) In respect of the period 1 January 2013 and 30 June 2014, the respondent solicitor failed to have a formal written anti-money-laundering policy document in place, in breach of section 54 of the Criminal Justice (Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing) Act 2010,

9) During the period between 1 January 2013 and 30 June 2014, the respondent solicitor failed to comply with the provisions of section 68(6) of the Solicitors Amendment Act 1994, in that clients were not informed of the costs recovered on a party-and-party basis and that the respondent solicitor had failed to provide a full account to clients.

The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal referred the matter to the High Court and, in record number 2017/11SA, the High Court made the following order on 23 March 2018:

1) The respondent solicitor pay to the applicant the sum of €14,500 then owing, arising from costs of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal,

2) The matter stand adjourned to 3 April 2020, the court noting the undertakings given by the respondent solicitor not to apply for a practising certificate again and never to practise nor seek to practise as a solicitor, nor hold himself out as a solicitor entitled to practise.

The matter came back before the High Court on 8 June 2020. The High Court noted the renewed undertakings given by the respondent solicitor not to apply for a practising certificate again and never to practise nor seek to practise as a solicitor, nor hold himself out as a solicitor entitled to practise, and made the following order: that the applicant do recover against the respondent solicitor the sum of €31,766.55 in costs.

In the matter of Eamonn Moloney, solicitor, formerly practising as Eamonn Moloney & Co, Solicitors, 1/2 Anglesea Street, Cork, and in the matter of an application by the Law Society of Ireland to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2015 [2018/DT79; 2019/DT23; and High Court record 2019/135 SA]

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)

Eamonn Moloney (respondent solicitor)

2019/DT 23

On 24 October 2019, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he failed to ensure that there was furnished to the Society an accountant’s report for the year ended 31 July 2018 within six months of that date, in breach of regulation 26(1) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations 2014 (SI 516 of 2014).

2018/DT 79

On 31 October 2019, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he failed to ensure that there was furnished to the Society an accountant’s report for the year ended 31 July 2017 within six months of that date, in breach of regulation 26(1) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations 2014.

The tribunal ordered that the matters go forward to the High Court and, on 13 January 2020, the High Court ordered that:

1)  The respondent solicitor be suspended from practice as a solicitor with immediate effect until such time as he has fully complied with the provisions of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations 2014by furnishing to the Law Society his accountant’s reports for financial years ended 31 July 2017 and 31 July 2018 respectively,

2)  The respondent solicitor pay the measured costs of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal proceedings and the High Court proceedings in the total amount of €5,874.36.

In the matter of David Doyle, a solicitor previously practising as a partner in Doyle Associates, 56 Main Street, Rathfarnham, Dublin 14, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2015 [2019/DT09 and High Court reference 2019 no 57 SA]

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)

David Doyle (respondent solicitor)

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

1)   Caused a minimum deficit of €258,969 in the client account as at 31 October 2017,

2)   Failed to maintain proper books of accounts, in breach of regulation 13(1) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations 2014,

3)   Failed to maintain books of account that showed the true position in relation to his dealings with clients’ moneys, in breach of regulation 13(2) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations 2014,

4)   Engaged in a practice of teeming and lading, thereby concealing the existence of a deficit in client funds,

5)   Caused nine debit balances to arise on the client ledger in the sum of €258,969, in breach of regulation 7(2)(a) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations 2014,

6)   Took client moneys of €113,356 due to the estate of KD (deceased) on 28 July 2017 and lodged them to his own personal account, in breach of regulation 14 of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations 2014,

7)   Caused a shortfall of €13,324 in the estate of DA (deceased) by paying the inheritance tax of €13,324 of a named beneficiary from the unrelated client ledger account of S & ER, which shortfall was concealed by teeming and lading,

8)   On 14 September 2015, wrongly paid the sum of €46,623 from the sale of proceeds of a property sold for clients S & ER to the Revenue Commissioners in respect of an inheritance tax liability for a named beneficiary in a completely unrelated matter,

9)   In or around 31 July 2017, paid a sum of €48,371.74 from his own bank account in part discharge of two mortgage accounts in the name of his clients S & ER, having misapplied the funds originally received on 26 September 2013,

10) In or around 3 August 2017, paid a sum of €7,003.50 to a bank to part discharge a mortgage account in the name of his clients S & ER, having wrongfully misapplied the funds originally received on 26 September 2013. This payment was taken from the unrelated client ledger account dealing with the estate of SO (deceased),

11) Caused a debit balance to arise of €59, 185 on the client ledger account dealing with an estate by:

·    Wrongfully paying an inheritance tax liability of MM in the sum of €46,623 on 14 September 2015 from the client ledger account of S & ER, a completely unrelated matter,

·    Wrongfully paid the inheritance tax liability of named individuals on 11 August 2015 from the client ledger account dealing with the estate of AB (deceased). Those named individuals each had an inheritance tax liability of €6,281, and two of the aforementioned payments were posted to the client ledger account dealing with the estate of AB (deceased),

·    Wrongfully paid €17,300 to NC for his personal injuries settlement from the sale of an unrelated property on 10 December 2008,

·     Made a payment to his brother of €5,000 and a payment to a utility company of €6,000 and posted them to the client ledger account of NC a completely unrelated matter,

·     Caused a debit balance to arise on the client side of the client ledger account of NC in the sum of €11,300,

·     Wrongfully took the proceeds of two cheques for €3,500 and €3,000 which were due to a client,

·     Admitted causing a debit balance of €99,600 in the client ledger account relating to a sale file,

·     Took a cheque made payable to a client for €2,500 from a sale file client ledger account on 6 February 2009 and cashed it for his own use,

·     Admitted causing a shortfall of €894.75 on 30 January 2009 in a named file,

12)  In an estate he:

·    Took €65, 125 on 5 November 2015 to cover an inheritance tax liability of KK in a completely unrelated matter,

·    Took €4,500 on 12 November 2015 and paid same to JC in relation to the estate of NC (deceased) an unrelated matter,

·    On 3 November 2016, he withdrew €22, 102.50 by bank draft payable to a finance company in an unrelated matter,

·    On 3 August 2017, he purchased a bank draft for €7,000 and used same to pay part of a mortgage redemption in an unrelated file,

13)  In relation to an estate ledger he:

·     Caused a debit balance of €9,633.50 on the client ledger account by paying (a beneficiary in this estate) KK’s inheritance tax of €65, 125 from another client ledger account,

·     Took €55,491.50 from this client ledger account on 24 October 2014 and paid it to PO a beneficiary in an unrelated matter,

·     In relation to the estate ledger of NC (deceased), he caused a debit balance of €4,500 by paying €4,500 to JC from the ledger account of SO (deceased) an unrelated file,

·     In relation to a company file, he caused a debit balance on this client ledger account of €22, 102 by taking €22, 102 from the ledger account of SO (deceased), an unrelated file, to make a payment to a finance company,

·     In relation to the estate of SB (deceased), he caused a deficit of €85,000 by wrongfully transferring €85,000 to JS, a beneficiary in an unrelated matter, on 15 May 2017,

14)  In relation to the file of PO and the estate of BH (deceased) he:

·     Wrongfully credited the balance of a settlement of €58,500 received on 6 March 2014 to an unrelated client ledger account in the name of OS (deceased),

·     Wrongfully took €55,491.50 from an unrelated client ledger account (MC deceased) on 24 October 2014 to pay the client the balance of his settlement,

15)  In relation to the estate of OS (deceased) he:

·    Caused a debit balance of €50,287 on the client ledger account,

·    Wrongfully lodged €58,500 belonging to another client matter to this client ledger account on 14 March 2014,

·    Wrongfully made a payment from this client ledger account of €8,213.12 on 21 October 2014 to PO/JK in an unrelated estate matter,

16)  In relation to the estate of AO (deceased), he caused a debit balance of €8,213.12 on this client ledger account by wrongfully     paying this sum from another estate account on 21 October 2014 to conceal a deficit on this client ledger account,

17)  He created a shortfall of €21,500 on the client ledger account of DD in July 2015 to part pay a settlement he (the solicitor) had   entered into in respect of a Circuit Court proceedings against him,

18)  In relation to an estate, he wrongfully took €16,500 from this estate and used same to pay a settlement he (the solicitor) had    entered into in respect of Circuit Court proceedings against him.

The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal sent the matter forward to the High Court and, in High Court proceedings 2019 no 57 SA, the High Court on 21 October 2019 ordered that:

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

2)   He pay a sum of €3,012 towards the disciplinary costs,

3)   He pay the taxed or agreed costs of the Society.

In the matter of James (Seamus) Doody, solicitor, practising in Doody Solicitors, 21 South Mall, Cork, and in the matter of an application by the Law Society of Ireland to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal [6285/DT172/15, 6285/DT173/15, 6285/DT174/15, 6285/DT175/15, 6285/DT176/15 and 6285/DT177/15; High Court record 2019/13SA]

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)

James (Seamus) Doody (respondent solicitor)

On 31 July 2018, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in the following matters.

6285/DT172/15

In respect of complaint one:

1) Failed to comply, up to the date of expiry of the stay on referral to the tribunal, with part or all of an undertaking dated 12 March 2001 in respect of a named property in a timely manner or at all,

2) Failed to respond adequately or at all to some or all of the correspondence sent to him by the complainant, including a letter dated 3 October 2011,

3) Repeatedly failed to respond adequately or at all to some or all of the correspondence sent to him by the Society, including letters dated 27 September 2012, 15 October 2012, 7 January 2013, 21 January 2013, 20 February 2013, 13 March 2013, 3 May 2013, 24 June 2013, 10 July 2013, 17 September 2013, 20 November 2013 and 6 December 2013,

4) Failed to comply with a direction of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee dated 28 January 2014 to provide detailed information in relation to the file and to provide the Society with an update no later than 25 February 2014.

In respect of complaint two:

1) Failed to comply, up to the date of expiry of the stay on referral to the tribunal, with part or all of an undertaking to the complainant dated 31 May 2004 in respect of a named property in a timely manner or at all,

2) Repeatedly failed to respond adequately or at all to some or all of the correspondence sent to him by the complainant, including letters dated 22 June 2011 and 11 April 2012,

3) Repeatedly failed to respond adequately or at all to some or all of the correspondence sent to him by the Society, including letters dated 15 October 2012, 7 January 2013, 21 February 2013, 28 March 2013, 19 April 2013, 8 May 2013, 9 August 2013, 19 September 2013, 20 November 2013 and 6 December 2013,

4) Failed to comply with a direction of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee dated 28 January 2014 to provide detailed information in relation to the file and to provide the Society with an update no later than 25 February 2014.

In respect of complaint three:

1) Failed to comply, up to the date of expiry of the stay on referral to the tribunal, with part or all of an undertaking to the complainant dated 7 November 2007 in respect of a named property in a timely manner or at all,

2) Failed to respond adequately or at all to some or all of the correspondence sent to him by the complainant, including a letter dated 8 August 2011,

3) Repeatedly failed to respond adequately or at all to some or all of the correspondence sent to him by the Society, including letters dated 15 October 2012, 26 February 2013, 25 March 2013, 17 May 2013, 16 August 2013, and 18 September 2013,

4) Failed to comply with a direction of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee dated 28 January 2014 to provide detailed information in relation to the file and to provide the Society with an update no later than 25 February 2014.

In respect of complaint four:

1) Failed to comply, up to the date of expiry of the stay on referral to the tribunal, with part or all of an undertaking to the complainant dated 23 March 2009 in respect of a named property in a timely manner or at all,

2) Failed to respond adequately or at all to some or all of the correspondence sent to him by the complainant, including a letter dated 16 June 2011,

3) Repeatedly failed to respond adequately or at all to some or all of the correspondence sent to him by the Society, including letters dated 15 October 2012, 7 January 2013, 21 January 2013, 20 February 2013, 13 March 2013, 3 May 2013, 25 June 2013, 9 August 2013, 26 September 2013, 17 October 2013, 21 November 2013, 19 December 2013 and 24 February 2014,

4) Failed to comply with a direction of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee dated 28 January 2014 to provide detailed information in relation to the file and to provide the Society with an update no later than 25 February 2014.

In respect of complaint five:

1) Failed to comply, up to the date of expiry of the stay on referral to the tribunal, with part or all of an undertaking to the complainant dated 20 October 2006 in respect of a named property in a timely manner or at all,

2) Failed to respond adequately or at all to some or all of the correspondence sent to him by the complainant, including a letter dated 16 June 2011,

3) Repeatedly failed to respond adequately or at all to some or all of the correspondence sent to him by the Society, including letters dated 20 February 2013, 25 March 2013, 17 May 2013, 16 August 2013, 18 September 2013, 21 October 2013, 3 January 2014, 13 January 2014, and 14 February 2014.

In respect of complaint six:

1) Failed to comply, up to the date of expiry of the stay on referral to the tribunal, with part or all of an undertaking to the complainant dated 8 December 2004 in respect of a named property in a timely manner or at all,

2) Failed to respond adequately or at all to some or all of the correspondence sent to him by the complainant, including a letter dated 8 August 2011,

3) Repeatedly failed to respond adequately or at all to some or all of the correspondence sent to him by the Society, including letters dated 20 February 2013, 28 March 2013, 16 April 2013, 9 August 2013, 18 September 2013, 21 October 2013, 22 November 2013 and 11 February 2013,

4) Failed to comply with a direction of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee dated 28 January 2014 to provide detailed information in relation to the file and to provide the Society with an update no later than 25 February 2014.

In respect of complaint seven:

1) Failed to comply, up to the date of expiry of the stay on referral to the tribunal, with part or all of an undertaking to the complainant dated 17 February 2006 in respect of a named property in a timely manner or at all,

2) Failed to respond adequately or at all to some or all of the correspondence sent to him by the complainant, including a letter dated 22 June 2011,

3) Repeatedly failed to respond adequately or at all to some or all of the correspondence sent to him by the Society, including letters dated 21 February 2013, 28 March 2013, 19 April 2013, 17 September 2013, 20 November 2013, 6 December 2013 and 11 February 2014,

4) Failed to comply with a direction of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee dated 28 January 2014 to provide detailed information in relation to the file and to provide the Society with an update no later than 25 February 2014.

In respect of complaint eight:

1) Failed to comply, up to the date of expiry of the stay on referral to the tribunal, with part or all of an undertaking to the complainant dated 21 March 2008 in respect of a named property in a timely manner or at all,

2) Failed to respond adequately or at all to some or all of the correspondence sent to him by the complainant, including letters dated 9 January 2012 and 12 April 2012,

3) Repeatedly failed to respond adequately or at all to some or all of the correspondence sent to him by the Society, including letters dated 21 February 2013, 28 March 2013, 19 April 2013, 17 July 2013, 17 September 2013, 17 August 2014, 29 August 2014 and 18 September 2014,

4) Failed to comply with a direction of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee dated 16 September 2014 to provide detailed information in relation to the file and to attend at the committee meeting dated 28 October 2014.

In respect of complaint nine:

1) Failed to comply, up to the date of expiry of the stay on referral to the tribunal, with part or all of an undertaking to the complainant dated 1 March 2007 in respect of named properties in a timely manner or at all,

2) Failed to respond adequately or at all to some or all of the correspondence sent to him by the complainant, including letters dated 11 February 2009 and 10 June 2009,

3) Repeatedly failed to respond adequately or at all to some or all of the correspondence sent to him by the Society, including letters dated 24 February 2010, 7 April 2010, 20 May 2010, 8 June 2010, 23 July 2010, 7 September 2010, 4 October 2010,8 November 2010, 16 October 2012, 9 November 2012, 7 December 2012, 7 August 2014, 28 August 2014 and 18 September 2014,

4) Failed to comply with a direction of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee dated 16 September 2014 to provide detailed information in relation to the file and to attend at the committee meeting dated 28 October 2014.

6285/DT173/15

1) Failed to comply with an undertaking given to the bank in respect of a named property in a timely manner or at all,

2) Failed to respond adequately or at all to some or all of the correspondence sent to him by the complainant/the bank, including letters dated 29 May 2012, 2 May 2012, 13 October 2011 and/or 20 July 2011,

3) Failed to respond adequately or at all to some or all of the correspondence sent to him by the Society, including letters dated 22 August 2012, 6 December 2012, 28 January 2013, 21 March 2013, 4 June 2013, 17 October 2013, and 22 November 2013,

4) Failed to comply with the Complaints and Client Relations Committee’s direction of 28 January 2014.

6285/DT174/15

1) Failed to complete, and/or to take all reasonable steps to complete, title registration in respect of a named property,

2) Failed to disclose to the complainant that, over a period of seven years, he had not completed the registration of her title,

3) Failed to respond to enquiries made by the complainant’s new solicitor in July 2013,

4) Failed to comply with assurances given by him to the complainant and the Law Society that documents would be lodged in the Land Registry,

5) Failed to respond adequately or at all to one or more letters sent to him by the Society, including letters dated 11 September 2013, 1 October 2013, 17 October 2013, 2 January 2014, 11 February 2014, and 7 March 2014.

6285/DT175/15

In respect of complaint one:

1) Failed to comply, up to the date of the expiration of the stay on the referral of this matter to the tribunal, with an undertaking to the complainant dated 25 April 2005, pertaining to a named property in a timely manner or at all,

2) Failed to respond adequately or at all to some or all of the correspondence sent to him by the complainant dated 3 July 2007, 16 October 2009, 23 January 2010, 1 June 2010, 7 December 2010, 16 March 2011, 24 June 2011, 6 October 2011, 27 January 2012, 16 April 2012, 12 October 2012, 26 November 2012, 30 November 2012 and/or 11 February 2013,

3) Failed to respond adequately or at all to some or all of the correspondence sent to him by the Society dated 13 May 2013, 17 September 2013, 21 October 2013, 26 November 2013 and/or 3 January 2014,

4) Failed to comply with the directions of the committee dated 28 January 2014 to furnish certain documentation.

In respect of complaint two:

1) Failed to comply, up to the date of the expiration of the stay on the referral of this matter to the tribunal, with an undertaking to the complainant dated 13 December 2005, pertaining to a named property in a timely manner or at all,

2) Failed to respond adequately or at all to some or all of the correspondence sent to him by the complainant dated 16 October 2009, 23 January 2010, 2 February 2010, 28 June 2010, 30 November 2010, 9 March 2011, 21 June 2011, 27 September 2011, 18 January 2012, 18 July 2012, 26 November 2012, 1 February 2013, and/or 11 February 2013,

3) Failed to respond adequately or at all to some or all of the correspondence sent to him by the Society dated 6 June 2013, 28 June 2013, 16 August 2013, 13 September 2013, 30 September 2013, 21 October 2013, 2 January 2014, 3 February 2014 and/or 12 March 2014,

4) Failed to comply with the committee’s directions dated 25 July 2013 to make a contribution of €500 towards the Society’s costs,

5) Failed to comply with the committee’s directions dated 25 July 2013 to furnish certain documentation,

6) Failed to comply with the directions of the committee dated 28 January to furnish certain documentation.

6285/DT176/15

1) Failed to comply with his undertaking dated 24 September 2007 to the complainant to deal with Land Registry queries in relation to a named property in a timely manner or at all,

2) Failed to respond adequately or at all to some or all of the correspondence sent to him by the complainant, including letters dated 21 January 2008, 9 June 2008, 20 June 2012, 9 November 2012, 8 April 2013, 12 August 2013, 16 September 2013, 10 January 2014, 11 February 2014, 7 March 2014, 19 March 2014 and/or 13 August 2014,

3) Failed to respond adequately or at all to some or all of the correspondence sent to him by the Society, including letters dated 11 September 2014, 29 September 2014, 5 November 2014, and 26 November 2014,

4) Failed to comply with the Complaints and Client Relations Committee’s direction of 28 October 2014 to make a contribution towards the Society’s costs.

6285/DT177/15

1) Failed to comply, up to the date of the expiry of the stay on the referral of this matter to the tribunal, with part or all of his undertaking dated 10 May 2001 given to the complainant in relation to a named property in a timely manner or at all,

2) Failed to respond adequately or at all to some or all of the correspondence sent to him by the complainant and/or solicitors for the complainant, including letters dated 22 August 2006, 22 August 2007, 20 February 2008, 6 July 2009 10 March 2010, 9 June 2010, 9 August 2010, 19 October 2010, 14 June 2011 and/or 9 November 2012,

3) Failed to respond adequately or at all to some or all of the correspondence sent to him by the Society, including letters dated 26 February 2013, 25 March 2013, 27 May 2013, 17 July 2013, 16 October 2013, 22 November 2013, 11 February 2014 and/or 12 March 2014,

4) Failed to comply with the Complaints and Client Relations Committee’s direction dated 28 January 2014 to furnish the Society with documentation relating to the undertaking detailed above.

The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal referred the matter forward to the High Court and, in record number 2019/13SA, the High Court made the following orders on 18 October 2019:

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

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