Check a Solicitor's Record
The Law Society has a statutory duty to maintain a register of all orders containing findings of misconduct made against solicitors by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal and the High Court.
Notice
It has come to the attention of the Law Society that an internet search engine deploying AI-technology is generating inaccurate information in relation to disciplinary findings against solicitors.
This issue has been raised with the service provider concerned.
Any person can apply to the Law Society for a copy of entries on that register that relate to a particular solicitor by submitting a request in writing to the Regulation Department of the Law Society.
The Law Society also has a statutory obligation to publish disciplinary findings against solicitors. The Society has developed a publication policy for this website that is linked to the severity of sanction imposed. This policy provides for the ongoing publication of the most serious sanctions and the publication of less serious findings and related sanctions for specified periods of time.
-
Where the finding includes a sanction to strike the solicitor’s name off the roll of solicitors the order will remain published indefinitely.
-
Where a finding includes an order to suspend the solicitor’s practising certificate the finding will be published for the duration of the period of suspension or three years, whichever is the longer.
-
Where the finding includes a sanction to impose a condition upon a solicitor’s practising certificate that finding will be published for a period of 3 years, or the duration of time specified in the order, whichever is the longer.
-
All other findings of misconduct will be published for a period of three years.
By law, findings of misconduct are made against individual solicitors, not firms of solicitors. SCROLL DOWN to view the search results. To view more details, click on the 'Show Details' link.
-
James (Seamus) Doody
Doody Solicitors, 21 South Mall, Cork
Date of Order18/10/2019In 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.
-
James (Seamus) Doody
Doody Solicitors, 21 South Mall, Cork
Date of Order18/10/2019In the matter of James (Seamus) Doody, solicitor, practising in Doody Solicitors, 21 South Mall, Cork, and in the matter of an application by the Law Society of Ireland to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal [2017/DT84, 2017/DT87 and 2017/DT88; High Court record 2019/12SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
James (Seamus) Doody (respondent solicitor)
On 10 July 2018, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in the following matters.
2017/DT84
1) Failed to comply adequately or at all with part of one or more of the following undertakings to the complainant:
a) Undertaking dated 11 March 2007 in respect of his named clients in relation to a named property,
b) Undertaking dated 1 April 2010 in respect of his named clients in relation to a named property,
c) Undertaking dated 29 September 2005 in respect of his named clients in relation to a named property,
d) Undertaking dated 12 October 2006 in respect of his named in relation to a named property,
e) Undertaking dated 30 May 2008 in respect of his named client in relation to a named property,
f) Undertaking dated 19 June 2008 in respect of his named clients in relation to a named property,
g) Undertaking dated 3 March 2014 in respect of his named clients in relation to a named property,
2) Failed to comply with the directions of the committee dated 1 September 2015, 3 November 2015 and/or 11 February 2016,
3) Failed to respond adequately or at all to a letter from the Society dated 14 April 2015.
2017/DT87
1) Failed to comply adequately or at all with all or part of an undertaking to the complainant dated 14 September 2007 in respect of named clients in relation to a named property,
2) Failed to comply with the directions of the committee dated 3 November 2015, 11 February 2016 and 16 June 2016,
3) Failed to respond adequately or at all to letters from the Society dated 8 July 2015, 5 August 2015 and 25 August 2015.
2017/DT88
1) Failed to comply adequately or at all with an undertaking dated 28 March 2005 to the complainant in respect of his named client in relation to a named property,
2) Failed to respond adequately or at all to a letter dated 20 November 2015 sent to him by the Society,
3) Failed to respond adequately or at all to correspondence from the bank and, in particular, letters dated 21 June 2010, 2 December 2010, 3 November 2011, 2 May 2012, 23 May 2014, 24 June 2014, 16 January 2015, 12 February 2015, and an email thread concluding with an email dated 23 April 2015.
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal referred the matter forward to the High Court and, in record number 2019/12SA, the High Court made the following orders on 18 October 2019:
1) That the respondent solicitor is not a fit person to be a member of the solicitors’ profession,
2) That the name of the respondent solicitor shall be struck from the Roll of Solicitors.
-
Maurice B O’Sullivan
Maurice O’Sullivan & Company Solicitors, 9 Colbert Street, Listowel, Co Kerry
Date of Order14/10/2019In the matter of Maurice B O’Sullivan, a solicitor practising as Maurice O’Sullivan & Company Solicitors, at 9 Colbert Street, Listowel, Co Kerry, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2015 [2017/DT24, 2017/DT38, 2017/DT39, 2017/DT40, 2017/DT41, 2017/DT42, 2017/DT51, 2017/DT73, 2017/DT78, and 2017/DT115; and High Court reference 2019 no 23 SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Maurice B O’Sullivan (respondent solicitor)
2017/DT24
On 11 January 2018, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of professional misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:
1) Failed to comply with an undertaking furnished to First Active PLC on 1 May 2002 in respect of his named client and borrower and property in Co Limerick in a timely manner or at all,
2) Failed to comply with an undertaking furnished to First Active PLC on 6 March 2002 in respect of his named clients and borrowers and property in Co Limerick in a timely manner or at all,
3) Failed to comply with an undertaking furnished to First Active PLC on 1 June 2005 in respect of his named client and the borrower and property in Co Limerick in a timely manner,
4) Failed to comply with an undertaking furnished to Ulster Bank Ireland Limited on 26 April 2006 in respect of a named borrower and property in Co Kerry in a timely manner or at all,
5) Failed to comply with an undertaking furnished to First Active PLC on 1 June 2007 in respect of named borrowers and property in Co Kerry in a timely manner or at all,
6) Failed to comply with an undertaking furnished to First Active PLC on 2 October 2007 in respect of the named borrowers and property in Co Kerry in a timely manner or at all,
7) Failed to comply with an undertaking furnished to Ulster Bank on 6 October 2008 in respect of the named borrowers and property in Co Kerry in a timely manner or at all,
8) Failed to comply with an undertaking furnished to Ulster Bank on 14 July 2009 in respect of the named borrowers and property in Co Kerry in a timely manner or at all,
9) Failed to respond to the Society’s correspondence and, in particular, the Society’s letters of 23 October 2015 and 6 November 2015 in a timely manner, within the time provided, or at all.
2017/DT38
On 11 January 2018, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of professional misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:
1) Failed to comply with his client’s instructions to register her entitlement to her property in Co Kerry in a timely manner or at all, having been instructed to do so in 1999/2000,
2) Failed to respond to the complainant’s queries in relation to her instructions,
3) Failed to respond to the Society’s correspondence of 29 February 2016, 22 March 2016, 22 April 2016, 14 July 2016, 18 July 2016 in a timely manner, within the time provided, or at all,
4) Failed to comply with the direction made by the Complaints and Client Relations Committee at its meeting on 28 June 2016 that he furnish an update to the committee on or before 20 August 2016.
2017/DT39
On 11 January 2018, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of professional misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:
1) Failed to respond satisfactorily to correspondence from one of the joint executors of an estate and, in particular, the co- executor’s letter of 8 July 2015 in a timely manner,
2) Failed to respond to the Society’s correspondence and, in particular, the Society’s letters of 14 January 2015, 2 February 2015, 20 February 2015, 3 March 2015, 10 September 2015, 6 October 2015, 22 December 2015, 2 February 2016 and 23 February 2016 in a timely manner, within the time provided, or at all.
2017/DT40
On 11 January 2018, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of professional misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:
1) Failed to comply with an undertaking dated 9 July 2004 furnished to the complainants in respect of his named client and property in Dublin 8 in a timely manner,
2) Failed to comply with an undertaking furnished to the complainants on 7 March 2006 in respect of his clients and the borrowers and property in Co Kerry in a timely manner or at all,
3) Failed to comply with two undertakings, one furnished on 7 September 2001 and the second furnished on 29 April 2004, to the complainants in respect of his client and the borrower and property in Co Kerry in a timely manner or at all,
4) Failed to respond to the Society’s correspondence and, in particular, the Society’s letters of 15 February 2016, 24 March 2016 and 18 April 2016 within the time provided, in a timely manner, or at all,
5) Failed to comply with a direction made by the Complaints and Client Relations Committee at its meeting on 26 April 2016 that he furnish a response to the Society on or before 10 June 2016,
6) Failed to comply with a direction made by the Complaints and Client Relations Committee at its meeting on 28 June 2016 that he furnish an update to the Society on or before 20 August 2016.
2017/DT41
On 11 January 2018, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of professional misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:
1) Failed to protect his former clients’ interests and failed to ensure that they had title to their properties in Co Kerry in a timely manner or at all,
2) Failed to respond to the Society’s correspondence and, in particular, the Society’s letters to him of 12 November 2014, 1 December 2014, 7 January 2015, 5 February 2015, 9 March 2015, 23 March 2015, 14 April 2015, 9 June 2015, 20 July 2015, 10 September 2015, 6 October 2015, 29 October 2015, 26 January 2016 and 25 February 2016 within the time provided, in a timely manner, or at all,
3) Failed to comply with a direction made by the Complaints and Client Relations Committee at its meeting of 3 June 2015 and communicated to him by letter dated 9 June 2015 that he furnish updates to the Society every six weeks.
2017/DT42
On 11 January 2018, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of professional misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:
1) Failed to comply with an undertaking furnished to the complainants on 28 January 2004 in respect of his named client and borrower and property in Co Kerry in a timely manner or at all,
2) Failed to comply with an undertaking furnished to the complainants on 20 January 2009 in respect of his named clients and the borrowers and property in Co Kerry in a timely manner or at all,
3) Failed to comply with an undertaking furnished to the complainants on 17 October 2007 in respect of his named clients and borrowers and property in Co Limerick in a timely manner or at all,
4) Failed to comply with an undertaking furnished to the complainants on 11 October 2007 in respect of his named clients and the borrowers and property in Co Limerick in a timely manner or at all,
5) Failed to comply with an undertaking furnished to the complainants on 11 October 2007 in respect of his named client and the borrower and property in Co Limerick in a timely manner or at all,
6) Failed to comply with an undertaking furnished to the complainants on 2 October 2006 in respect of his named client and the borrower and property in Co Kerry in a timely manner or at all,
7) Failed to comply with an undertaking furnished to the complainants on 3 July 2006 in respect of his named client and the borrower and property in Co Kerry in a timely manner or at all,
8) Failed to comply with an undertaking furnished to the complainants on 14 March 2005 in respect of his named clients and the borrowers and property in Co Kerry in a timely manner or at all,
9) Failed to comply with an undertaking furnished to the complainants on 21 June 2006 in respect of his named client and the borrower and property in Co Kerry in a timely manner or at all,
10) Failed to comply with an undertaking furnished to the complainants on 9 April 2001 in respect of his named client and the borrower and property in Co Kerry in a timely manner or at all,
11) Failed to comply with an undertaking furnished to the complainants on 28 October 2004 in respect of his named clients and the borrowers and property in Co Kerry in a timely manner or at all,
12) Failed to comply with an undertaking furnished to the complainants on 29 October 2004 in respect of his named clients and the borrowers and property in Co Kerry in a timely manner,
13) Failed to comply with an undertaking furnished to the complainants on 30 July 2007 in respect of his named client and the borrower and property in Co Kerry in a timely manner or at all,
14) Failed to comply with an undertaking furnished to the complainants on 28 November 2006 in respect of his named client and the borrower and property in Co Kerry in a timely manner or at all.
2017/DT51
On 11 January 2018, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of professional misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:
1) Failed to comply with an undertaking dated 30 September 2014 furnished to the complainant in respect of his named clients and the borrowers and property in Co Kerry in a timely manner or at all,
2) Failed to respond to the Society’s correspondence and, in particular, to the Society’s letters of 4 October 2016, 20 October 2016, 3 November 2016, 18 November 2016, 30 November 2016 and 15 December 2016 within the time provided, in a timely manner, or at all,
3) Failed to attend the meeting of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee on 24 January 2017, despite being required to do so by letter dated 17 January 2017.
2017/DT73
On 19 April 2018, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of professional misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:
1) Failed to comply with an undertaking furnished to the complainants on 27 June 2007 in respect of his named clients and the borrowers and property in Co Kerry in a timely manner,
2) Failed to comply with an undertaking furnished to the complainants on 4 May 2007 in respect of his named clients and the borrowers and property in Co Limerick in a timely manner or at all,
3) Failed to comply with an undertaking dated 29 May 2006 furnished to the complainant in respect of his named clients and the borrowers and property in Co Kerry in a timely manner or at all,
4) Failed to comply with an undertaking dated 13 September 2001 furnished to the complainant in respect of his named clients and the borrowers and property in Co Kerry in a timely manner,
5) Failed to comply with an undertaking dated 21 November 2003 furnished to the complainants in respect of his named clients and the borrowers and the property in Co Kerry in a timely manner,
6) Failed to comply with an undertaking furnished to the complainants on 30 June 1997 in respect of his named clients and the borrowers and property in Co Kerry in a timely manner,
7) Failed to comply with an undertaking furnished to the complainant on 2 October 2002 in respect of his named clients and the borrowers and property in Co Kerry in a timely manner,
8) Failed to comply with an undertaking dated 23 April 2009 furnished to the complainant in respect of his named clients and the borrowers and property in Co Kerry in a timely manner,
9) Failed to comply with an undertaking dated 23 March 2007 furnished to the complainant in respect of his named client and the borrowers and property in Co Kerry in a timely manner,
10) Failed to comply with an undertaking dated 13 November 2012 furnished to the complainant in respect of his named clients and the borrowers and property in Co Kerry in a timely manner,
11) Failed to comply with an undertaking dated 20 June 2001 furnished to the complainant in respect of his named clients and borrowers and property in Co Kerry in a timely manner.
2017/DT78
On 19 April 2018, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of professional misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:
1) Failed to protect his client’s interest and failed to ensure that his client had title to his property in Co Kerry in a timely manner,
2) Caused unnecessary stress to an elderly client by failing to return the complainant’s birth certificate to him in a timely manner,
3) Failed to respond to his client’s enquiries,
4) Failed to respond in a timely manner or at all to the Society’s correspondence and, in particular, the Society’s letters of 21 November 2016, 7 December 2016, 5 January 2017, 3 March 2017, 5 April 2017, 20 April 2017, 4 May 2017 and 24 May 2017 in a timely manner, within the time provided, or at all,
5) Failed to comply with the direction made by the Complaints and Client Relations Committee at its meeting on 28 February 2017 that he pay a sum of €550 towards the costs incurred by the Society as a result of his failure to respond to the Society’s correspondence and to attend the meeting,
6) Failed to comply with the direction made by the Complaints and Client Relations Committee at its meeting on 6 June 2017 and that he make a further contribution of €350 towards the cost incurred by the Society,
7) Failed to comply with the direction made by the Complaints and Client Relations Committee at his meeting on 18 July 2017 that he return the birth certificate to his client forthwith,
8) Failed to attend the Complaints and Client Relations Committee meeting on 28 February 2017, 4 April 2017 and 18 July 2017, despite being required to do so.
2017/DT115
On 19 April 2018, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of professional misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:
1) Failed to register the interests of his clients in relation to the registration of their title to their home, having been instructed and paid to do so in 2006, in a timely manner,
2) Failed to respond satisfactorily to his clients’ enquiries in relation to their instructions to him in a timely manner,
3) Failed to respond in a timely manner or at all to the Society’s correspondence and, in particular, the Society’s letters of 14 July 2015, 23 October 2015, 25 November 2015, 9 June 2017 and 28 June 2017.
The tribunal ordered that all matters should go forward to the High Court and, on 14 October 2019, in proceedings 2019 no 23 SA, the High Court ordered that:
1) The respondent solicitor’s name be struck off the Roll of Solicitors, with a stay on the said order until 31 December 2019,
2) The respondent solicitor pay a sum of €13,000 as a contribution towards the cost of the disciplinary proceedings,
3) The respondent solicitor pay the whole of the costs of the applicant’s High Court application, such costs to be taxed in default of agreement.
-
Michael Doody
Doody Solicitors, 21 South Mall, Cork
Date of Order10/10/2019In the matter of Michael Doody, solicitor, principal at Doody Solicitors, 21 South Mall, Cork, and in the matter of an application by the Law Society of Ireland to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal [2017/DT85 and 2017/DT86; High Court record 2019/11SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Michael Doody (respondent solicitor)
On 10 July 2018, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in the following matters.
2017/DT85
1) Failed to comply adequately or at all with an undertaking dated 12 October in respect of his named client in relation to a named property,
2) Failed to respond adequately or at all to letters dated 20 November and 2 December 2015 sent to him by the Society,
3) Failed to respond adequately or at all to correspondence from the complainant and, in particular, letters dated 12 October 2011, 30 January 2012, 13 March 2014, 15 April 2014, 16 January 2015, 12 February 2015, and an email thread concluding with an email dated 23 April 2015.
2017/DT86
1) Failed to comply adequately or at all with an undertaking dated 15 May 2006 in respect of his named clients in relation to a named property,
2) Failed to comply adequately or at all with an undertaking dated 15 November 2006 in respect of his named client in relation to named properties,
3) Failed to comply adequately or at all with an undertaking dated 12 August 2008 in respect of his named client in relation to a named property,
4) Failed to comply adequately or at all with the directions of the committee, in particular, the directions dated 1 September 2015, 3 November 2015 and 1 February 2016,
5) Failed to respond adequately or at all to correspondence sent to him from the Society, in particular, letters dated 14 April 2015.
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal referred the matter forward to the High Court and, in record number 2019/11SA, the High Court made the following orders on 10 October 2019:
1) That the respondent solicitor only be permitted to practise under the direct control and supervision of another solicitor of at least ten years’ standing, to be approved in advance by the Law Society, with a stay on the order for a period of four weeks, the respondent solicitor undertaking that, within the aforementioned four-week period, no undertakings will be given by him unless previously approved by the Law Society,
2) That the Law Society recover the whole of the costs of the proceedings before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal and the High Court, to be taxed in default of agreement.
-
James Dorney
Dorney Solicitors, Phoenix House, Monahan Road, Cork
Date of Order01/07/2019In the matter of James Dorney, solicitor, practising as Dorney Solicitors, Phoenix House, Monahan Road, Cork, and in the matter of an application by the Law Society of Ireland to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2015 [2018/DT80; 2018/DT106; High Court record 2019/49 SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
James Dorney (respondent solicitor)
2018/DT80
On 11 April 2019, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he failed to ensure that there was furnished to the Society an accountant’s report for the year ended 28 February 2018 within six months of that date, in breach of regulation 26(1) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations 2014.
2018/DT106
On 11 April 2019, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:
1) Failed to maintain proper records by withdrawing funds from the client account to the office account without supporting documentation, contrary to regulation 7 of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations 2014,
2) Failed to maintain proper books of account and such relevant supporting documents as would enable clients’ moneys handled and dealt with by the solicitor to be duly recorded and the entries relevant thereto in the books of account to be appropriately vouched, contrary to regulation 13(1) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations,
3) Failed to comply with the direction of the Regulation of Practice Committee meeting, made on 25 January 2018, directing the respondent solicitor be given two alternative dates for inspection of his practice, by not responding to the Society to confirm agreement to inspection on either Thursday 15 February 2018 or Friday 2 March 2018,
4) Failed to comply with the directions of the Regulation of Practice Committee, thus causing the Law Society of Ireland to make an application to the High Court for an order pursuant to section 18 of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act 2002 prohibiting him from practising as a solicitor until such time as he was fully compliant with the provisions of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations,
5) Failed to comply with High Court orders made on 9 April 2018, 9 May 2018, 11 June 2018, 30 July 2018 and 5 November 2018,
6) Failed to submit a closing or final reporting accountant’s report following the cessation of his practice, contrary to regulation 33(2) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations.
The tribunal ordered that the matter should go forward to the High Court and, on 1 July 2019, in proceedings 2019/49 SA, the High Court ordered that:
1) The respondent solicitor continue to be suspended and prohibited from practising as a solicitor until such time as he has fully complied with the provisions of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations, as originally ordered by the High Court on 9 April 2018, and affirmed in subsequent orders of the High Court on 8 May 2018, 11 June 2018 and 5 November 2018,
2) In the event that the respondent solicitor does become compliant with the provisions of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations to the satisfaction of the Law Society of Ireland, the respondent solicitor is to apply to the High Court to lift the suspension order if he intends to resume practice and, in that event, that he not be permitted to practise as a sole practitioner or in a partnership, but only to practise as an assistant solicitor in the employment and under the direct control and supervision of another solicitor of at least ten years’ standing, to be approved in advance by the Law Society of Ireland,
3) The respondent solicitor pay the measured and agreed costs of the within application,
4) The respondent solicitor pay the costs of the application in the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal proceedings 2018/DT80 in the measured sum advocated by the Law Society,
5) The respondent solicitor pay the costs of the applicant in Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal proceedings 2018/DT106 as measured by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal.
-
Alan Lloyd
AM Maloney & Co, Solicitors, Harbour Street, Tullamore, Co Offaly
Date of Order20/05/2019In the matter of Alan Lloyd, a solicitor formerly practising in the firm of AM Maloney & Co, Solicitors, Harbour Street, Tullamore, Co Offaly, and in the matter of an application by the Law Society of Ireland to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2015 [2018/DT38 and High Court record 2019/6 SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Alan Lloyd (respondent solicitor)
On 20 November 2018, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:
1) Practised as a solicitor/provided legal services while there was not a practising certificate for the practice year 2016 in respect of him in force, contrary to section 55 of the principal act and/or section 56(1) and/or (2) of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act 1994,
2) Held himself out as a person entitled to practise/provide legal services during the practice year 2016 while there was not a practising certificate in respect of him in force,
3) Attended at Tullamore Garda Station on 12 August 2016 and provided legal services and/or held himself out as a person entitled to provide legal services in respect of a person detained under section 2 of the Criminal Justice (Drug Trafficking) Act 1996 while not qualified to do so, by reason of there not being a practising certificate in respect of him in force,
4) Attended at Tullamore Garda Station on 15 September 2016 and provided legal services and/or held himself out as a person entitled to provide legal services in respect of a person detained under section 4 of the Criminal Justice Act 1984 while not qualified to do so, by reason of there not being a practising certificate in respect of him in force,
5) Practised as a solicitor/provided legal services while there was not a practising certificate for the practice year 2017 in respect of him in force, contrary to section 55 of the principal act and/or section 56(1) and/or (2) of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act 1994,
6) Held himself out as a person entitled to practise/provide legal services during the practice year 2017 while there was not a practising certificate in respect of him in force,
7) Attended at Birr Garda Station on 3 and/or 4 March 2017 and provided legal services and/or held himself out as a person entitled to provide legal services in respect of a person detained for alleged offence(s) of sexual assault while not qualified to do so, by reason of there not being a practising certificate in respect of him in force,
8) On or around 4 March 2017, misrepresented to a garda sergeant that he was a solicitor entitled to practise and to represent a detainee in custody,
9) Caused, permitted, or allowed fees to be paid in respect of his attendance(s), while an unqualified person, at Birr Garda Station on 3 and 4 March 2017,
10) By his actions in practising and/or providing legal services and/or holding himself out as a person entitled to provide legal services, while unqualified by reason of not holding a valid practising certificate, acted with reckless disregard for the interests of clients/prospective clients and/or for the administration of justice, thereby tending to bring the profession into disrepute.
The tribunal ordered that the matter should go forward to the High Court and, on 20 May 2019, the High Court ordered that:
1) The name of the respondent be struck from the Roll of Solicitors,
2) The respondent pay a sum of costs, measured by the tribunal, to the applicant,
3) The respondent pay the applicant its costs of the High Court application, with taxation in default of agreement.
-
Thomas D'Alton
James J Kearns & Son, Solicitors, Portumna, Co Galway
Date of Order26/03/2019In the matter of Thomas D’Alton, a solicitor practising as James J Kearns & Son, Solicitors, Portumna, Co Galway, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2015 [2017/DT114, 2018/DT03, and High Court record 2018 no 126 SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Thomas D’Alton (respondent solicitor)
2017/DT114
On 25 October 2018, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in that he failed to ensure that there was furnished to the Society an accountant’s report for the year ended 31 January 2017 within six months of that date, in breach of regulation 26(1) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations 2014 (SI 516 of 2014).
2018/DT03
On 25 October 2018, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of professional misconduct in that he:
1) Allowed a deficit of €54,860 on his client account as of 30 April 2016, which was subsequently reduced to €46,860 by the introduction of €8,000 in June 2016,
2) Used €10,000 of clients’ moneys on 9 March 2015 to help discharge a personal revenue liability,
3) Took client moneys of €10,000 in September 2014 and €7,800 in July 2006 from a named estate, which moneys were used to reduce the office account overdraft,
4) Took client moneys of €8,000 from the estate of a named person in September 2015, which moneys were used to reduce the office account overdraft,
5) Took client moneys of €15,813.57 from a named estate in June 2014, which moneys were used to reduce the office account overdraft,
6) Took client moneys of €5,000 from the client account to the office account in July 2016,
7) Created a debit balance on the account of a named client of €5,002,
8) Failed to comply with anti-money-laundering legislation in the sample of clients’ files examined.
The tribunal directed that both matters be sent forward to the President of the High Court and, on 26 March 2019, in High Court proceedings entitled Law Society (Applicant) v Thomas D’Alton, the High Court made orders that the respondent solicitor be suspended from the Roll of Solicitors until 1 April 2020. Upon cessation of that suspension, the respondent solicitor may be issued with a practising certificate subject to the following conditions:
1) He will not be permitted to practise as a sole practitioner or in a partnership, but only as an employed solicitor,
2) He must act under the control and supervision of a solicitor who will be approved of in writing in advance by the Law Society,
3) He will not be permitted to give undertakings of any sort save with the written consent obtained in advance from the supervising solicitor,
4) He will not be permitted to have any drawing rights on the client or other accounts of the practice in which he may be employed.
The said conditions will apply to every practising certificate granted to him for a period of seven years following his restoration to the Roll of Solicitors in 2020.
-
Moya O'Donnell
Moya O’Donnell & Co, Solicitors, Elm Wood Terrace, Main Street, Killybegs, Co Donegal, and Glen Road, Glenties, Co Donegal
Date of Order18/02/2019In the matter of Moya O’Donnell, solicitor, practising as Moya O’Donnell & Co, Solicitors, Elm Wood Terrace, Main Street, Killybegs, Co Donegal, and Glen Road, Glenties, Co Donegal, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2015 [2018/DT34; High Court 2017/86 SA; High Court 2019/7 SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Moya O’Donnell (respondent solicitor)
On 6 November 2018, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in her practice as a solicitor in that she:
1) Caused or allowed an incorrect reporting accountant’s report for the financial year ending 31 March 2015 to be filed with the Society, which recorded a client deficit of €2,199, when there was a deficit in excess of €100,000 due to a large debit balance on a named client ledger,
2) Dishonestly caused or permitted a distribution/cash account(s) to be created and provided to the Society in respect of the estate of a named client, knowing it to falsely represent that a named client was a beneficiary of the estate, in an attempt to conceal a deficit on the named client estate of €32,831, which arose from the use of moneys from the named client estate to pay the named client moneys due to her from the estate of a different named client,
3) Dishonestly caused or permitted multiple deficits on her client account by payment of client moneys into her personal bank or credit card accounts and by payment of client moneys, held and/or due to particular clients, to other unrelated client matters, involving some 51 separate incidents of such activity,
4) Attempted to conceal deficits on her client account by causing or allowing false entries in the books of account to conceal the true destination of the payment(s),
5) Attempted to conceal deficits on her client account by engaging in a widespread practice of teeming and lading of client moneys,
6) Attempted to avoid detection by the Law Society of deficits and of the practice of teeming and lading of client moneys by use of false documentation, including in particular:
· A letter dated 29 August 2012 purporting to vouch a payment of €58,890 (at appendix 9.3 of the investigation report of 10 November 2017) from a named client estate, and/or
· Letters dated 30 January 2014 and 17 February 2014 purporting to vouch a payment of €80,000 (at appendix 9.4 of the investigation report) from the same named client estate, and/or
· A letter dated 2 September 2015 purporting to vouch a payment of €63,028 (at appendix 9.6 of the investigation report) from the same named client estate, and/or
· A document purporting to vouch a payment of €86,000 (at appendix 9.7 of the investigation report) from the same named client estate, and/or
· A document purporting to vouch instruction of a payment of €76,000 (at appendix 12.2 of the investigation report) from the file of a named client, and/or
· A document purporting to record an electronic funds transfer of €5,000 (at appendix 13.3 of the investigation report) to another named client on 8 December 2016, and/or
· A letter dated 14 July 2017 purporting to be from the Revenue Commissioners purporting to vouch a payment of €14,050 on a named client estate, and/or
· A document (at appendix 14.5 of the investigation report) purporting to vouch an electronic funds transfer of a bequest of €4,361 to a named beneficiary.
7) Dishonestly furnished or permitted to be furnished to the Society further documentation in an attempt to conceal deficits and/or teeming and lading on her client account, and in particular:
· A copy questionnaire purportedly completed by a named client, falsely showing her to be a beneficiary to a named client estate, and/or
· A copy cheque payable to a named client with annotation falsely vouching a payment from the same named client estate, and/or
· A document of 25 August 2017 falsely vouching a payment of €5,000 to a named client, a beneficiary of the same named client estate, and/or
· An affidavit in the name of a named client signed 18 November 2017 purporting to vouch payments on another named client estate, and/or
· An affidavit in the name of a named client signed 18 November 2017 purporting to vouch payments on another named client estate, and/or
· Copy identification documents of two named clients with the same name, purporting to support her false claim that there was a beneficiary to a named client estate by the name of this named client.
The tribunal, in its opinion as to the fitness of the respondent solicitor to be a member of the solicitors’ profession, expressed in its report the following recommendations:
1) The respondent solicitor was not a fit person to be a member of the solicitors’ profession,
2) Her name should be struck off the Roll of Solicitors,
3) She should pay the measured costs of the Law Society.
The tribunal ordered and directed the Law Society to bring its findings and the recommendations in its report to the High Court. The matter came before the High Court and, on 18 February 2019, the High Court ordered that the name of the respondent solicitor be struck off the Roll of Solicitors.
-
Damien Cassidy
Walker & Co, Solicitors, 22 Sandymount Road, Dublin 4
Date of Order11/01/2019In the matter of Damien Cassidy, a solicitor practising as Walker & Co, Solicitors, 22 Sandymount Road, Dublin 4, and in the matter of an application by the Law Society of Ireland to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2015 [2466/DT111/14; High Court 2016/58 SA; Court of Appeal 2016/563 CA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Damien Cassidy (respondent solicitor)
On 20 January 2016, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:
1) Failed to comply expeditiously, within a reasonable time, or at all with an undertaking given by him in respect of his named client over property at Co Dublin to the governor of the company of Bank of Ireland, by undertaking dated 12 February 2004,
2) Failed to reply adequately or at all to the Society’s correspondence in respect of an undertaking given by him on behalf of the same named client over property at Co Dublin and, in particular letters dated 11 October 2013, 6 November 2013, and 14 February 2014 respectively,
3) Failed to attend a meeting of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee on 25 March 2014 in respect of the complaint concerning his same named client over property at Co Dublin, despite being required to do so,
4) Failed to reply adequately or at all to the Society’s correspondence in respect of an undertaking given by him on behalf of his named clients over property at Co Dublin and, in particular, letters dated 11 October 2013, 6 November 2013, and 14 February 2014 respectively,
5) Failed to attend a meeting of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee on 25 March 2014 in respect of the complaint concerning his named clients over property at Co Dublin, despite being required to do so,
6) Failed to reply expeditiously, within a reasonable time, or at all with an undertaking given by him to Bank of Ireland Mortgage Bank on behalf of his named clients over property at Dublin 4, dated 14 October 2008,
7) Failed to reply adequately or at all to the Society’s correspondence in respect of an undertaking given by him on behalf of his clients named clients over property at Dublin 4 and, in particular, letters dated 11 October 2013, 6 November 2013, and 14 February 2014 respectively,
8) Failed to attend a meeting of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee on 25 March 2014 in respect of the complaint concerning his named clients over property at Dublin 4, despite being required to do so.
The tribunal ordered that the matter should go forward to the High Court and, on 21 November 2016, the High Court ordered that:
1) The name of the respondent solicitor shall be struck from the Roll of Solicitors,
2) The respondent solicitor pay to the applicant the costs of the proceedings before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal,
3) The respondent solicitor deliver up all files to the Society pursuant to provisions of section 19(1) of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act 1960, as amended, by substitution, by section 27 of the Solicitors ( Amendment) Act 1994.
The respondent solicitor appealed the order and, on 11 January 2019, the Court of Appeal ordered that, unless the books of appeal were lodged by 21 January 2019, the said appeal should stand struck out with liberty to apply or re-enter the appeal, with costs of the appeal to the applicant as against the respondent, to be taxed in default of agreement
-
Thomas O’Donoghue
O’Donoghue & Co, Solicitors, 2 Egan’s Lane, Tuam, Co Galway
Date of Order03/12/2018In the matter of Thomas O’Donoghue, a solicitor formerly practising as principal of O’Donoghue & Co, Solicitors, 2 Egan’s Lane, Tuam, Co Galway, and in the matter of an application by the Law Society of Ireland to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2015 [8824/DT40/15; 8824/DT41/15, and High Court record 2018 no 134 SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Thomas O’Donoghue (respondent solicitor)
8824/DT40/15
On 21 May 2018, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that, up to the date of referral to the tribunal, he:
1) Failed to comply with an undertaking dated 18 September 2007, provided to the complainant, in a timely manner or at all,
2) Failed to respond adequately or at all to some or all of the correspondence sent to him by the complainant.
8824/DT41/15
On 21 May 2018, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:
1) Failed to comply with an undertaking dated 7 May 2010, provided to the complainant, in a timely manner or at all,
2) Failed to respond to correspondence sent to him by the Society.
The tribunal ordered that the Law Society bring its findings and reports in both matters before the High Court.
On 3 December 2018, the High Court ordered that:
1) The name of the respondent solicitor be struck off the Roll of Solicitors,
2) The respondent solicitor pay the applicant’s costs before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal and the High Court.
