Speed dating naas Vietnamese men chat sex

Rated 4.9/5 based on 505 customer reviews

From surf to snow, Erica has played every sport imaginable, but the 2012 WCT champ didn't get her own surfboard and start surfing until age 11. Earning her first sponsor at the age of 8, the fan favorite says about her surfing style: “When I surf I keep things natural and graceful and never try to force anything." Born 29 January 1988; Coolangatta, Australia.The 6x ASP World Tour Champ always rises to the top.In the matter of Adam Suzin, a solicitor practising as Adam A Suzin & Company at 8 Annaly Court, Longford, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2008 [10064/DT114/09] Law Society of Ireland (applicant) Adam A Suzin (respondent solicitor) On 30 March 2010, 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 December 2008 within six months of that date, in breach of regulation 21(1) of the Solicitors' Accounts Regulations 2001 (SI no 421 of 2001) The tribunal ordered that the respondent solicitor: a) Do stand admonished and advised, b) Pay the sum of 500 to the compensation fund, c) Pay the whole of the costs of the Law Society of Ireland, to be taxed by a taxing master of the High Court, in default of agreement In the matter of Aiden Barry, of Aiden Barry, Solicitors, Roche House, 8 Bank Place, Limerick, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2008 [7243/DT112/10] Law Society of Ireland (applicant) Aiden Barry (respondent solicitor) On 25 January 2011, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he failed to ensure there was furnished to the Society an accountant's report for the year ended 31 August 2009 within six months of that date, in breach of regulation 21(1) of the Solicitors' Accounts Regulations 2001 (SI no 421 of 2001) The tribunal ordered that the respondent solicitor: a) Do stand censured, b) Pay a sum of 500 to the compensation fund, c) Pay the whole of the costs of the Law Society of Ireland as taxed by a taxing master of the High Court in default of agreement In the matter of Aiden GM Barry, a solicitor carrying on practice under the style and title of Aiden Barry, Roche House, 8 Bank Place, Limerick, 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, 1954-2002 [7243/DT477/04] Law Society of Ireland (applicant) Aiden GM Barry (respondent solicitor) On 26 April 2005, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he failed to file an accountant's report for the year ended 31 August 2003, in breach of regulation 21(1) of the Solicitors' Accounts Regulations 2001 (statutory instrument number 421 of 2001), in a timely manner The tribunal ordered that the respondent solicitor: a) Do stand admonished b) Pay a sum of 500 to the compensation fund c) Pay the whole of the costs of the Law Society of Ireland as taxed by a taxing master of the High Court in default of agreement In the matter of Ambrose Steen, solicitor, carrying on practice under the style and title of Ambrose Steen Solicitors at Tara House, Trimgate Street, Navan, Co Meath, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts, 1954 to 2002 [2851/DT346] Law Society of Ireland (applicant) Ambrose Steen (respondent solicitor) On 10 April 2003, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found that the respondent solicitor was guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he had: a) Allowed a deficit of client funds to arise in his practice totalling 112,796 as of 11 December 2001, which deficit totalled 82,796 as of 21 January 2002, by drawing cheques in the client account payable to the office account thus creating the deficit b) Failed to file an accountant's report for the year ended 30 June 2001 in a timely manner or at all c) Failed to file a cessation report or a closing accountant's report in a timely manner or at all The tribunal ordered that the respondent solicitor: a) Do stand censured b) Pay a sum of 5,000 to the compensation fund within three months from the date of the order c) Pay the whole of the costs of the Law Society of Ireland of this tribunal inquiry, to be taxed in default of agreement In the matter of Ambrose Steen, a solicitor previously practising under the style and title of Ambrose Steen Solicitors at Tara House, Trimgate Street, Navan, Co Meath, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2002 [2851/DT67/06] Law Society of Ireland (applicant) Ambrose Steen (respondent solicitor) On 6 March 2007, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he had: a) Failed to reply to the Society's correspondence in the investigation of a complaint in a timely manner or at all, and in particular to the Society's letters of 5 October 2005, 19 October 2005, 1 November 2005 and 9 November 2005; b) Failed to comply with the direction of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee, made at its meeting on 30 November 2005, to make a payment of 250 contribution towards the costs of the investigation The tribunal ordered that the respondent solicitor: a) Do stand admonished and advised, b) Pay a sum of 250 to the compensation fund, c) Pay the whole of the costs of the Law Society of Ireland, as taxed by a taxing master of the High Court, in default of agreement In the matter of Ambrose Steen, a solicitor previously practising under the style and title of Ambrose Steen Solicitors at Tara House, Trimgate Street, Navan, Co Meath, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2002 [2851/DT90/06] Law Society of Ireland (applicant) Ambrose Steen (respondent solicitor) On 6 March 2007, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he had: a) Failed to deal with the administration of an estate in a timely manner, b) Failed to correspond with the complainants and/or to explain the reasons for the delay in the administration of the estate, c) Failed to properly distribute to the beneficiaries the estate in a timely manner, d) Failed to co-operate in the investigation of the complaint by the Society by persistently failing to deal with correspondence and failing to attend meetings and failing to provide any information The tribunal ordered that the respondent solicitor: a) Do stand censured, b) Pay a sum of 2,000 to the compensation fund, c) Pay the whole of the costs of the Law Society of Ireland as taxed by a taxing master of the High Court in default of agreement In the matter of Ambrose Steen, a locum solicitor who previously carried on practice at Tara House, Trimgate Street, Navan, Co Meath, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2002 [2851/DT11/07] Law Society of Ireland (applicant) Ambrose Steen (respondent solicitor) On 10 April 2008, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he: a) Failed to discharge fees due to a named barrister in the sum of 5,36274 and in the sum of 9,20873, despite being requested to do so on numerous occasions, b) Failed to respond to the Society's correspondence in the investigation of this complaint and, in particular, the Society's letters to the respondent solicitor dated , 1 June 2006, 16 June 2006, 4 July 2006, 20 July 2006 and 3 November 2006, c) Failed to comply with the direction of the Society that the solicitor pay 550 towards the costs of the investigation, which direction was made at the meeting of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee on 20 September 2006, d) Failed to comply with the section 10 notice in relation to the production of the files and documents, pursuant to section 10 of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act 1994, served on the respondent solicitor by registered letter dated 19 October 2006 The tribunal ordered that the respondent solicitor: a) Do stand censured, b) Pay a sum of 2,000 to the compensation fund, c) Pay the whole of the costs of the Law Society of Ireland as taxed by a taxing master of the High Court in default of agreement In the matter of Ambrose Steen, a locum solicitor who previously carried on practice at Tara House, Trimgate Street, Navan, Co Meath, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2002 [2851/DT44/07] Law Society of Ireland (applicant) Ambrose Steen (respondent solicitor) On 10 April 2008, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he: a) Failed to communicate with his client, the executor of the estate of a named deceased person, in a timely manner or at all, b) Failed to respond to the Society and, in particular, to the Society's letters dated 10 August 2006, 24 August 2006, 13 September 2006, 10 October 2006 and 13 October 2006, c) Deducted fees of 5,000 plus VAT from the estate without authority to do so, in circumstances where he was a co-executor in the estate, where there was no charging clause in the will and where the respondent solicitor witnessed the will, d) Deducted such fees without the consent or knowledge of the co-executor in the estate, e) Failed to comply with a section 10 notice served upon him on 13 September 2006 in a timely manner, having only produced his file to the Society following a High Court application, f) Failed to progress the administration of the estate in a timely manner, g) Failed to refund the balance of fees that he had deducted in a timely manner The tribunal ordered that the respondent solicitor: a) Do stand censured, b) Pay a sum of 3,500 to the compensation fund, c) Pay the whole of the costs of the Law Society of Ireland as taxed by a taxing master of the High Court in default of agreement In the matter of Ambrose Steen, a locum solicitor previously practising at Tara House, Trimgate Street, Navan, Co Meath, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2002 [2851/DT74/07] Law Society of Ireland (applicant) Ambrose Steen (respondent solicitor) On 17 April 2008, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found that the respondent solicitor was guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he: a) Failed to issue proceedings on behalf of a named client following a road traffic accident on 3 December 2001, despite being instructed to do so in a timely manner or at all, b) Failed to reply to the Society's correspondence in relation to the complaint, and in particular to the Society's letters of 13 September 2006, 25 September 2006, 4 October 2006, 4 January 2007 and 2 April 2007, c) Failed to comply with a notice served under section 10 of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act 1994, and dated 2 April 2007, in a timely manner, d) Failed to comply with an undertaking given to the Society on 12 October 2006 and confirmed by him in a letter dated 31 October 2006, e) Informed the Law Society he was pursuing the claim by letter dated 14 February 2007 when this was not the case The tribunal ordered that the respondent solicitor: a) Do stand censured, b) Pay a sum of 500 to the compensation fund In the matter of Ambrose Steen, a solicitor, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2002 [2851/DT39/ no 13SA] Law Society of Ireland (applicant) Ambrose Steen (respondent solicitor) On 2 December 2008, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he had: a) Delayed in initially complying with the complainant's instructions to perfect the complainant's title to lands in Co Meath, b) Subsequently delayed in the handing over of documentation in relation to those lands to the complainant's new solicitors as requested, c) Failed to respond to correspondence from the Society, and in particular the Society's letters dated 17 July 2006, 2 August 2006, 14 August 2006, 21 September 2006, 4 January 2007, 15 January 2007, 19 February 2007, d) Failed to comply with the direction of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee at its meeting on 20 September 2006 that he provide the complainant within the next 14 days all documentation required by her, e) Failed to comply with the direction of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee at its meeting on 20 September 2006 that he pay 550 towards the cost of the investigation in the light of his failure to correspond with the Society, f) Failed to comply with a notice pursuant to section 10 of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act 1994 dated and served 2 April 2007 requiring delivery to the Society of all documents in relation to the complainant's complaint within ten days of the notice Having made the findings of misconduct, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal recommended that the matter be brought forward to the High Court On 13 July 2009, the President of the High Court made an order that: 1) The respondent solicitor should not be permitted to practise as a sole practitioner, that he be permitted only to practise as a solicitor under the direct control and supervision of another solicitor of at least ten years' standing, to be approved in advance by the Law Society of Ireland, 2) The Law Society do recover the costs of the proceedings herein and the costs of the proceedings before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal as against the respondent when taxed or ascertained In the matter of Andrew Walker, a solicitor formerly practising as a partner in Hayes Solicitors, Lavery House, Earlsfort Terrace, Dublin 2, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2002 [3453/DT59/05] Law Society of Ireland (applicant) Andrew Walker (respondent solicitor) On 10 January 2008, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he failed to disclose a material fact about the alteration of clinical notes prior to the commencement of a hearing in a named High Court case in a timely manner or at all, such material fact only being revealed to the court and to the plaintiffs as a result of queries raised by the presiding judge during the examination-in-chief of one of the defendants in the High Court case on 6 November 2003 The tribunal ordered that the respondent solicitor: a) Do stand admonished and advised, b) Pay a sum of 5,000 to the compensation fund, c) Pay 50% of the costs of the Law Society of Ireland, as taxed by a taxing master of the High Court in default of agreement In the matter of Anne Fitzgibbon, a solicitor carrying on practice under the style and title of Fitzgibbon & Company, Solicitors, at The Penthouse, 121/122 Capel Street, Dublin 1, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2008 [5626/DT10/09] Law Society of Ireland (applicant) Anne Fitzgibbon (respondent solicitor) On 1 October 2009, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in her practice as a solicitor in that she: a) Failed to make contact with her named client on 29 July 2004 to advise her of a settlement proposal made by the state to settle her case, b) Refused an offer made by the state to settle proceedings brought by her named client on 29 July 2004 without getting her client's instructions, c) Put her own interests in securing her costs before the interests of her client by refusing to accept a settlement offered to her client on 29 July 2004, solely on the basis that her costs could not be fully paid The tribunal ordered that the respondent solicitor: a) Do stand censured, b) Pay a sum of 2,500 to the compensation fund, c) Pay the whole of the costs of the Law Society of Ireland to be taxed by a taxing master of the High Court in default of agreement In the matter of Anthony M Murphy, a solicitor practising as Anthony M Murphy, Solicitor, 10 Old Quarry, Dalkey, Co Dublin, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts, 1954-2002 [4012/DT476/04] Law Society of Ireland (applicant) Anthony M Murphy (respondent solicitor) On 24 February 2005, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he had failed to file his accountant's report for the year ended 30 June 2003, in breach of regulation 21(1) of the Solicitors' Accounts Regulations 2001 (statutory instrument number 421 of 2001), in a timely manner or at all The tribunal ordered that the respondent solicitor: a) Do stand censured b) Pay a sum of 1,000 to the compensation fund c) Pay the whole of the costs of the Law Society of Ireland or any person appearing before them as taxed by a taxing master of the High Court in default of agreement In the matter of Anthony M Murphy, a solicitor practising as Anthony M Murphy, solicitor, 2 The Green, Straffan Wood, Straffan Road, Maynooth, Co Kildare, previously at 10 Old Quarry, Dalkey, Co Dublin, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2002 [4012/DT63/05] Law Society of Ireland (applicant) Anthony M Murphy (respondent solicitor) On 17 October 2006, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he: a) Failed to file his accountant's report for the year ended 30 June 2004 in a timely manner or at all, in breach of regulation 21(1) of the Solicitors' Accounts Regulations 2001 (SI number 421 of 2001); b) The solicitor, through his conduct, showed disregard for his statutory obligations to comply with the regulations and showed disregard for the Society's statutory obligation to monitor compliance with the Solicitors' Accounts Regulations for the protection of the clients and the public The tribunal ordered that the respondent solicitor: a) Do stand censured, b) Pay a sum of 2,000 to the compensation fund, c) Pay the whole of the costs of the Law Society of Ireland or any person appearing before them, as taxed by a taxing master of the High Court in default of agreement In the matter of Anthony M Murphy, a solicitor practising as Anthony Murphy, Solicitors, at 2 Straffan Green, Maynooth, Co Kildare, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2008 [4012/DT66/10] Law Society of Ireland (applicant) Anthony M Murphy (respondent solicitor) On 4 November 2010, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he: a) Failed to ensure that there was furnished to the Society an accountant's report for the year ended 30 June 2009 within six months of that date, in breach of regulation 21(1) of the Solicitors' Accounts Regulations 2001 (SI no 421 of 2001) in a timely manner or at all, b) Through his conduct, showed disregard for his statutory obligation to comply with the Solicitors' Accounts Regulations and showed disregard for the Society's statutory obligation to monitor compliance with the Solicitors' Accounts Regulations for the protection of clients and the public, c) Failed to deal with the correspondence of the Society in connection with his qualified report for the year ended 30 June 2008 and, in particular, the Society's letters of 16 March 2009, 26 June 2009, 3 November 2009 and 27 November 2009 in a timely manner or at all The tribunal ordered that the respondent solicitor: a) Do stand censured, b) Pay a sum of 4,000 to the compensation fund, c) Pay the whole of the costs of the Society as taxed by a taxing master of the High Court, in default of agreement In the matter of Bernard O'Beirne, solicitor, practising as BJ O'Beirne and Co Solicitors, at Main Street, Arklow, Co Wicklow, 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 to 2002 [3057/DT422] Law Society of Ireland (applicant) Bernard O'Beirne (respondent solicitor) On , the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he: a) Falsified his books of accounts b) Concealed the appropriation of fees in his books of account c) Did not raise VAT invoices in a number of cases d) Breached regulation 7(a)(iv) of the Solicitors' Accounts Regulations (no 2) of 1984 in drawing solicitor and client fees from the client account without delivering to the client a bill of costs or other written intimation of the amount of the costs incurred e) The respondent solicitor breached regulation 5(2) of the Solicitors' Accounts Regulations, 2001 by holding monies to which he was beneficially entitled in a client account for longer than three months f) The respondent solicitor breached regulation 8(2) of the Solicitors' Accounts Regulations, 2001 in withdrawing monies from a client account other than by way of cheque drawn on the client account in favour of himself and other than by a transfer from the client to the office account g) The respondent solicitor breached regulation 8(3)(a) and (b) of the Solicitors' Accounts Regulations, 2001 in that the payee details on certain cheques drawn on the client account were false h) The respondent solicitor breached regulation 12(1) and (2)(a) and (b) of the Solicitors' Accounts Regulations, 2001 in failing to maintain proper books of account which showed the true financial position in relation to the respondent solicitor's transactions with clients' monies and, in respect of each client, failing to distinguish separately between clients' monies and other monies transacted by him i) The respondent solicitor breached regulation 12(4)(b) of the Solicitors' Accounts Regulations, 2001 in that the records of transactions with clients' monies were recorded in fictitious clients' ledgers j) The respondent solicitor, in relation to transactions prior to 1 January 2002, breached regulation 8(1) of the Solicitors' Accounts Regulations (no 2) of 1984 by failing to withdraw monies from the client account either by a cheque drawn on the client account in favour of himself or by the transfer from the client account to an account in the name of the respondent solicitor not being a client account k) The respondent solicitor, in relation to transactions prior to 1 January 2002, breached regulation 10(1) of Solicitors' Accounts Regulations (no 2) of 1984 by failing to maintain proper books of account to show all his dealings with client's money received, held or paid by him The tribunal ordered that the respondent solicitor: a) Do stand censured b) Pay the maximum sum permissible under section 7 of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act, 1960, as amended, being 15,000 to the compensation fund c) Pay the whole of the costs of the Law Society of Ireland to be taxed in default of agreement In the matter of Brendan Mc Manus, solicitor, 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 to 2002 [4089/DT400] Law Society of Ireland (applicant) Brendan Mc Manus (respondent solicitor) On 11 March 2004, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found that the respondent solicitor was guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that: a) Up to the date of swearing of the society's affidavit, sworn on , he failed to hand over the title documentation relating to two properties owned by a former client in a timely manner or at all, despite being requested to do so b) He failed to communicate with the complainant in a timely manner or at all c) He failed to comply with an undertaking to the Registrar's Committee that he would revert to the society within two weeks, which undertaking was given to the Registrar's Committee meeting on 5 November 2002 e) He failed to reply to correspondence from the society and in particular the society's letters of 5 September 2002, 18 September 2002, 30 September 2002, 8 November 2002, 21 November 2002, 19 December 2002, 13 January 2003 and 21 February 2003 The tribunal ordered that the respondent solicitor: a) Do stand censured b) Pay a sum of 500 each in respect of charges (a), (b), (c) and (e) to the compensation fund c) Pay the whole of the costs of the Law Society (including witnesses' expenses) as taxed by the taxing master of the High Court in default of agreement The High Court, 2004, no 142 SA In the matter of Brendan Mc Manus, a solicitor previously carrying on practice at 35 Beaufield Manor, Stillorgan, Co Dublin, 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, 1954-2002 [4089/DT440] Law Society of Ireland (applicant) Brendan Mc Manus (respondent solicitor) On 24 August 2004, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found that the respondent solicitor was guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he: a) Up to the date of swearing of the society's affidavit of 3 March 2004, failed to register his client's title in the Land Registry in a timely manner or at all b) Failed to communicate with his client in a timely manner or at all c) Failed to report that he had received a Land Registry query to the Law Society, as requested by the society in its letter dated d) Failed to comply with the section 10 notice served on the solicitor on 14 February 2003 to submit his file to the society within ten days e) Failed to respond to the society's correspondence, and in particular the society's letters of 14 February 2003, 13 June 2003, 20 August 2003, 28 August 2003 and 12 September 2003 The tribunal reported to the High Court and recommended that: a) The respondent solicitor may not be permitted to practise as a sole practitioner and should be permitted only to practise as an assistant solicitor under the direct control and supervision of a solicitor of at least ten years' standing who shall be approved in advance by the appropriate committee of the Law Society of Ireland b) The respondent solicitor pay the costs of the Law Society of Ireland in relation to the hearing before the tribunal, to be taxed in default of agreement On 22 November 2004, the president of the High Court ordered: 1) That the respondent solicitor be prohibited from practising as a sole practitioner and that he be permitted only to practise as an assistant solicitor under the direct control and supervision of a solicitor of at least ten years' standing, to be approved in advance by the appropriate committee of the Law Society ̐ that the respondent be at liberty to apply after the expiration of a period of 12 months from the date of the order in the event of his being unable to remain in employment 2) That the respondent solicitor do pay to the applicant its costs of the proceedings before the disciplinary tribunal and also the costs of and incident to the application to the High Court and order to be taxed in default of agreement ̐ execution on foot of the said order for costs to be stayed for a period of six months from the date of the order In the matter of Brendan Mc Manus, a solicitor, of 35 Beaufield Manor, Stillorgan, Co Dublin, 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 to 2002 [4089/DT39/05] Law Society of Ireland (applicant) Brendan Mc Manus (respondent solicitor) On 3 November 2005, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he is in breach of the provisions of the Professional Indemnity Insurance Regulations and in particular the provisions of SI 312 of 1995 as amended by SI no 362 of 1999, having failed to renew run-off cover for the year 2005 in accordance with the requirements of those regulations The tribunal ordered that the respondent solicitor do stand censured The High Court In the matter of Brian FG Toolan, a solicitor who practised as Toolan & Associates at Arva, Co Cavan, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts, 1954-2002 [2005/48SA] Law Society of Ireland (applicant) Brian FG Toolan (respondent solicitor) On , the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he had: a) Allowed the existence of a deficit of client funds as of 28 February 2003 of at least 126,31743 b) Failed to write up the client ledgers since 31 August 2001, in breach of the Solicitors' Accounts Regulations c) Drew amounts from the client account to the office account in the period 1 July 2001 to 28 February 2003, which were not debited to specific clients in the clients ledger, amounting to 161,23143 d) Drew two amounts on the client account in February 2003, which were used to purchase two bank drafts, the proceeds of which, according to the Ulster Bank, were lodged to the solicitor's credit card account, totalling 21,050 e) Allowed debit balances on the client ledger account in the solicitor's own name, totalling 6,32765 f) Allowed other debit balances to occur in the client ledger account, totalling 5,83951 g) In 2001, sold a site and part of the proceeds, in the sum of 14,72330, were lodged to the client account and credited to the ledger account in the solicitor's own name Over a period of months, the solicitor then withdrew 14,72320 and continued to make withdrawals from the client account, which were referenced to the sale of the site, resulting in the debit balance occurring of 6,32765 h) Abandoned his practice without making necessary arrangements for the protection of his clients or the proper carrying on of his practice in February 2003 The matter came before the president of the High Court on 25 July 2005 and the president ordered on that date that the respondent solicitor may not be permitted to practise as a sole practitioner or as a partner in a solicitor's practice, but that he be permitted only to practise as an assistant solicitor 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, and that the respondent solicitor pay the costs of the Law Society of Ireland in relation to the hearing before the disciplinary tribunal and the costs of the hearing before the High Court, such costs to be taxed in default of agreement In the matter of Brian Grogan, a solicitor practising as Brian Grogan & Company, Solicitors, at Main Street, Lucan, Co Dublin, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2002 [3291/DT45/07] Law Society of Ireland (applicant) Brian Grogan (respondent solicitor) On 8 April 2008, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he: a) Failed to comply with an undertaking dated 1 March 2005 to discharge both EBS mortgages (including arrears thereon) as of that date and to furnish the vacate/discharge release as soon as same came to hand in a timely manner, having only furnished same on 5 February 2007, b) Failed to comply with an undertaking dated 1 March 2005 to encash the joint PIP with EBS and to pay over one-half thereof to the complainants as soon as same was received in a timely manner, c) Failed to reply to the Society's correspondence in a timely manner or at all The tribunal ordered that the respondent solicitor: a) Do stand advised and admonished, b) Pay the whole of the costs of the Law Society of Ireland as taxed by a taxing master of the High Court in default of agreement In the matter of Brian Grogan, a solicitor practising as Brian Grogan & Company, Solicitors, at Main Street, Lucan, Co Dublin, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2002 [3291/DT99/06] Law Society of Ireland (applicant) Brian Grogan (respondent solicitor) On 8 April 2008, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he: a) Failed to deal with the administration of the estate of a named deceased, who died on 15 September 2001, in a timely manner, b) Failed to deal with the sale of the house, which was a substantial asset in the estate of the named deceased, in a timely manner or at all, c) Failed to deal with taking up the monies due to the estate from An Post and the Ulster Bank in a timely manner or at all, d) Failed to deal with the payment of the funeral expenses in the estate of the named deceased in a timely manner or at all, e) Failed to respond to the Society's correspondence, and in particular to the letters from the Society sent to the solicitor on 28 November 2004, 14 December 2004, 19 January 2005, 3 March 2005, 8 April 2005, 25 July 2005, 27 September 2005, 6 October 2005, 24 October 2005, 9 November 2005, 2 December 2005, 20 January 2006, 28 March 2006, , , f) Failed to comply with the direction of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee, made on 20 September 2005, to lodge his own affidavit and the Land Registry receipt with the secretariat of the Society within two weeks, and also to write to the complainant with a copy to the secretariat advising her of the position within two weeks, g) Failed to comply with the direction of the committee, made on 18 January 2006, that the solicitor should follow up the application with the Land Registry and furnish an additional progress report prior to the main meeting with the Society, h) Failed to comply with the direction of the committee on 30 November 2005 that the solicitor furnish copies of the sworn affidavit together with the Land Registry receipt on or before 1 January 2006 The tribunal ordered that the respondent solicitor: a) Do stand censured, b) Pay a sum of 10,000 as restitution to the aggrieved parties without prejudice to any legal right of such party, c) Pay the whole of the costs of the Law Society of Ireland as taxed by a taxing master of the High Court in default of agreement In the matter of Canice M Egan, solicitor, practising as Canice M Egan & Company at 9 Sarsfield Street, Clonmel, Co Tipperary, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2002 [10044/DT32/05] Law Society of Ireland (applicant) Canice M Egan (respondent solicitor) On 2 February 2006, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found that the respondent solicitor was guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he had breached regulation 21(1) of the Solicitors' Accounts Regulations (SI no 421 of 2001) in failing to ensure that there was furnished to the Society an accountant's report covering his financial year ended 30 November 2003 within six months thereafter, that is, by The tribunal ordered that the respondent solicitor: a) Do stand admonished and advised, b) Pay a sum of 500 to the compensation fund, c) Pay a contribution of 500 towards the costs of the Law Society of Ireland In the matter of Canice M Egan, a solicitor practising as Canice M Egan & Company at 9 Sarsfield Street, Clonmel, Co Tipperary, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2002 [100484/DT58/07] Law Society of Ireland (applicant) Canice M Egan (respondent solicitor) On 17 April 2008, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he had breached regulation 21(1) of the Solicitors' Accounts Regulations (SI no 421 of 2001) in failing to ensure that there was furnished to the Society an accountant's report covering his financial year ended 30 November 2005 within six months thereafter, that is by The tribunal ordered that the respondent solicitor: a) Do stand censured, b) Pay a sum of 5,000 to the compensation fund, c) Pay the whole of the costs of the Law Society of Ireland as taxed by a taxing master of the High Court in default of agreement In the matter of Cathal O'Donovan, a solicitor carrying on practice as O'Donovan Solicitors, 73 Capel Street, Dublin 1, and in the matter of an application by the Law Society of Ireland and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts, 1954-2002 [3936/DT447/04] Law Society of Ireland (applicant) Cathal O'Donovan (respondent solicitor) On 12 April 2005, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he had: a) Set off funds from an original purchase transaction of a property and subsequent sales against the solicitor's own costs, without issuing bills or accounting properly to the client for those funds b) Failed to account for interest on the sum of 250,000, which he had held for a period of at least four months, until recommended to do so by the Registrar's Committee and then only paid over 2,222 in interest, which was not acceptable as the total amount due to the clients c) Delayed in the transfer of files The tribunal ordered that the respondent solicitor: a) Do stand admonished b) Pay a sum of 5,000 to the compensation fund; that is, 3,000 in respect of charge (a), 1,000 in respect of charge (b) and 1,000 in respect of charge (c) c) Pay the whole of the costs of the Law Society of Ireland and the witnesses who appeared before the tribunal on 25 November 2004, 10 February 2005 and 12 April 2005 as taxed by a taxing master of the High Court in default of agreement In the matter of Christopher B Walsh, solicitor, carrying on practice under the style and title of Christopher B Walsh Solicitor at 90 Park Drive Avenue, Castleknock, Dublin 15, and who also has a branch office at Main Street, Tinnahinch, Graignamanagh, Co Kilkenny, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts, 1954 to 2002 [4949/DT338] Law Society of Ireland (applicant) Christopher B Walsh (respondent solicitor) On 24 April 2003, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found that the respondent solicitor was guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he had: a) Failed to file his accountant's report for the year ended 28 February 2001 in a timely manner or at all in accordance with the provisions of section 21(1) of the Solicitors' Accounts Regulations of 1984 The tribunal ordered that the respondent solicitor: a) Do stand censured b) Pay the sum of 1,250 to the compensation fund c) Pay the whole of the costs of the Law Society of Ireland or any person appearing before them as taxed by the taxing master of the High Court in default of agreement In the matter of Christopher B Walsh, solicitor, carrying on practice under the style and title of Christopher B Walsh Solicitor at 90 Park Drive Avenue, Castleknock, Dublin 15 and Main Street, Tinnahinch, Graiguenamanagh, Co Kilkenny, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2002 [4940/DT37/05] Law Society of Ireland (applicant) Christopher B Walsh (respondent solicitor) On 10 January 2006, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he had failed to file his accountant's report for the year ended 28 February 2004 with the Society in a timely manner, having only filed same with the Society on 1 June 2005, in breach of regulation 21(1) of the Solicitors' Accounts Regulations 2001 (statutory instrument no 421 of 2001) The tribunal ordered that the respondent solicitor: a) Do stand censured, b) Pay a sum of 1,000 to the compensation fund, c) Pay the whole of the costs of the Law Society of Ireland as taxed by a taxing master of the High Court in default of agreement In the matter of Christopher Ryan, solicitor, carrying on practice under the style and title of Chris Ryan, Solicitor, at 18 North King Street, Dublin 7, 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 to 2002 [4471/DT411] Law Society of Ireland (applicant) Christopher Ryan (respondent solicitor) On 25 March 2004, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found that the respondent solicitor was guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he had: Failed to file his accountant's report for the year ended 30 April 2002 in a timely manner, in breach of regulation 21(1) of the Solicitors' Accounts Regulations 2001 (statutory instrument no 421 of 2001), having only filed same with the society on The tribunal ordered that the respondent solicitor: a) Is hereby advised b) Pay a sum of 500 to the compensation fund c) Pay the whole of the costs of the Law Society as taxed by a taxing master of the High Court in default of agreement In the matter of Ciaran R Callan, a solicitor previously practising as Callan & Company Solicitors, River Bank House, Dodder Park Drive, Dublin 14, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2002 [4316/DT16/07] Law Society of Ireland (applicant) Ciaran R Callan (respondent solicitor) On 22 November 2007, 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 30 April 2006 within six months of that date, in breach of regulation 21(1) of the Solicitors' Accounts Regulations 2001 (SI 421 of 2001), in a timely manner or at all The tribunal ordered that the respondent solicitor: a) Do stand censured, b) Pay a sum of 2,500 to the compensation fund, c) Pay the whole of the costs of the Law Society of Ireland as taxed by a taxing master of the High Court, in default of agreement In the matter of Ciaran R Callan, a solicitor formerly practising as Callan & Company, Solicitors, River Bank House, Dodder Park Drive, Dublin 14, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2008 [4316/DT07/08 and High Court record no 2009 no 72 SA] Law Society of Ireland (applicant) Ciaran R Callan (respondent solicitor) On 25 June 2008, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he: a) Failed to honour an undertaking given to the complainant in letter dated 11 January 2000, whereby he undertook to deal with all reasonable Land Registry queries in relation to a transaction involving a named property for a named client, b) Failed to honour an undertaking given to the Complaints and Client Relations Committee on 12 September 2007, whereby he undertook to send a written report by 5 October 2007 to the Society regarding the current position as to his compliance with the undertaking given by him to the complainant, c) Misled the Society in a telephone conversation on 12 July 2007, informing the Society that the matter was resolved, when it was not, d) Misled the Society in a letter dated 19 July 2007, stating that the deed was re-executed, whereas it still required a second signature The tribunal recommended that: a) The respondent solicitor is not a fit and proper person to be a member of the solicitors' profession, b) The name of the respondent solicitor be struck off the Roll of Solicitors, c) The respondent solicitor pay the whole of the costs of the Law Society of Ireland, including witness expenses, to be taxed by a taxing master of the High Court in default of agreement The tribunal directed that the matter be referred forward to the High Court and, on 13 July 2009, the President of the High Court ordered that: 1) The name of the respondent solicitor shall be struck from the Roll of Solicitors, 2) The Law Society do recover the costs of the proceedings herein and the costs of the proceedings before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal as against the respondent when taxed or ascertained In the matter of Ciaran R Callan, a solicitor formerly practising as Callan & Company, Solicitors, River Bank House, Dodder Park Drive, Dublin 14, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2008 [4316/DT09/08 and High Court record no 2009 no 73 SA] Law Society of Ireland (applicant) Ciaran R Callan (respondent solicitor) On 25 June 2008, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he: a) Failed to honour an undertaking given to the complainant contained in a letter dated 13 June 2002, whereby he undertook to furnish a certificate of title and title documents to a named property formerly belonging to a named client, deceased, to the complainant's client, a named financial institution, b) Failed to honour an undertaking given to the Complaints and Client Relations Committee on 12 September 2007, whereby he undertook to send a written report by 5 October 2007 to the Society regarding the current position as to his compliance with the undertaking given to the complainant The tribunal directed that: a) The respondent solicitor is not a fit person to be a member of the solicitors' profession, b) The name of the respondent solicitor be struck off the Roll of Solicitors, c) The respondent solicitor pay the whole of the costs of the Law Society of Ireland, including witness expenses, to be taxed by a taxing master of the High Court in default of agreement The tribunal directed that the matter be referred forward to the High Court and, on 13 July 2009, the President of the High Court ordered that: 1) The name of the respondent solicitor shall be struck from the Roll of Solicitors, 2) The Law Society do recover the costs of the proceedings herein and the costs of the proceedings before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal as against the respondent when taxed or ascertained In the matter of Ciaran R Callan, a solicitor formerly practising as Callan & Company, Solicitors, River Bank House, Dodder Park Drive, Dublin 14, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2008 [4316/DT10/08 and High Court record no 2009 no 74 SA] Law Society of Ireland (applicant) Ciaran R Callan (respondent solicitor) On 25 June 2008, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he: a) Failed to honour an undertaking given to the complainant contained in letter of , whereby he undertook to furnish certificate of title together with the title deeds to a named financial institution in respect of a named property, b) Failed to provide an adequate response to the same named financial institution's letters to him dated 25 October 2005 and 2 December 2005 respectively, and to the complainant's letters dated 20 October 2006, 8 November 2006, 8 December 2006 and 7 February 2007 respectively, c) Failed to honour an undertaking given to the Complaints and Client Relations Committee on 12 September 2007, whereby he undertook to send a written report to the Society by 3 October 2007 regarding the current position with regard to compliance with the undertakings previously given by him to the complainant, d) Failed to reply in a timely manner to the Society's correspondence, in particular to letters from the Society dated 21 March 2007, , and 12 June 2007 The tribunal directed that: a) The respondent solicitor is not a fit person to be a member of the solicitors' profession, b) The name of the respondent solicitor be struck off the Roll of Solicitors, c) The respondent solicitor pay the whole of the costs of the Law Society of Ireland, including witness expenses, to be taxed by a taxing master of the High Court in default of agreement The tribunal directed that the matter be referred forward to the High Court and, on 13 July 2009, the President of the High Court ordered that: 1) The name of the respondent solicitor shall be struck from the Roll of Solicitors, 2) The Law Society do recover the costs of the proceedings herein and the costs of the proceedings before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal as against the respondent when taxed or ascertained In the matter of Ciaran R Callan, a solicitor formerly practising as Callan & Company, Solicitors, River Bank House, Dodder Park Drive, Dublin 14, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2008 [4316/DT11/08 and High Court record no 2009 no 75 SA] Law Society of Ireland (applicant) Ciaran R Callan (respondent solicitor) On 25 June 2008, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he: a) Failed to honour an undertaking given to the complainant contained in a letter of 14 December 2005 whereby he undertook to furnish an amended scheme map and to deal with all Land Registry queries regarding the registration of named clients' title to a named property, b) Failed to provide an adequate response to the complainant's enquiries and, in particular, to the complainant's letters dated 18 April 2006, 1 February 2007, 15 February 2007, 26 March 2007 and 10 April 2007 respectively, c) Failed to honour an undertaking given to the Complaints and Client Relations Committee on 12 September 2007, whereby he undertook to send a written report to the Society by 3 October 2007 regarding the current position with regard to compliance with the undertakings previously given by him to the complainant The tribunal directed: a) That the respondent solicitor is not a fit person to be a member of the solicitors' profession, b) That the name of the respondent solicitor be struck off the Roll of Solicitors, c) That the respondent solicitor pay the whole of the costs of the Law Society of Ireland, including witness expenses, to be taxed by a taxing master of the High Court in default of agreement The tribunal directed that the matter be referred forward to the High Court and, on 13 July 2009, the President of the High Court ordered: 1) That the name of the respondent solicitor shall be struck from the Roll of Solicitors, 2) That the Law Society do recover the costs of the proceedings herein and the costs of the proceedings before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal as against the respondent when taxed or ascertained In the matter of Ciaran R Callan, a solicitor formerly practising as Callan & Company, Solicitors, River Bank House, Dodder Park Drive, Dublin 14, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2008 [4316/DT12/08 and High Court record no 2009 no 76 SA] Law Society of Ireland (applicant) Ciaran R Callan (respondent solicitor) On 25 June 2008, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he: a) Failed to honour an undertaking given to the complainant contained in letter of 1 July 2004, whereby he undertook to furnish an original deed of assurance dated 4 March 1998 duly registered, b) Failed to honour an undertaking given in a letter dated 1 July 2004 to the complainant, whereby he undertook to extract a grant of probate to the estate of a named client, deceased, and upon issue of same, execute a deed of assignment of the leasehold interest in the premises to a named client, c) Failed to honour an undertaking given in a letter dated 1 July 2004 to the complainant, whereby he undertook to furnish a vesting certificate duly registered in the Registry of Deeds, d) Failed to honour an undertaking given in a letter dated 1 July 2004 to the complainant, whereby he undertook to furnish a certificate of clearance from capital acquisitions tax in the estate of a named client, e) Failed to honour an undertaking given in a letter dated 1 July 2004 to the complainant, whereby he undertook to discharge any outstanding waste charges if necessary, f) Misrepresented the position to the complainant from in or around July 2004 by stating all was in order in respect of the extraction of the grant of probate to the estate of a named client, when in fact it was not, g) Misrepresented to the Society in a series of letters dated 5 September 2006, 15 December 2006, 30 January 2007 and 14 March 2007 that the matter of the complaint was being resolved and that an application in respect of de bonis non grant in the estate was being made, when it is apparent that no progress has been made on this issue, h) Failed to honour an undertaking given to the Complaints and Client Relations Committee meeting on 12 September 2007, whereby he undertook to send a written report to the Society regarding the current position with regard to compliance with the undertakings previously given by him to the complainant by 3 October 2007, i) Failed to provide an adequate response to the Society's enquiries during this investigation and, in particular, failed to respond properly or at all to the Society's letters of 9 October 2006, 18 October 2006, 26 October 2006, 22 March 2007, 20 April 2007, , , 8 June 2007, 18 June 2007, 19 July 2007, 29 August 2007, 13 September 2007, 9 October 2007 and 23 October 2007 respectively The tribunal directed: a) That the respondent solicitor is not a fit person to be a member of the solicitors' profession, b) That the name of the respondent solicitor be struck off the Roll of Solicitors, c) That the respondent solicitor pay the whole of the costs of the Law Society of Ireland, including witness expenses, to be taxed by a taxing master of the High Court in default of agreement The tribunal directed that the matter be referred forward to the High Court and, on 13 July 2009, the President of the High Court ordered: 1) That the name of the respondent solicitor shall be struck from the Roll of Solicitors, 2) That the Law Society do recover the costs of the proceedings herein and the costs of the proceedings before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal as against the respondent when taxed or ascertained In the matter of Ciaran R Callan, a solicitor formerly practising as Callan & Company, Solicitors, River Bank House, Dodder Park Drive, Dublin 14, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2008 [4316/DT13/08 and High Court record no 2009 no 77 SA] Law Society of Ireland (applicant) Ciaran R Callan (respondent solicitor) On 25 June 2008, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he: a) Failed to honour an undertaking given to the complainant contained in a letter of 29 September 2000, whereby he undertook to furnish a certificate of compliance relating to a transaction between his named client and the complainant's named clients in respect of a named property, b) Failed to provide an adequate response to the complainant's enquiries and, in particular, to the complainant's letters dated 19 February 2001, 12 March 2001, 25 April 2001, , 21 June 2001, 9 August 2001, 14 November 2001, 28 February 2002, 16 August 2002, 3 September 2002, 5 December 2002, 3 March 2005 and 16 August 2005 respectively, c) Persisted to misrepresent the position in relation to an undertaking by giving assurances to the complainant, which subsequently were not honoured, by letters dated 5 March 2002 and 21 August 2002, d) Failed to honour an undertaking given to the Complaints and Client Relations Committee on 12 September 2007, whereby he undertook to send a written report to the Society by 3 October 2007 regarding the current position in relation to compliance with the undertakings previously given by him to the complainant, e) Failed to provide any adequate response to the Society's enquiries during this investigation and, in particular, failed to respond properly or at all to the Society's letters of 21 November 2005, 8 June 2006, 30 June 2006, 20 July 2006, 17 August 2006, 31 August 2006, 19 October 2006, 3 November 2006, 13 November 2006, 24 April 2007, 30 April 2007, , 11 June 2007 respectively The tribunal directed: a) That the respondent solicitor is not a fit person to be a member of the solicitors' profession, b) That the name of the respondent solicitor be struck off the Roll of Solicitors, c) That the respondent solicitor pay the whole of the costs of the Law Society of Ireland, including witness expenses, to be taxed by a taxing master of the High Court in default of agreement The tribunal directed that the matter be referred forward to the High Court and, on 13 July 2009, the President of the High Court ordered: 1) That the name of the respondent solicitor shall be struck from the Roll of Solicitors, 2) That the Law Society do recover the costs of the proceedings herein and the costs of the proceedings before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal as against the respondent when taxed or ascertained In the matter of Ciaran R Callan, a solicitor formerly practising as Callan & Company, Solicitors, River Bank House, Dodder Park Drive, Dublin 14, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2008 [4316/DT79/08 and High Court record no 2009 no 78 SA] Law Society of Ireland (applicant) Ciaran R Callan (respondent solicitor) On 12 March 2009, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he: a) Admitted an estimated deficit of 1,900,000 to exist on the client account as at 12 November 2007, b) Failed to keep proper books of accounts in compliance with regulation 12(1) of the Solicitors' Accounts Regulations 2001, c) Failed to kept such proper books of account, in compliance with regulation 12(2) of the Solicitors' Accounts Regulations 2001, that would show the true financial position in relation to each client and the monetary transactions of the client, d) Failed to keep the minimum books of accounts, in breach of regulation 20 of the Solicitors' Accounts Regulations 2001, including failing to keep cash books showing all monies received and paid on behalf of each client, failing to keep proper office and client ledgers, failing to keep a proper record of all monies as lodged, failing to keep a record of all monies transferred between ledger accounts, failing to keep copies of each draft obtained in connection with any client matters, failing to keep copies of each bill of costs furnished to clients, e) Failed to keep the books of account written up to date in breach of the regulations, f) Transferred monies between the ledger accounts of different clients, in breach of regulation 9 of the Solicitors' Accounts Regulations 2001, so as to conceal the underlying deficit he created in the client accounts, g) Caused a deficit to arise on client accounts by paying monies to clients where funds were not held for those clients, in breach of regulation 7(2)(b), and caused debit balances to arise, h) Failed to prepare balancing statements on client accounts within two months of the balancing date, in breach of regulation 12(7), i) Failed to prepare balancing statement on office account within two months of the end of the accounting year, j) Transferred monies for outlays not yet disbursed to office account, in breach of regulation 7(1)(a)(ii), k) Failed to maintain proper books of account and caused fundamental errors to arise on the books of accounts, thus discrediting the reliability of the accounting records as at 30 April 2006 and earlier dates due to errors found on ledger cards as detailed in appendix 1 to the interim investigation report dated 15 March 2007, l) Overstatement of client balances in Leixlip office of 288,000 and overstatement of client balances in Ennis office of 11,000, m) Failed to stamp and register deeds on certain client files, despite being put in funds to carry out stamping and registration of deeds The respondent solicitor failed to stamp and register deeds on the following files: i) File C/16/04 for the sum of 8,400, (ii) File M/13/05 stamp duty due 43,410, (iii) File B/11/05 stamp duty due 31,125, (iv) File P/4/05 stamp duty due 223,200, (v) File Leixlip T/1/06 stamp duty due 39,600 The tribunal directed: a) That the respondent solicitor is not a fit and proper person to be a member of the solicitors' profession, b) That the name of the respondent solicitor be struck off the Roll of Solicitors, c) That the respondent solicitor pay the whole of the costs of the Law Society of Ireland, to be taxed by a taxing master of the High Court, in default of agreement The tribunal directed that the matter be referred forward to the High Court and, on 13 July 2009, the President of the High Court ordered: 1) That the name of the respondent solicitor shall be struck from the Roll of Solicitors, 2) That the Law Society do recover the costs of the proceedings herein and the costs of the proceedings before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal as against the respondent when taxed or ascertained In the matter of Colm Murphy, solicitor, practising as Colm Murphy & Company, Solicitors, at Market Street, Kenmare, Co Kerry, and as Murphys at 1 Chapel Street, Killarney, Co Kerry 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, 1954-2002 [5306/DT331] Law Society of Ireland (applicant) Colm Murphy (respondent solicitor) On 21 October 2003, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found that the respondent solicitor was guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he had: a) Failed, up to the date of the swearing of the society's affidavit on 29 April 2002 without reasonable excuse, to comply with a direction of the Registrar's Committee of the Law Society of Ireland made on pursuant to section 8(1) of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act, 1994 The tribunal ordered that the respondent solicitor: a) Do stand censured, advised and admonished b) Pay a sum of 4,000 to the compensation fund, and c) Comply with the direction of the Registrar's Committee of the Law Society of Ireland made on the pursuant to section 8(1) of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act, 1994In the matter of Colm Murphy, solicitor, practising as Colm Murphy & Company, Solicitors, at Market Street, Kenmare, Co Kerry and as Murphys at 1 Chapel Street, Killarney, Co Kerry, 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 1954-2002 [5306/DT446/04] Law Society of Ireland (applicant) Colm Murphy (respondent solicitor) On 4 November 2004, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that: a) He failed up to the date of the swearing of the Society's affidavit on 2 April 2004 to furnish documents, including title documents referred to in a letter of authority to the respondent solicitor from his former client dated 31 July 2003; b) He failed to reply to five letters from his former client's new solicitors between 1 August 2002 and requesting the said title documents; c) He failed to reply to correspondence from the Society The tribunal ordered that the respondent solicitor: a) Do stand censured, b) Pay the sum of 5,000 to the compensation fund, c) Pay the sum of 1,000 as restitution to his former client without prejudice to any legal right of his former client, d) Pay the whole of the costs of the Law Society of Ireland as taxed by a taxing master of the High Court in default of agreement, e) Hand over the entire file of his former client, the complainant, to the complainant's new solicitor within one month, without costs, on the basis that the complainant's new solicitor would take over the completion of the mortgage of the complainant In the matter of Colm Murphy (otherwise John C Murphy), a solicitor formerly practising as Colm Murphy & Company, Solicitors, at Market Street, Kenmare, Co Kerry, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2002 [5306/DT27/05] Law Society of Ireland (applicant) Colm Murphy (respondent solicitor) On 10 July 2007, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he: a) Failed to respond to numerous letters from the solicitor acting for the person entitled to administer an estate; b) Ignored multiple requests from the solicitor acting for the person entitled to administer the estate to submit the original grant of probate of the estate of the deceased to the Probate Office for cancellation; c) Caused the solicitor for the administrator to have to make an application to have the grant revoked; d) Through his conduct, caused delay and obstructed the solicitor in the administration of the estate of the deceased The tribunal made an order: a) Censuring the respondent solicitor, b) Directing the respondent solicitor to pay the sum of 10,000 to the compensation fund, c) Directing the respondent solicitor to pay the whole of the costs of the Law Society of Ireland, and witnesses' expenses, as taxed by a taxing master of the High Court in default of agreement In the matter of Colm Murphy (otherwise John Colm Murphy), a solicitor formerly practising as Colm Murphy & Company, Solicitors, at Market Street, Kenmare, Co Kerry, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2002 [5306/DT26/05] Law Society of Ireland (applicant) Colm Murphy (respondent solicitor) On 10 July 2007, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he: 1) Failed to comply in full with the directions of the Registrar's Committee made on 4 November 2003 up to the date of the swearing of the Society's affidavit (on 27 April 2005), 2) Failed to respond to correspondence from the Society, in particular, letters dated , , 17 June 2004, 1 July 2004 and 12 July 2004 The tribunal made an order: a) Censuring the respondent solicitor, b) Directing the respondent solicitor to pay a sum of 4,000 to the compensation fund, c) Directing the respondent solicitor to pay the whole of the costs of the Law Society of Ireland as taxed by a taxing master of the High Court in default of agreement In the matter of Cornelius J Noonan, a solicitor practising under the style and title of Cornelius J Noonan at Newcastlewest, Co Limerick, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2002 [1553/DT18/07] Law Society of Ireland (applicant) Cornelius J Noonan (respondent solicitor) On 10 April 2008, 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 March 2006 within six months of that date, in breach of regulation 21(1) of the Solicitors' Accounts Regulations 2001 (Statutory Instrument no 421 of 2001), in a timely manner or at all The tribunal ordered that the respondent solicitor: a) Do stand censured, b) Pay a sum of 500 to the compensation fund c) Pay the whole of the costs of the Law Society of Ireland as taxed by a taxing master of the High Court in default of agreement In the matter of Daire M Murphy, solicitor, of Lyons Kenny Solicitors, 57 Fitzwilliam Square, Dublin 2, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2002 [3874/DT42/07] Law Society of Ireland (applicant) Daire M Murphy (respondent solicitor) On , the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he: a) Up to the date of the swearing of the grounding affidavit of the Law Society of Ireland on , failed to comply in full with the undertaking given by him to the complainant's firm and failed to so do despite requests for compliance by the complainant, and b) Failed, in particular, up to the date of the swearing of the Society's grounding affidavit, to furnish deeds of release of mortgage in respect of the mortgages in favour of ICC Bank (now Bank of Scotland), as required by the terms of the said undertaking The tribunal ordered that the respondent solicitor: a) Do stand censured, b) Pay a sum of 7,500 to the compensation fund, c) Pay the whole of the costs of the Law Society of Ireland, and witnesses' expenses, as taxed by a taxing master of the High Court, in default of agreement In the matter of Damian P Moynihan and Sean A Mulvihill, solicitors, formerly carrying on practice under the style and title of Moynihan Mulvihill & Co at 6 Cornmarket Street, Cork, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts, 1954 to 2002 [S8171/S8208/DT] Law Society of Ireland (applicant) Damian P Moynihan (first respondent solicitor) Sean A Mulvihill (second respondent solicitor) Reference to 'regulation' is a reference to the Solicitors' Accounts Regulations (no 2) of 1984, statutory instrument no 304 of 1984 On 12 July 2004, the president of the High Court made an order that the name of the first respondent solicitor, Damian P Moynihan, be struck off the roll of solicitors The president had before him the report of the Disciplinary Tribunal dated in which the tribunal found that the first-named respondent had been guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he had: i) Failed to maintain proper books of account in breach of regulation 10 so that there was uncertainty as to the true position in respect of client funds ii) Failed to enter full details, and in some cases failed to enter any details at all, on cheque stubs and lodgment stubs in breach of regulation 19(1)(c) iii) Failed to enter virtually any information in the books of account as to the sources of money received and details of cheque payees in breach of regulation 19(1)(c) iv) Created debit balances on the client account in breach of regulation 7 v) Allowed a deficit to arise in client monies which stood at 31,805 as at 8 October 2001 and which subsequently rose to 56,662 in breach of regulation 7 vi) Failed to disclose the misappropriation of client monies of 7,500 vii) Misled the reporting accountant by leading him to believe that a sum of 7,500 introduced into the client account in 2001 was to clear a deficit arising in the financial practice year end 31 December 2000 when in fact it related to the misappropriation of monies by Mr Moynihan in July 2001 to purchase a car viii) Misled the Compensation Fund Committee on 6 December 2001, representing to the committee that the sum of 7,500 had been introduced into the client account to clear a deficit arising in the financial practice year end 31 December 2000 when in fact it related to the misappropriation of monies by Mr Moynihan in July 2001 to purchase a car ix) Advanced approximately 10,000 of clients' monies to a client when these monies did not stand to the credit of that client and therefore advanced to him other client monies in breach of regulation 7 x) Concealed from the society and the reporting accountant the misappropriation of 7,500 by Mr Moynihan xi) Failed to file the accountant's report covering the firm's financial year ended 31 December 2000 within six months of the accounting date in breach of regulation 21(1) The tribunal further found that there had been misconduct on the part of the first-named respondent solicitor, Damian P Moynihan, in that he: a) Misappropriated 7,500, being stamp duty and outlay received from a client b) Falsified the books of account to conceal his misappropriation of client monies c) When questioned about the matter, untruthfully stated that the deed had been stamped d) Falsely stated to the Compensation Fund Committee at its meeting on 4 October 2001 that 15,000 had been introduced into the client account to clear the deficit when no such monies, or any monies, had been paid into the client account e) Untruthfully advised the society's accountant that an army deafness case had been settled for 47,500 and that the settlement cheque was awaited when the case had not in fact been settled f) Advanced 10,615 and 15,357, totalling 25,972, to the client, the claimant in the army deafness case referred to at (e), when there were no monies to the credit of the client and thereby advanced other clients' monies to him g) Forged his partner's name on the cheque for 15,357 advanced to the client in the army deafness case referred to at (f) above h) Falsely represented to the credit union of the client referred to at (e) and (f) above in a letter of undertaking that the client's case had been settled for 47,500 i) Caused his client's credit union to advance 20,000 on foot of the false representation referred to at (g) above j) Allowed a further undertaking to be given to the said credit union by Mr Mulvihill causing the said credit union to advance a further 12,000 k) Falsely represented to the practice's reporting accountant that a loan of 7,500 was lodged to the client account to clear a deficit identified by the reporting accountant for the practice year ended 31 December 2000 l) Falsely represented to the society that he had obtained a loan of 7,500 which was to be paid into the client account to rectify the deficit in this amount caused by his own misappropriation m) Forged and uttered a document purporting to be an order of the District Court contrary to sections 3 and 6 of the Forgery Act 1913 On 22 April 2004, the Disciplinary Tribunal found the second-named respondent solicitor, Sean A Mulvihill, guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he: a) Failed to maintain proper books of account in breach of regulation 10, so that there was uncertainty as to the true position in respect of client funds b) Failed to enter full details, and in some cases failed to enter any details at all, on cheque stubs and lodgment stubs in breach of regulation 19(1)(c) c) Failed to enter virtually any information in the books of account as to the sources of money received and details of cheque payees in breach of regulation 19(1)(c) d) Created debit balances in breach of regulation 7 e) Allowed a deficit to arise in client monies which stood at 31,805 as at 8 October 2001 and which subsequently rose to 56,662 in breach of regulation 7 f) Failed to disclose the misappropriation of client monies by the first-named respondent solicitor of 7,500 g) Advanced approximately 10,000 of clients' monies to a client when these monies did not stand to the credit of that client and therefore advanced to him other client monies in breach of regulation 7 h) Failed to file an accountant's report covering the firm's financial year ended 31 December 2000 within six months of the accounting date in breach of regulation 21(1) The tribunal made an order in respect of the second-named solicitor as follows: a) Censuring the respondent solicitor b) Directing the respondent solicitor to pay a sum of 5,000 to the compensation fund c) Pay the whole of the costs of the Law Society of Ireland as taxed by a taxing master In the matter of Daniel J Shields, a solicitor practising under the style and title of VP Shields & Sons Solicitors at Westbridge, Loughrea, Co Galway, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2002 [5713/DT473/04] Law Society of Ireland (applicant) Daniel J Shields (respondent solicitor) On 16 January 2007, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he failed to comply with his undertakings given to the complainant's solicitors on 1 and 3 June 1993 in a timely manner The tribunal ordered that the respondent solicitor: a) Stand admonished, b) Pay the whole of the costs of the Law Society of Ireland as taxed by a taxing master of the High Court in default of agreement The High Court, 2004, no 164 SA In the matter of Daniel P Hurley, solicitor, practising as DP Hurley & Company, Solicitors, at 5 Mary Street, Galway and as John NM Lavelle at The Sound, Westport, Co Mayo, 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, 1954-2002 [6611/DT445/04] Law Society of Ireland (applicant) Daniel P Hurley (respondent solicitor) On 12 October 2004, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found that the respondent solicitor was guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in respect of the following complaints in that he: a) Allowed a deficit to arise in his client account, quantified at 297,436 as of 30 September 2000 b) Allowed 231,943 of the deficit to arise when monies were drawn from a deposit received on behalf of a client in circumstances where the deposit should have been left intact pending execution of the contract c) Made a false declaration of the total consideration in relation to a conveyancing transaction in a 'particulars delivered' document required by the Revenue Commissioners for the purposes of ascertaining stamp duty liability as set out in paragraph 22 of the investigation report dated 22 January 2001, thereby defrauding the Revenue of the correct amount of the stamp duty payable d) Disclosed that he was involved in obtaining 80,000 cash in 20 notes and was present when the 80,000 was paid under the counter as part of the purchase price of a property being purchased by a named company as set out in paragraph 22 of the investigation report, thereby defrauding the Revenue e) Disclosed that he was involved in obtaining 20,000 in cash and was present when the 20,000 was paid to the spouse of the vendor of a property being purchased by a named company as set out in paragraph 22 of the investigation report, thereby defrauding the Revenue f) Was a one-third shareholder of a named company in respect of which he was also the company solicitor The solicitor on multiple occasions used other clients' monies drawn from the client account for the benefit of the company concerned, causing debit balances to arise in respect of the company in the clients' ledger The debit balance in the client ledger account in respect of the company amounted to 599,13142 as of 30 September 2000 g) Drew other clients' monies out of the client account, which he utilised for his holiday home h) On a number of occasions, as set out in the investigation report, misappropriated clients' monies on or about times when office account payments were dishonoured by his bank i) On three occasions paid wages out of the client account, which accounted for 1,045 of the deficit as of 30 September 2000 j) Partly utilised clients' funds to discharge a payment of 4,86874 arising out of proceedings issued against him for unpaid VAT and PAYE, as set out in paragraph 221 of the investigation report k) Misapplied approximately 27,000 of clients' monies between May and October 2000 when he created a debit balance of 27,76064 in total on a named client's ledger account l) Dissipated stakeholders' funds held on behalf of a named company amounting to 234,000, leaving only 2,05658, which was the main component of the deficit as at 30 September 2000 m) Borrowed clients' money belonging to a named company without written authorisation to do so The tribunal reported to the High Court and recommended that: a) The respondent solicitor not be permitted to practise as a sole practitioner, that he be permitted only to practise as an assistant solicitor under the direct control and supervision of another solicitor of at least ten years' standing to be approved in advance by the Law Society b) The respondent solicitor pay the whole of the costs of the Law Society of Ireland to be taxed in default of agreement On 13 December 2004, the president of the High Court ordered that the respondent solicitor be prohibited from practising as a sole practitioner and that he be permitted only to practise as an assistant solicitor under the direct control and supervision of another solicitor of at least ten years' standing to be approved in advance by the Law Society and that the respondent solicitor do pay to the applicant its costs of and incident to the application and order and also the costs of the proceedings before the disciplinary tribunal, such costs to be taxed in default of agreement In the matter of David C Howard, a solicitor carrying on practice under the style and title of Howard & Company, Solicitors, at 2nd Floor, 15 South Mall Cork, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2002 [5996/DT41/05] Law Society of Ireland (applicant) David C Howard (respondent solicitor) On , the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found that the respondent solicitor was guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he had: a) Failed to file his accountant's report for the year ended 31 August 2004 with the Society in a timely manner, in breach of regulation 21(1) of the Solicitors' Accounts Regulations 2001; b) Through his conduct, showed disregard for his statutory obligations to comply with the regulations and showed disregard for the Society's statutory obligation to monitor compliance with the Solicitors' Accounts Regulations for the protection of the clients and the public The tribunal ordered that the respondent solicitor: a) Do stand censured, b) Pay the whole of the costs of the Law Society of Ireland as taxed by a taxing master of the High Court in default of agreement In the matter of Ian Quentin Crivon and David Frawley, solicitors practising under the style and title of O'Hagan Ward & Company, Solicitors, 31/33 The Triangle, Ranelagh, Dublin 6, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2002 [8308-2196/DT73/07] Law Society of Ireland (applicant) Ian Quentin Crivon (first-named respondent solicitor) David Frawley (second-named respondent solicitor) On , the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the first-named respondent solicitor and the second-named respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in their practice as solicitors in that they failed to ensure that there was furnished to the Society an accountant's report for the year ended 31 October 2006 within six months of that date, in breach of regulation 21(1) of the Solicitors' Accounts Regulations 2001 (SI no 421 of 2001) in a timely manner or at all The tribunal ordered that: a) The first-named respondent solicitor do stand censured, b) The second-named respondent solicitor do stand advised and admonished, c) The first-named respondent solicitor pay a sum of 1,500 to the compensation fund, d) The second-named respondent solicitor pay a sum of 1,000 to the compensation fund, e) The first-named respondent solicitor and the second-named respondent solicitor pay the whole of the costs of the Law Society of Ireland as taxed by a taxing master of the High Court in default of agreement In the matter of David O'Shea, a solicitor formerly practising in the firm of O'Donovan Solicitors, 73 Capel Street, Dublin 1, 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 1954-2002 [6743/DT64/08] Law Society of Ireland (applicant) David O'Shea (respondent solicitor) On 27 November 2008, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he: 1) Failed to reply adequately to the Society's correspondence and, in particular, letters dated 4 October 2007, 19 October 2007, 9 November 2007, 18 December 2007, 24 January 2008, 7 March 2008, 19 March 2008 and 9 April 2008, 2) Failed to attend the Complaints and Client Relations Committee meeting on 16 April 2008, despite being directed to do so by the committee at its meeting of 4 March 2008 and despite having undertaken to do so in his letter of 29 February 2008 The tribunal ordered that the respondent solicitor: Do stand censured, Pay a sum of 1,000 to the compensation fund and that the respondent solicitor be given 12 months within which to pay the said sum of 1,000, Pay the whole of the costs of the Law Society of Ireland, as taxed by a taxing master of the High Court, in default of agreement, but such costs to be limited to the costs incurred in respect of charges (1) and (2) above In the matter of David R Burke, solicitor, practising under the style and title of David R Burke & Company at 24 Main Street, Dungarvan, Co Waterford, 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 to 2002 [6151/DT410] Law Society of Ireland (applicant) David R Burke (respondent solicitor) On 17 June 2004, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found that the respondent solicitor was guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he failed to file his accountant's report for the year ended 30 June 2002, in breach of regulation 21(1) of the Solicitors' Accounts Regulations 2001 (SI no 421 of 2001), in a timely manner or at all The tribunal ordered that the respondent solicitor: a) Do stand advised b) Pay a sum of 500 to the compensation fund c) Pay the whole of the costs of the Law Society of Ireland as taxed by a taxing master of the High Court in default of agreement In the matter of Declan Mc Court, solicitor, practising as Mc Court & Company at Apollo's Wings, Defenders' Row, Dundalk, Co Louth, 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 1954-2002 [S6951/DT/03/05] Law Society of Ireland (applicant) Declan Mc Court (respondent solicitor) On 12 January 2006, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct as follows, in that he had: a) Failed up to the date of the swearing of the affidavit of the applicant (on 13 January 2005) to comply with an undertaking dated 3 January 2001 to a named building society in relation to a named property, b) Failed without reasonable cause to comply with a notice served on him pursuant to section 10 of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act 1994 within the time specified The tribunal ordered that the respondent solicitor: a) Do stand censured, b) Pay a sum of 10,000 to the compensation fund, c) Pay the whole of the costs of the Law Society of Ireland and of any person appearing before the tribunal, as taxed by a taxing master of the High Court in default of agreement In the matter of Deirdre Fahy, a solicitor practising as D Fahy & Associates, Solicitors, at 28/29 Castle Yard, Dalkey, Co Dublin, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2008 [5471/DT119/09] Law Society of Ireland (applicant) Deirdre Fahy (respondent solicitor) On 27 April 2010, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in her practice as a solicitor in that she: a) Failed to ensure that there was furnished to the Society an accountant's report for the year ended 31 December 2008 within six months of that date, in breach of regulation 21(1) of the Solicitors' Accounts Regulations 2001 (SI no 421 of 2001), having only filed same with the Society on 15 October 2009, b) Through her conduct, showed disregard for her statutory obligation to comply with the Solicitors' Accounts Regulations and showed disregard for the Society's statutory obligation to monitor compliance with the Solicitors' Accounts Regulations for the protection of clients and the public The tribunal ordered that the respondent solicitor: a) Do stand admonished and advised, b) Pay a sum of 2,000 in respect of complaint (a) above and 1,000 in respect of complaint (b) above, totalling 3,000, to the compensation fund, c) Pay the whole of the costs of the Law Society of Ireland, to be taxed by a taxing master of the High Court, in default of agreement In the matter of Deirdre Nic Fhionnlaoich, a solicitor practising as Mac Ginley Solicitors, 3 Inns Quay, Chancery Place, Dublin 7, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2002 [2828/DT29/07] Law Society of Ireland (applicant) Deirdre Nic Fhionnlaoich (respondent solicitor) On 17 January 2008, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in her practice as a solicitor in that she had: a) Failed to reply to letters from her former clients' new solicitor requesting the transfer of her former clients' files with their authority to their new solicitor,b) Failed to furnish a bill of costs to her former clients' new solicitor, despite being requested to do so by letter dated 30 August 2005, c) Sought an undertaking that the costs of the legal costs accountant she proposed to engage to prepare her own bill of costs would be discharged by her former clients, when in fact this was her liability and not theirs, d) Represented to the Society in a letter to the Society, dated 13 April 2006, that she was sending the files to her former clients' new solicitor that day, but did not in fact forward the files, e) Subsequently failed to hand over the files within ten days, as directed by the committee on 26 April 2006 The tribunal ordered that the respondent solicitor: a) Do stand advised and admonished, b) Pay 50% of the costs of the Law Society of Ireland, as taxed by a taxing master of the High Court, in default of agreement In the matter of Derek Stewart, solicitor, carrying on practice under the style and title of Stewart & Company, Solicitors, at 12 Parliament Street, Temple Bar, Dublin 2, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts,1954 to 1994 [4498/DT337] Law Society of Ireland (applicant) Derek Stewart (respondent solicitor) On 21 October 2003, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found that the respondent solicitor was guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he had: a) Failed to file an accountant's report for the year ended 28 February 2001 in a timely manner or at all, in breach of regulation 21(1) of the Solicitors' Accounts Regulations no 2 of 1984 b) Failed to comply with a written undertaking given to the society on 31 January 2002 to complete and lodge his accountant's report for the year ended 28 February 2001 and 28 February 2002 on or before 31 March 2002 The tribunal ordered that the respondent solicitor: a) Do stand censured b) Pay the sum of 7,500 to the compensation fund c) Pay the whole of the costs of the Law Society of Ireland to be taxed by a taxing master of the High Court in default of agreement In the matter of Derek Stewart, solicitor, practising under the style and title of Stewart & Company at 12 Parliament Street, Temple Bar, Dublin 2, and in the matter of an application by the Law Society of Ireland to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts, 1954 to 2002 [4498/DT407] Law Society of Ireland (applicant) Derek Stewart (respondent solicitor) On 29 April 2004, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found that the respondent solicitor was guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he had: a) Failed to comply in a timely manner with the letter of undertaking dated 5 July 2002 and in particular failed to furnish the complainant solicitors in a timely manner with a memorial to enable them to register the deed of release, the subject matter of the undertaking, in the registry of deeds b) Failed to attend at the Registrar's Committee meeting on 17 December 2002 despite being requested to do so c) Failed to respond to the society's correspondence and in particular the society's letters of 11 October 2002, 25 October 2002, 6 November 2002, 5 December 2002, 19 December 2002, 25 March 2003, 7 April 2003 and The tribunal ordered that the respondent solicitor: a) Do stand admonished b) Pay a sum of 500 to the compensation fund within 12 months from the date of the tribunal's order c) Pay a sum of 750 (as agreed by the parties) towards the costs of the Law Society of Ireland within 12 months of the date of the tribunal's order and, if sought, a further 250 towards the witness expenses of the complainant solicitor In the matter of Derek Stewart, solicitor, practising under the style and title of Stewart & Company at 12 Parliament Street, Temple Bar, Dublin 2, and in the matter of an application by the Law Society of Ireland to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts, 1954 to 2002 [4498/DT419] Law Society of Ireland (applicant) Derek Stewart (respondent solicitor) On 29 April 2004, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found that the respondent solicitor was guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he had: a) Failed to respond to the society's correspondence in a timely manner or at all b) Failed to attend at the Registrar's Committee meeting on despite being requested to do so c) Failed to comply with an undertaking given to the complainant solicitor on in a timely manner and in particular the following matters: (i) the furnishing of a certified copy of the head lease, (ii) the furnishing of the landlord's consent to the assignment and (iii) the furnishing of the deed of assignment duly signed and witnessed The tribunal ordered that the respondent solicitor: a) Do stand admonished b) Pay a sum of 500 to the compensation fund within six months from the date of this order c) Pay a contribution of 750 (as agreed by the parties) towards the costs of the Law Society of Ireland within six months from the date of this order and a contribution of 250 towards the witness expenses of the complainant solicitor In the matter of Derek Stewart, a solicitor practising as Stewart & Co at 12 Parliament Street, Temple Bar, Dublin 2, and in the matter of an application by the Law Society of Ireland to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954 to 2002 [4498/DT31/05] Law Society of Ireland (applicant) Derek Stewart (respondent solicitor) On 3 November 2005, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he had failed to file an accountant's report for the year ended 29 February 2004 with the society in a timely manner or at all, in breach of regulation 21(1) of the Solicitors' Accounts Regulations 2001, statutory instrument no 421 of 2001, having only filed same on The tribunal ordered that the respondent solicitor: a) Do stand censured, b) Pay a sum of 250 to the compensation Fund, c) Pay a contribution of 500 to the Law Society of Ireland in respect of its costs In the matter of Desmond O'Brien, solicitor, Cregg, Lahinch, Co Clare, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954 to 2008 [4952/DT58/09 and High Court record 2010 no 44SA) Law Society of Ireland (applicant) Desmond O'Brien (respondent solicitor) On 27 April 2010, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he: a) In April 2006, misappropriated 31,900 of clients' monies to purchase a motor car b) In April 2006, misappropriated 6,000 of clients' monies by means of a client account cheque payable to Bank of Ireland, which he used to purchase a bank draft payable to his wife, which was then lodged in their joint account in Bank of Ireland c) In May 2005, misappropriated 9,500 of clients' money by means of a client account cheque payable to Bank of Ireland, which he used to purchase a bank draft payable to his wife, which was then lodged in their joint account in Bank of Ireland d) In February 2006, misappropriated 5,200 of clients' money, which he then put into his credit card account e) In September 2006, misappropriated 21,500 of clients' money, which, according to the bank, was lodged to an account in his own name in AIB f) Caused or allowed a possible underpayment of CGT in the case of a named client arising from an alteration in the computation by the solicitor g) Deducted costs from the estate of a named deceased, in breach of the regulations, without issuing a bill of costs, and the amount involved was 2,178 h) In February 2006, misappropriated 3,224 of clients' money, which he used to pay into his accounts in GE Money, Bank of Ireland mortgages, and into a Bank of Ireland loan account i) Deprived the elderly beneficiary of the estate of a named deceased of her money for the three years up to when he ceased practice, having misappropriated some of the estate money for his own personal benefit j) In February 2006, misappropriated 3,000 of clients' money, with which he purchased an international bank draft payable to Bank Nationale de Paris and caused the cheque to be debited to the clients' ledger account of a named client, described as 'Bank of Ireland inheritance tax' k) On 3 July 2006, issued a client account cheque for 14,000 payable to the Revenue Commissioners, which was used with two other client account cheques to pay the stamp duty and penalty on a deed relating to a purchase by a named client that was completed in July 2004 He caused the cheque to be debited to the aforementioned named client's ledger account l) Paid the second part of the stamp duty and penalty on a named client's deed with a client account cheque for 3,684, which he caused to be debited to the client's ledger account of another named client and which he caused to be described in the books of account as 'Revenue Commissioners CGT' m) The third part of the stamp duty and penalty on a named client's deed he paid with an AIB bank draft for 11,141, which, more than 18 months earlier, on 16 January 2005, the solicitor had drawn from a named client's client account by means of a client account cheque payable to 'Allied Irish Banks for Revenue' and which the solicitor caused to be debited to the clients' ledger account of a named client n) In February 2006, misappropriated 663 of clients' money to pay his electricity bill o) In February 2006, misappropriated 417 of client's money to pay his wife's car insurance p) In February 2006, paid 665 to a named plant hire company and 28322 to a named refuse and recycling company These payments were debited to the client ledger account of a named deceased and there was nothing in that client's file to support the payments q) On 17 November 2006, misappropriated 700 of clients' money to pay his gas bill r) In February 2007, misappropriated clients' money of 2,72750 to pay his family's VHI bill The 2,72750 was misappropriated as part of a larger amount of clients' money, the balance of which was misappropriated as part of teeming and lading s) Misappropriated 4,250 of client's money, which he lodged into his credit card account in March 2008 t) In March 2008, misappropriated 2,000 of clients' money, which he paid into a mortgage account in Bank of Ireland held in his own and his wife's names u) In February 2008, misappropriated 5,000 of clients' money, which he lodged to his credit card account v) In July 2006, misappropriated 4,800 of clients' money, which he lodged to his credit card account w) In September 2005, misappropriated 5,000 of clients' money, which he lodged to his credit card account x) On 17 August 2005, issued a client account cheque for 15,700 payable to a named client The returned paid cheque shows that it was endorsed on the back with the name of a person bearing the same surname as the named client The solicitor caused the cheque to be wrongly debited to the estate account in the clients' ledger of a named client, described in the books as a named deceased's bequest, although there was no such beneficiary in that estate The books of account, however, show that the solicitor acted for the first-named client in the estate of a named deceased y) On 22 September 2006, misappropriated 13,250 of clients' money, which he used to make a payment of 6,000 to a bank in France, 3,500 into his credit card account, and the balance of 3,750 was lodged into a joint account in his and his wife's name z) Caused the bookkeeper/accountant to make false and misleading entries in the books of account The tribunal recommended that the matter be sent forward to the President of the High Court and, on 14 June 2010, the President of the High Court made an order that the name of the respondent solicitor shall be struck from the Roll of Solicitors and that the Law Society do recover the costs of the proceedings before the High Court and the costs of the proceedings before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal as against the respondent when taxed or ascertained In the matter of Eamon P Comiskey, a solicitor formerly practising as principal of Eamon Comiskey & Company, Solicitors, at Ballycarnan, Portlaoise, Co Laois, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2008 [7337/DT84/09] Law Society of Ireland (applicant) Eamon P Comiskey (respondent solicitor) On 24 November 2009, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he: a) Failed to comply with an undertaking dated 23 July 2007 to discharge and to furnish discharges in respect of a named bank covering the property purchased by the named complainant's client and, in particular, a named premises in Co Offaly in a timely manner or at all, b) Failed to reply to the Society's correspondence, and in particular to the Society's letters of 12 February 2009, 18 March 2009 and 31 March 2009 in a timely manner or at all, c) Failed to attend at the meetings of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee on and 24 June 2009, despite being required to do so, d) Failed to attend at a meeting of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee on 30 July 2009, despite being directed to so attend by order of the High Court made on 13 July 2009 The tribunal ordered that the respondent solicitor do stand censured The tribunal made no order in respect of costs In the matter of Edward Farrell, a solicitor of Edward Farrell & Company, Solicitors, Irishtown, Athlone, Co Westmeath, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2002 [4555/DT475/04] Law Society of Ireland (applicant) Edward Farrell (respondent solicitor) On 31 January 2006, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he had failed to file his accountant's report for the year ended 30 June 2003, in breach of regulation 21(1) of the Solicitors' Accounts Regulations 2001 (SI no 421 of 2001), in a timely manner The tribunal ordered that the respondent solicitor: a) Pay a sum of 500 to the compensation fund, b) Pay a contribution of 500 towards the costs of the Law Society of Ireland In the matter of Elizabeth Cazabon, a solicitor practising as Cazabon Solicitors, Atlanta House, Wolfe Tone Bridge, Galway, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2008 [8142/DT12/09] Law Society of Ireland (applicant) Elizabeth Cazabon (respondent solicitor) On 6 October 2009, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in her practice as a solicitor in that she: a) Failed to ensure that there was furnished to the Society an accountant's report for the year ended 31 March 2008 within six months of that date, in breach of regulation 21(1) of the Solicitors' Accounts Regulations 2001 (statutory instrument no 421 of 2001) in a timely manner or at all, b) Through her conduct, showed a disregard for her statutory obligations to comply with the Solicitors' Accounts Regulations and showed disregard for the Society's statutory obligation to monitor compliance with the Solicitors' Accounts Regulations for the protection of clients and the public The tribunal ordered that the respondent solicitor: a) Do stand censured, b) Pay a sum of 1,500 to the compensation fund, c) Pay the whole of the costs of the Law Society of Ireland as taxed by a taxing master of the High Court in default of agreement In the matter of Elizabeth Farquharson, solicitor, and William A Stokes, solicitor, carrying on practice under the style and title of Herman Good & Company, Solicitors, at 22/23 Dawson Street, Dublin 2, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2002 [3188-5032/DT83/07] Law Society of Ireland (applicant) Elizabeth Farquharson and William A Stokes (respondent solicitors) On 28 October 2008, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the first-named respondent solicitor and the second-named respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in their practices as solicitors in that they: a) Failed to ensure that there was furnished to the Society an accountant's report for the year ended 31 December 2006 within six months of that date, in breach of regulation 21(1) of the Solicitors' Accounts Regulations 2001, SI no 421 of 2001, in a timely manner, b) Through their conduct, showed disregard for their statutory obligations to comply with the Solicitors' Accounts Regulations and showed disregard for the Society's statutory obligation to monitor compliance with the Solicitors' Accounts Regulations for the protection of clients and the public The tribunal ordered that the first-named respondent solicitor and the second-named respondent solicitor: a) Do stand censured, b) Jointly and severally pay a sum of 1,000 to the compensation fund, c) Jointly and severally pay the whole of the costs of the Law Society of Ireland, as taxed by a taxing master of the High Court in default of agreement In the matter of Elizabeth Mc Grath, a solicitor practising as O'Connell Mc Grath Solicitors, 5 Athlunkard Street, Limerick, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2008 [11016/DT115/09] Law Society of Ireland (applicant) Elizabeth Mc Grath (respondent solicitor) On 27 April 2010, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in her practice as a solicitor, in that she failed to ensure that there was furnished to the Society an accountant's report for the year ended 31 December 2008 within six months of that date, in breach of regulation 21(1) of the Solicitors' Accounts Regulations 2001 (SI no 421 of 2001) The tribunal ordered that the respondent solicitor: a) Do stand admonished and advised, b) Pay a sum of 1,000 to the compensation fund, c) Pay the whole of the costs of the Law Society of Ireland, to be taxed by a taxing master of the High Court, in default of agreement In the matter of Eoin Joseph Lysaght, solicitor, of 42 Tonlegee Road, Coolock, Dublin 5, and in the matter of an application by a client of the said Eoin Lysaght to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts, 1954-2002 [4617/DT455/04] On 24 February 2005, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he had failed to provide details of the reasons for the nonprogress of his client's personal injury case The tribunal ordered that the respondent solicitor: a) Do stand censured b) Pay a sum of 1,000 to the compensation fund In the matter of Fergal T Kelly, solicitor, of Harmony Hill, Sligo, Co Sligo, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2002 [9451/DT21/08 and High Court record no 2009 no 37 SA] Law Society of Ireland (applicant) Fergal T Kelly (respondent solicitor) On 13 January 2009, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that: a) He caused a deficit in client account of 3,044 at 30 September 2006, b) He caused debit balances of 21,61542 in the clients' ledgers, c) In the course of acting for a named client in a purchase of property, interest and penalty on the stamp duty of 7,630 were avoided because he 'updated' the deed to a date close to when the deed was submitted to the Revenue, d) In the course of acting for a named client in a purchase of property, interest and penalty on the stamp duty of 86,850 were avoided because he 'updated' the deed to a date close to when the deed was submitted to the Revenue, e) In the course of acting for named clients in a purchase of property, interest and penalty on the stamp duty of 9,880 were avoided because he 'updated' the deed to a date close to when the deed was submitted to the Revenue, f) In the course of acting for the same named clients in a purchase of another property, interest and penalty on the stamp duty of 8,19879 were avoided because he 'updated' the lease to a date close to when the lease was submitted to the Revenue, g) In the course of acting for named clients in a purchase of a property, interest and penalty on the stamp duty of 14,300 were avoided because he 'updated' the lease to a date close to when the lease was being submitted to the Revenue, h) In the course of acting for a named client (being the same client as referred to in paragraph (d)) in a purchase of another property, interest and penalty on the stamp duty of 72,000 were avoided because he 'updated' the deed to a date close to when the deed was submitted to the Revenue, i) In the course of acting for a named client in a purchase of a property, interest and penalty on stamp duty of 33,000 were avoided because he 'updated' the deed to a date close to when the deed was submitted to the Revenue, j) In the course of acting for the same named client in a purchase of another property, interest and penalty on the stamp duty of 5,100 were avoided because he 'updated' the deed to a date close to when the deed was submitted to the Revenue, k) In the course of acting for named clients in a purchase of a property, interest and penalty on the stamp duty of 4,350 were avoided because he 'updated' the deed to a date close to when the deed was submitted to the Revenue, l) In the course of acting for a named client (being the same client referred to in paragraphs (d) and (h)) in a purchase of another property, interest and penalty on the stamp duty of 18,000 were avoided because he 'updated' the deed to a date close to when the deed was submitted to the Revenue, m) In the course of acting for named clients in a purchase of a property, interest and penalty on the stamp duty of 2,760 were avoided because he 'updated' the deed to a date close to when the deed was submitted to the Revenue, n) In the course of acting for named clients in a purchase of a property, interest and penalty on the stamp duty of 5,555 were avoided because he 'updated' the deed to a date close to when the deed was submitted to the Revenue, o) He delayed in completing stamping and registration, p) He provided incorrect information to the Revenue in a letter dated 6 June 2006, while in the course of acting for a named client (being the same client referred to in paragraph (j)), when he stated that the deed of transfer was sent to the Revenue on 21 April 2006, q) He provided incorrect information to a named bank when he informed the bank that 12 contracts had been executed in relation to a development being carried out by a client who is a builder, r) During the investigation, he gave incorrect information to the investigating accountant when he stated that the transfer to his named clients was exempt from stamp duty because the clients were first-time buyers, and also when he stated that he had no unstamped deeds that should have been stamped, s) He failed to keep copies of some stamped deeds, t) Fees were debited to the office ledger when the costs were received instead of when the bills were issued The tribunal recommended that the respondent solicitor: a) Not be permitted to practise as a sole practitioner; that he be permitted only to practise as a solicitor under the direct control and supervision of another solicitor of at least ten years' standing, to be approved in advance by the Law Society, b) Pay the whole of the costs of the Law Society of Ireland, to be taxed by a taxing master of the High Court, in default of agreement The tribunal directed that the matter be referred forward to the High Court and, on 27 April 2009 and 6 July 2009, the President of the High Court ordered that: 1) The respondent solicitor should not be permitted to practise as a sole practitioner; that he be permitted only to practise as a solicitor under the direct control and supervision of another solicitor of at least ten years' standing, to be approved in advance by the Law Society of Ireland, 2) The Law Society do recover the costs of the proceedings herein and before the said tribunal as against the respondent when taxed or ascertained In the matter of Francis J Lowney, solicitor, carrying on practice in the firm of Doyle Lowney & Company Solicitors at Westgate, Wexford, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts, 1954 to 1994 [2969/DT344] Law Society of Ireland (applicant) Francis J Lowney (respondent solicitor) On 4 March 2003, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found that the respondent solicitor was guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he had: a) Failed to transmit his file to the society in accordance with the society's recommendations and his agreement to do so in a timely manner or at all b) Failed to respond to the society's correspondence in the investigation of this complaint in a timely manner or at all, and in particular failed to reply to the following letters dated 4 December 2000, 18 December 2000, 9 February 2001, 20 March 2001, 20 April 2001, , , 29 June 2001, 21 August 2001, 5 September 2001, 18 September 2001, 11 October 2001, 9 November 2001, 23 November 2001, 6 December 2001, 10 January 2002, 23 January 2002, 7 February 2002, 22 March 2002 c) Failed to appear at the Registrar's Committee meeting on 19 March 2002 despite being requested to do so The tribunal ordered that the respondent solicitor: a) Do pay the sum of 500 in respect of each finding of misconduct b) Pay the whole of the costs of the Law Society of Ireland to be taxed by the taxing master of the High Court in default of agreement In the matter of Francis Mc Ardle, a solicitor practising as Mc Ardle & Associates at 10 Roden Place, Dundalk, Co Louth, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2002 [2472/DT41/06] Law Society of Ireland (applicant) Francis Mc Ardle (respondent solicitor) On 24 October 2006, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he: a) Failed to ensure that there was furnished to the Society an accountant's report for the year ended 31 December 2004 within six months of that date, in breach of regulation 21(1) of the Solicitors' Accounts Regulations 2001, statutory instrument no 421 of 2001; b) Through his conduct, showed disregard for his statutory obligations to comply with the Solicitors' Accounts Regulations and showed disregard for the Society's statutory obligation to monitor compliance with the Solicitors' Accounts Regulations for the protection of clients and the public The tribunal ordered that the respondent solicitor: a) Do stand censured, b) Pay a sum of 2,500 to the compensation fund, c) Pay the whole of the costs of the Law Society of Ireland, as taxed by a taxing master of the High Court in default of agreement In the matter of Francis Mc Ardle, a solicitor practising as Mc Ardle & Associates, at 10 Roden Place, Dundalk, Co Louth, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2008 [2472/DT113/09] Law Society of Ireland (applicant) Francis Mc Ardle (respondent solicitor) On 15 April 2010, the Solicitor Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he: a) Failed to ensure that there was furnished to the Society an accountant's report for the year ended 31 December 2008 within six months of that date, in breach of regulation 21(1) of the Solicitors' Accounts Regulations 2001 (SI no 421 of 2001), b) Through his conduct, showed disregard for his statutory obligation to comply with the Solicitors' Accounts Regulations and showed disregard for the Society's statutory obligation to monitor compliance with the Solicitors' Accounts Regulations for the protection of clients and the public The tribunal ordered that the respondent solicitor: a) Do stand censured, b) Pay a sum of 5,000 to the compensation fund, c) Pay the whole of the costs of the Law Society of Ireland, as taxed by a taxing master of the High Court, in default of agreement In the matter of Gabriel A Toolan, a solicitor carrying on practice as Walter P Toolan & Sons, Solicitors, at Ballinamore, Co Leitrim, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2008 [5821/DT08/09] Law Society of Ireland (applicant) Gabriel A Toolan (respondent solicitor) On , the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he had: a) Delayed in paying stamp duty in respect of a number of purchases set out in the investigation report dated 18 April 2008 and only paid same and interest and penalties when the matter was brought to the solicitor's attention, b) Updated the transfer documentation in respect of a number of purchases where there had been a delay in paying stamp duty and to pay the correct stamp duty until such time as the matter was brought to the solicitor's attention following the investigation, c) Acted for a developer and a purchaser in a number of transactions in breach of section 4(a) of SI no 85/1997, Solicitors (Professional Practice) Conduct and Discipline) Regulations 1997, d) Transferred fees to the office account from monies held in trust and in one instance transferred fees in a probate file, where there was no authority to transfer fees, e) Backdated two letters, one in April 2004 and one in April 2005, the letters having been created in March 2008, f) Altered the date in an auctioneer's letter from 14 November 2005 to 27 April 2007 The tribunal ordered that the respondent solicitor: a) Do stand censured, b) Pay a sum of 15,000 to the compensation fund, c) Pay the whole of the costs of the Law Society of Ireland, as taxed by a taxing master of the High Court, in default of agreement In the matter of George C Copeland, solicitor, practising under the style and title of Copeland Mc Caffrey Solicitors at PO box 9, 29 Patrick Street, Strabane, Co Tyrone BT82 8DQ, Northern Ireland, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts, 1954 to 2002 [4279/DT361] Law Society of Ireland (applicant) George C Copeland (respondent solicitor) The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal noted in its report to the president of the High Court that the respondent solicitor was admitted and enrolled in Northern Ireland in 1976 and in this jurisdiction on 30 November 1981 and now carries on practice as a solicitor and partner under the style and title of Dermot Walker & Company Solicitors, 6 Queen Street, Derry BT48 7FF, Northern Ireland On 4 September 2003, the tribunal found that the respondent solicitor was guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he had: a) Breached section 68(1) of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act, 1994 by failing to provide his (named) client with the particulars in writing prescribed by the section b) Breached section 68(2) of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act, 1994 by charging a solicitor-and-client fee over and above what was received on a party-and-party basis calculated as a percentage of the settlement amount plus VAT c) Breached section 68(3) of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act, 1994 by deducting or appropriating monies for fees from damages payable to his client d) Breached section 68(5) of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act, 1994 by deducting or appropriating monies for fees from the damages payable to his client, notwithstanding that there was no agreement in writing and in the form prescribed by section 68(5) of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act,1994 e) Breached section 68(6) of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act, 1994 by failing to furnish to his client a bill of costs and as soon as practicable after the settlement of his case and in the form prescribed by the provisions of section 68(6) f) Breached section 68(8) of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act, 1994 by failing to take all appropriate steps to resolve the dispute between him and his client about the amount of legal costs charged by failing to inform his client in writing of his right of taxation and to make a complaint to the society under section 9 of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act, 1994 about alleged excessive charging g) Breached section 66(17) of the Solicitors Act, 1954 as amended by substitution by section 76 of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act, 1994 by lodging or causing to be lodged for collection an unendorsed cheque or other negotiable or non-negotiable instrument drawn in favour of his client h) Breached regulation 7(a)(iv) of the Solicitors' Accounts Regulations no 2 of 1984 by drawing money for costs from his client's account without having delivered to the client a bill of costs or other written intimation of the amount of the costs incurred The tribunal ordered that the respondent solicitor: a) Do stand censured b) Pay the sum of 5,000 to the compensation fund c) Pay the whole of the costs of the Law Society as taxed by the taxing master of the High Court in default of agreement In the matter of George Wright, a solicitor practising as Wright Solicitors, Mill Street, Monaghan, Co Monaghan, 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 1954-2008 [2642/DT24/08] Law Society of Ireland (applicant) George Wright (respondent solicitor) On 25 November 2008, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he: a) Failed to honour an undertaking given to the complainant in a letter of 6 August 2002 to furnish sealed discharge as soon as possible after closing, b) Failed to honour an undertaking given to the complainant in a letter of 18 October 2002 to furnish sealed discharge of judgment mortgage, c) Failed to respond to the Society's letters of 5 October 2006, 19 October 2006, 6 November 2006, 4 December 2006, 8 January 2007, 18 January 2007, 7 March 2007, 30 March 2007 and 6 June 2007 The tribunal ordered that the respondent solicitor: a) Do stand admonished and advised, b) Pay to the compensation fund the sum of 1,000 in respect of charge (a) above, 500 in respect of charge (b) above and 2,000 in respect of charge (c) above, c) Pay the whole of the costs of the Law Society of Ireland, as taxed by a taxing master of the High Court, in default of agreement In the matter of Geraldine Scully, a solicitor of GA Scully & Company, Solicitors, 337 Ballyfermot Road, Dublin 10, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2002 [4267/DT39/06] Law Society of Ireland (applicant) Geraldine A Scully (respondent solicitor) On 2 November 2006, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in her practice as a solicitor in that she failed to ensure that there was furnished to the Society an accountant's report for the year ended 31 December 2004 not later than six months after that date, in breach of regulation 21(1) of the Solicitors' Accounts Regulations 2001 The tribunal ordered that the respondent solicitor: a) Do stand censured, b) Pay a sum of 2,500 to the compensation fund, c) Pay the whole of the costs of the Law Society of Ireland, as taxed by a taxing master of the High Court in default of agreement In the matter of Geraldine Scully, a solicitor of GA Scully & Company, Solicitors, 337 Ballyfermot Road, Dublin 10, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2002 [4267/DT39/06] Law Society of Ireland (applicant) Geraldine A Scully (respondent solicitor) On 2 November 2006, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in her practice as a solicitor in that she failed to ensure that there was furnished to the Society an accountant's report for the year ended 31 December 2004 not later than six months after that date, in breach of regulation 21(1) of the Solicitors' Accounts Regulations 2001 The tribunal ordered that the respondent solicitor: a) Do stand censured, b) Pay a sum of 2,500 to the compensation fund, c) Pay the whole of the costs of the Law Society of Ireland, as taxed by a taxing master of the High Court in default of agreement In the matter of Gerard Burns, a solicitor practising as Burns Nowlan Solicitors at 31 Main Street, Newbridge, Co Kildare, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2002 [4600/DT22/07] Law Society of Ireland (applicant) Gerard Burns (respondent solicitor) On , the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he failed to comply with the provisions of section 68(6) of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act 1994 in relation to a named complainant's personal injury action The tribunal ordered that the respondent solicitor: a) Do stand censured, b) Pay a sum of 5,000 to the compensation fund, c) Pay the whole of the costs of the Law Society of Ireland as taxed by a taxing master of the High Court, in default of agreement In the matter of Gerard Carthy, a solicitor practising in partnership as Connellan Solicitors, 3 Church Street, Longford, 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, 1954-2002 [4664/DT438] Law Society of Ireland (applicant) Gerard Carthy (respondent solicitor) On 15 July 2004, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in that he was in breach of the provisions of SI 85 of 1997 and in particular regulation 4(a) thereof, having been involved as a solicitor in a partnership acting for both vendor and purchaser in the sale and purchase for value of a newly constructed residential unit or a residential unit in course of construction, where the vendor is the builder of that residential unit or is associated with the builder of that residential unit The tribunal ordered that the respondent solicitor: a) Do stand advised never to again breach the regulations b) Pay the whole of the costs of the Law Society of Ireland and of any person appearing before them as taxed by a taxing master of the High Court in default of agreement In the matter of Gerard Corcoran, a solicitor previously carrying on practice as James H Powell & Son, Solicitors, at East Green, Dunmanway, Co Cork, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954 to 2008 [5559/DT22/09 and High Court record 2009 no 110SA] Law Society of Ireland (applicant) Gerard Corcoran (respondent solicitor) On 17 November 2009, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he: a) Caused or allowed a deficit of 340,645 to occur on the client account as of 31 July 2008, b) Failed to maintain proper books of account, with the result that the books of account did not show the true clients' funds position as of 31 July 2008, c) Misappropriated clients' money totalling 337,962 as of 31 July 2008, d) Concealed his misappropriation of clients' money through teeming and lading in the books of account, e) Initially denied that he had borrowed or taken clients' money (before subsequently going on to disclose that he had misappropriated clients' money), f) Incorrectly took client's money of 96,500 from a named client's ledger account to another client's ledger account where it helped to partly clear a debit balance of 152,49510 on another client's ledger account and, as a result, left a shortfall of 96,500 on the named client's ledger account, g) Subsequently incorrectly took the sum of 93,81669 from another named client's ledger account and used it to clear part of the shortfall on the client ledger account of the client mentioned at (f), h) Incorrectly caused a debit balance of 81,01308 on the client's ledger account mentioned at (g) when he transferred the above sum of 93,81669 therefrom, i) Caused transfers to be made between accounts in the clients' ledger without maintaining supporting documents to enable the transfers to be appropriately vouched, in breach of the regulations, j) Caused entries in the books of accounts to be backdated from March 2008 to October 2007, with the result that a debit balance of approximately 337,000 on the ledger account of a named client was concealed The tribunal ordered the Society to bring the matter forward to the High Court and, on Monday 11 January 2010, the President of the High Court ordered: 1) That the respondent solicitor should not be permitted to practise as a sole practitioner or in partnership, that he be permitted only to practise as an assistant solicitor or consultant in the employment and under the direct control and supervision of another solicitor of at least ten years' standing, to be approved in advance by the Law Society of Ireland, 2) That the Law Society do recover the costs of the proceedings in the High Court and the costs of the proceedings before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, to include witness expenses as against the respondent when taxed or ascertained In the matter of Gerard Murphy, solicitor, carrying on practice under the style and title of Gerard Murphy at 1 Goldsmith Terrace, Quinsboro Road, Bray, Co Wicklow, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts, 1954 to 1994 [4354/DT349] Law Society of Ireland (applicant) Gerard Murphy (respondent solicitor) On , the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found that the respondent solicitor was guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he had: a) Failed to attend at the Compensation Fund Committee meeting of 5 July 2001 despite being requested to do so and failed to explain his non-attendance at the meeting b) Failed to apply for a practising certificate for the year 2002 in a timely manner c) Failed to file evidence of having professional indemnity insurance cover in place for the year 2002 in a timely manner or at all d) Failed to file an accountant's report for the year ended 30 April 2001 in a timely manner or at all The tribunal ordered that the respondent solicitor: a) Do stand admonished b) Pay the sum of 500, to be paid to the compensation fund in relation to the findings of misconduct at (a), (b) and (d) above c) Pay a sum of 1,000 to the compensation fund in relation to the finding of misconduct at (c) above, and d) Pay the whole of the costs of the Law Society of Ireland as taxed by a taxing master of the High Court in default of agreement THE HIGH COURT 2007 No 32SA In the matter of Gerard Murphy, solicitor, practising as Gerard Murphy, Solicitor, at 1 Goldsmith Terrace, Bray, Co Wicklow, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2002 [4354/DT66/06] Law Society of Ireland (applicant) Gerard Murphy (respondent solicitor) On 8 February 2007, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he: a) Failed to pay over a settlement cheque of 18,000 to the complainant in a timely manner, having received same in April 2005 and only paid the complainant in March 2006, 11 months later, b) Failed to comply with a section 10 notice dated 6 February 2006 in a timely manner, having only furnished his file to the Society on , c) Attempted to charge the complainant fees of 2,26875 for time that he allegedly spent in dealing with her complaint to the Society, d) Failed to reply to the Society's letters of 8 September 2005, 16 September 2005, 20 October 2005 and 6 December 2005 in a timely manner or at all, e) Failed to reply to the specific enquiries set out in the Society's letter of 7 October 2005 in a timely manner or at all The tribunal ordered that the Law Society do bring such findings of the tribunal in respect of the respondent solicitor before the High Court, together with the report of the tribunal to the High Court, which report includes the opinion of the tribunal as to the fitness or otherwise of the respondent solicitor to be a member of the solicitors' profession, having regard to their findings and recommendations in respect of the sanction that should be imposed in regard to their findings in respect of the respondent solicitor On 22 October 2007, the President of the High Court ordered, pursuant to section 8 of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act 1960 (as substituted by section 18 of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act 1994 and amended by section 9 of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act 2002), that the respondent solicitor shall not be permitted to practise as a sole practitioner or in partnership, that he be permitted only to practise as an assistant solicitor 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 In the matter of Gerard O'Connor, solicitor, of Dobbyn & Mc Coy Solicitors, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954 to 1994 [3503/DT356] Client in person (applicant) Gerard O'Connor (respondent solicitor) On 1 December 2005, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he had: a) Failed to reply to the applicant's correspondence, b) Failed to reply to the Law Society's correspondence The tribunal ordered that the respondent solicitor: a) Do stand advised and admonished, b) Pay 50% of the applicant's vouched expenses In the matter of Greg (otherwise John G) Casey, solicitor, practising in the firm of Casey & Co North Main Street, Bandon, Co 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 1954-2008 [5355/DT88/08] Law Society of Ireland (applicant) Greg (otherwise John G) Casey (respondent solicitor) On 24 March 2009, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he: a) Failed to pay a contribution of 500 towards the Society's costs, levied by the Complaints and Client Relations Committee against the respondent solicitor on 28 March 2007, b) Failed to pay the increased levy of 1,000 towards the costs of the Society's investigation as levied by the Complaints and Client Relations Committee on 26 September 2007 The tribunal ordered that the respondent solicitor: a) Do stand admonished and censured, b) Pay a sum of 1,000 in restitution to the Law Society of Ireland, allowing a period of 12 months in which to pay In the matter of Greg O'Neill, solicitor, of Greg O'Neill, Solicitors, Suite 109, The Capel Building, Mary's Abbey, Dublin 7, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2008 [3365/DT/73/09] Named client (applicant) Greg O'Neill (respondent solicitor) On 20 October 2010, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he failed to return telephone calls (to his named client) for the past six months The tribunal ordered that the respondent solicitor: a) Do stand admonished and advised, b) Pay a sum of 750 to the compensation fund In the matter of Harry Mc Cullagh, a solicitor carrying on practice as Harry Mc Cullagh & Company, Solicitors, Rathmore House, Rathmore Lawn, South Douglas Road, Cork, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2008 [7428/DT57/09] Law Society of Ireland (applicant) Harry Mc Cullagh (respondent solicitor) On 3 November 2009, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he: a) Was involved in a process of late stamping and updating of deeds totalling 177,523 in 12 files, b) Allowed a deed to be updated from November 2004 to May 2007 with stamp duty in the amount of 79,650, c) Allowed a deed to be updated from February 2006 to August 2008 with stamp duty in the amount of 17,100, d) Allowed a deed to be updated from March 2004 to January 2009, resulting in the underpayment of stamp duty of 2,150, e) Allowed a deed to be updated from November 2006 to January 2009, resulting in the underpayment of stamp duty of 4,980, f) Allowed a deed to be updated from November 2004 to November 2008, resulting in the underpayment of stamp duty in the sum of 5,500 The tribunal ordered that the respondent solicitor: a) Do stand censured, b) Pay a sum of 15,000 to the compensation fund, c) Pay the whole of the costs of the Law Society of Ireland as taxed by a taxing master of the High Court in default of agreement In the matter of Helen Lucey, a solicitor practising under the style and title of Marshall & Macauley Solicitors, The Square, Listowel, Co Kerry, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2002 [3012/DT101/06] Law Society of Ireland (applicant) Helen Lucey (respondent solicitor) On 30 July 2008, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in her practice as a solicitor in that she: a) Was in serious delay in handing over the file of her client to his new solicitors, b) Failed to respond to multiple correspondence from her client's new solicitors about taking up her former client's file, c) Effectively prevented her former client's case being progressed by retaining her former client's file from August 2005 to 28 April 2006, d) Failed to reply to multiple correspondence from the Society, e) Failed to comply with a direction of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee on 1 February 2006, f) Through her conduct, demonstrated a cavalier attitude towards the Society's statutory obligation to investigate and deal with complaints, g) Through her conduct, showed a complete lack of concern towards her former client and, in particular, given the circumstances of her former client The tribunal ordered that the respondent solicitor: a) Do stand censured, b) Pay the sum of 10,000 to the compensation fund, c) Pay the whole of the costs of the Law Society of Ireland, as taxed by a taxing master of the High Court, in default of agreement In the matter of Helen Lucey, a solicitor practising under the style and title of Marshall & Macauley Solicitors, The Square, Listowel, Co Kerry, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2002 [3012/DT14/07] Law Society of Ireland (applicant) Helen Lucey (respondent solicitor) On 30 July 2008, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in her practice as a solicitor in that she: a) Was in serious delay in completing the distribution of moneys in an estate between 20, b) Retained moneys due to the beneficiaries from 2001 to 2006, c) Despite numerous attempts by the person acting on behalf of the beneficiaries to find out what was happening in relation to the estate between June 2003 and June 2004, did not respond to these enquiries, d) Failed to comply within the time specified with a notice pursuant to section 10 of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act 1994, dated 26 September 2004, e) Failed to subsequently give priority to the file as directed by the Complaints and Client Relations Committee on 9 February 2005, f) Failed to furnish two monthly reports as directed by the committee on 9 February 2005, g) Failed to reply to subsequent correspondence from the complainant, h) Caused the complainant considerable distress, as evidenced by the complainant's letter to the Society dated , i) Failed to reply to numerous letters from the Society, j) Failed to comply with a direction of the committee of 1 February 2006 that she transfer the file to another solicitor to be nominated by the complainant, pursuant to section 8(1)(d) of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act 1994, k) Notwithstanding that the foregoing direction had become absolutely binding upon her, retained the file concerned and continued to deal with it, l) Failed to comply with the further direction of the committee on 1 February 2006 that she submit a full and satisfactory response to the complaint of the complainant, and notwithstanding that this direction had become absolutely binding upon her, m) Failed to respond to the letter from the complainant to her, dated , in relation to what the complainant believed was the payment of an incorrect amount to her as her share of her mother's estate and the question of the payment of interest, n) Through her conduct, showed a serious disregard for the statutory responsibility of the Society as the statutory regulator of the solicitors' profession, o) Through her conduct, showed a serious disregard for the Society as a statutory regulator of the solicitors' profession The tribunal made an order: a) Censuring the respondent solicitor, b) Ordering the respondent solicitor to pay the sum of 11,000 to the compensation fund, c) Ordering the respondent solicitor to pay the whole of the costs of the Law Society of Ireland, as taxed by a taxing master of the High Court, in default of agreement The tribunal took into account the following findings of misconduct on the part of the respondent solicitor previously made by them (and their predecessors, the Disciplinary Committee) and not rescinded by the High Court and in respect of the respondent solicitor, namely: Order of the High Court made on 22 February 1986, Order of the High Court made on 16 January 1989, Order of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal made on 21 June 2001, Order of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal made on 21 June 2001, Order of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal made on 5 July 2004In the matter of Hilary Fitzpatrick, a solicitor carrying on practice as HL Fitzpatrick & Company, Solicitors, at Church Street, Ballyconnell, Co Cavan, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2008 [4253/DT76/09] Law Society of Ireland (applicant) Hilary Fitzpatrick (respondent solicitor) On 17 November 2009, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he: a) Altered a deed of transfer from the date of actual transfer in November 2005 to a date in May 2007, b) Altered a family home declaration by dating it 31 August 2007, although it had been supplied for the purposes of completion of a transaction in November 2005, c) Retained monies for stamp duty where the transaction was exempt from duty, d) Gave the Society an assurance by letter dated 8 June 2009 that he had no difficulty in relation to the stamping or registration of documents on files when in the file the subject matter of the complaint alone this confirmation was untrue, e) Failed to respond to the Society's correspondence and in particular the Society's letters of 29 November 2007, 17 December 2007, 16 April 2008, 12 September 2008, 2 February 2009, 17 February 2009, 17 April 2009 The tribunal ordered that the respondent solicitor: a) Do stand censured, b) Pay the whole of the costs of the Law Society of Ireland, to be taxed by a taxing master of the High Court in default of agreement In the matter of Hilary Fitzpatrick, a solicitor carrying on practice as HL Fitzpatrick & Company, Solicitors, at Church Street, Ballyconnell, Co Cavan, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2008 [4253/DT77/09] Law Society of Ireland (applicant) Hilary Fitzpatrick (respondent solicitor) On 17 November 2009, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he: a) Updated a deed from May 2003 to , thereby avoiding the payment of interest and penalties on the deed, b) Failed to respond to the Society's correspondence and, in particular, the Society's letters of 20 December 2007, 4 February 2008, 16 April 2008, 11 August 2008, 29 August 2008, 28 October 2008 and 12 January 2009, c) Failed to comply with the direction of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee at its meeting of that he, within four weeks, furnish to the Society a letter confirming that he had not outstanding difficulties in relation to stamping and registration of documents on any of his files The tribunal ordered that the respondent solicitor: a) Do stand censured, b) Pay the whole of the costs of the Law Society of Ireland as taxed by a taxing master of the High Court, in default of agreement In the matter of Hilary Fitzpatrick, a solicitor carrying on practice as HL Fitzpatrick & Company, Solicitors, at Church Street, Ballyconnell, Co Cavan, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954 to 2008 [4253/DT64/09] Law Society of Ireland (applicant) Hilary Fitzpatrick (respondent solicitor) On 27 April 2010, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he: a) Allowed a deficit of 54,769 to occur on the client account as of the accounting date, which deficit was due to the existence of client ledger debit balances in breach of regulation 7 of the Solicitors' Accounts Regulations, b) Updated a number of deeds in relation to the payment of stamp duty as identified in paragraph 28 of the investigation report dated 6 November 2008, and in particular: i) Updated a deed in respect of a purchase for 965,000 completed on by dating the transfer 2 July 2008, thereby avoiding interest and penalties, ii) Updated a deed in respect of a purchase for 500,000 completed on 16 April 2007 by dating the deed July 2008, thereby avoiding interest and penalties, iii) Updated a deed in respect of a purchase for 375,000 completed on 14 October 2005 by dating the deed , thereby avoiding interest and penalties, iv) Updated a deed in respect of a purchase for 635,000 completed on 10 February 2006 by dating the deed February 2008, thereby resulting in the imposition of a lower stamp duty regime introduced under Budget 2007, v) Updated a deed in respect of a purchase for 370,000 completed on 21 February 2007 by dating the deed 24 January 2008, thereby avoiding interest and penalties, vi) Updated a deed in respect of a purchase for 225,0000 completed on 12 July 2007 by stamping the deed on 2 April 2008, thereby resulting in a saving of stamp duty of 2,000, vii) Updated a deed in respect of a purchase completed on 23 April 2005, which deed was stamped in August 2008 with no evidence of interest and penalties paid The tribunal ordered that the respondent solicitor: a) Do stand censured, b) Pay a sum of 1,000 to the compensation fund, c) Pay the whole of the costs of the Law Society of Ireland, as taxed by a taxing master of the High Court in default of agreement The tribunal gave the following reasons for its decision, saying that it had taken consideration of: The submissions made by the parties, including the submission made on behalf of the respondent solicitor that he had paid huge amounts of money by way of penalty to the Revenue, That a limited practising certificate would not be feasible, and That the respondent solicitor, through his solicitors, had indicated that he would be winding down his practice within the year In addition, the tribunal stated as follows: while the monetary penalty the tribunal imposed was modest, it should not be taken as being an indication that the tribunal viewed the matter as non-serious The tribunal did view this matter as serious, but had regard to the present financial circumstances of the respondent solicitor In the matter of Hilary Molloy, a solicitor of Blake & Kenny, Solicitors, 2 Francis Street, Galway, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2002 [5607/DT480/04] Clients of the respondent solicitor (applicants) Hilary Molloy (respondent solicitor) On 12 December 2006, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in her practice as a solicitor for the following reasons: The respondent solicitor was retained by the applicants in March 2001 to provide legal services for the land registry of their family home They have received no correspondence from the respondent solicitor as to the completion of this work The respondent solicitor failed to carry out the said work in a timely fashion That she, in her responding affidavit dated 26 November 2004, has falsely tried to implicate the applicants as the reason for her lack of attention to their file The tribunal ordered that the respondent solicitor: a) Do stand admonished and advised, b) Pay the sum of 200 to the compensation fund, c) Pay the sum of 1,000 towards the costs of the applicants In the matter of Ian Quentin Crivon, practising under the style and title of O'Hagan, Ward & Company Solicitors, 31/33 The Triangle, Ranelagh, Dublin 6, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954 to 2002 [2196/DT15/05] Law Society of Ireland (applicant) Ian Quentin Crivon (respondent solicitor) On 22 September 2005, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor, in that he failed to file his accountant's report for the year ended 31 October 2003 in breach of regulation 21(1) of the Solicitors' Accounts Regulations 2001 (SI no 421 of 2001) in a timely manner, having only filed same with the society on 7 February 2005 The tribunal ordered that the respondent solicitor: a) Do stand advised and admonished, b) Pay a contribution of 500 to the Law Society of Ireland as part of the society's costs In the matter of Ian Quentin Crivon and David Frawley, solicitors practising under the style and title of O'Hagan Ward & Company, Solicitors, 31/33 The Triangle, Ranelagh, Dublin 6, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2002 [8308-2196/DT73/07] Law Society of Ireland (applicant) Ian Quentin Crivon (first-named respondent solicitor) David Frawley (second-named respondent solicitor) On , the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the first-named respondent solicitor and the second-named respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in their practice as solicitors in that they failed to ensure that there was furnished to the Society an accountant's report for the year ended 31 October 2006 within six months of that date, in breach of regulation 21(1) of the Solicitors' Accounts Regulations 2001 (SI no 421 of 2001) in a timely manner or at all The tribunal ordered that: a) The first-named respondent solicitor do stand censured, b) The second-named respondent solicitor do stand advised and admonished, c) The first-named respondent solicitor pay a sum of 1,500 to the compensation fund, d) The second-named respondent solicitor pay a sum of 1,000 to the compensation fund, e) The first-named respondent solicitor and the second-named respondent solicitor pay the whole of the costs of the Law Society of Ireland as taxed by a taxing master of the High Court in default of agreement In the matter of J Finbarr O'Gorman, a solicitor practising as Finbarr O'Gorman, Solicitors, at Mayfield, Hollyfort Road, Gorey, Co Wexford, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2008 [7672/DT43/09] Law Society of Ireland (applicant) J Finbarr O'Gorman (respondent solicitor) On 21 July 2009, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he: a) Failed to comply entirely with his undertaking dated 6 August 2004 to a named company and his undertaking to a named solicitor's firm on behalf of their clients given on 12 October 2004, b) Failed to respond to the Society's correspondence of 11 August 2008, 15 September 2008 and 26 September 2008 The tribunal ordered that the respondent solicitor: a) Do stand censured, b) Pay a sum of 750 to the compensation fund, c) Pay the whole of the costs of the Law Society of Ireland as taxed by a taxing master of the High Court in default of agreement In the matter of J Finbarr O'Gorman, a solicitor previously practising as Finbarr O'Gorman Solicitors at Mayfield, Hollyfort Road, Gorey, Co Wexford, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954 to 2008 [7672/DT132/09 and High Court Record no 2010 no 46SA] Law Society of Ireland (applicant) J Finbarr O'Gorman (respondent solicitor) On 13 April 2010, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor, in that he allowed a deficit of 34,82520 to arise in the client account of his practice, as of 30 April 2009, which deficit was due to the existence of a number of client ledger debit balances as a result of overpayments to clients in breach of regulation 7(2) of the Solicitors' Accounts Regulations 2001 The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal referred the matter forward to the President of the High Court and, on 14 June 2010, the President of the High Court made an order as follows: a) That the respondent solicitor should not be permitted to practise as a sole practitioner or in partnership, that he be permitted only to practise as an assistant solicitor in the employment and under the direct control and supervision of another solicitor of at least ten years' standing, to be approved in advance by the Law Society of Ireland, b) That the Law Society do recover the cost of the proceedings in the High Court and the cost of the proceedings before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, to include all witnesses' expenses, from the respondent, when taxed and ascertained In the matter of J Finbarr O'Gorman, a solicitor previously practising as Finbarr O'Gorman Solicitors at Mayfield, Hollyfort Road, Gorey, Co Wexford, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954 to 2008 [7672/DT60/09 and High Court Record no 2010 no 45SA] Law Society of Ireland (applicant) J Finbarr O'Gorman (respondent solicitor) On 16 February 2010, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he: a) Failed to comply with an undertaking given to the EBS Building Society on 19 August 2007 in a timely manner or at all, b) Failed to ensure that the borrower would acquire good marketable title to the property the subject matter of the undertaking in a timely manner or at all, c) Parted with the loan cheque prior to having any executed documentation in relation to the transfer or the mortgage over the property, thereby failing to protect the interests of the EBS Building Society, which was relying on his undertaking The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal referred the matter forward to the President of the High Court The President of the High Court on 14 June 2010 made an order as follows: a) That the respondent solicitor not be permitted to practise as a sole practitioner or in partnership, that he be permitted only to practise as an assistant solicitor in the employment and under the direct control and supervision of another solicitor of at least ten years' standing, to be approved in advance by the Law Society of Ireland, b) That the Law Society do recover the cost of the proceedings before the High Court and the cost of the proceedings before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, to include all witnesses' expenses, from the respondent when taxed and ascertained In the matter of Jacqueline M Durcan, a solicitor practising as Durcans Solicitors at 1 Hazel Grove, Spencer Park, Castlebar, Co Mayo, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2002 [7083/DT23/07] Law Society of Ireland (applicant) Jacqueline M Durcan (respondent solicitor) On 16 September 2008, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in her practice as a solicitor in that she: a) Failed to respond adequately or at all to correspondence from the complainant, b) Failed to respond to the Society's correspondence, and in particular to the letters sent to the respondent solicitor by the Society on 23 March 2004, 28 April 2004, , 16 June 2006, 4 July 2006, 13 July 2006, 26 July 2006, 28 September 2006 and 19 October 2006, c) Failed to register her client's title to property at a named location in Co Mayo in a timely manner or at all The tribunal ordered that the respondent solicitor: a) Do stand censured, b) Pay the sum of 5,000 to the compensation fund, c) Pay the whole of the costs of the Law Society of Ireland, as taxed by a taxing master of the High Court in default of agreement In the matter of Jacqueline M Durcan, a solicitor practising as Durcans Solicitors at 1 Hazel Grove, Spencer Park, Castlebar, Co Mayo, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2008 [7083/DT84/08] Law Society of Ireland (applicant) Jacqueline M Durcan (respondent solicitor) On 26 February 2009, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in her practice as a solicitor in that she: a) Failed to finalise the administration of the estate of a named deceased, who died on 22 March 2002, in a timely manner or at all, b) Deducted fees in relation to the administration of the estate in the sum of 6,000 plus VAT without the issue of a bill of costs at the time of the deduction and without advising the executrix that this deduction had been made, c) Deducted fees in relation to a named sale in or around May 2003 without the issue of a bill of costs and without advising the executrix that this deduction had been made, d) Deducted fees in relation to another named sale in or around 2002 without providing a bill of costs and without informing the executrix that this deduction had been made, e) Failed to comply with her undertaking at the meeting of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee on 1 February 2006 to furnish an up-to-date account where fees had been drawn and a full statement of account and a bill of costs in respect of each account in relation to the matters and copies of such correspondence, to be furnished to the Society within 14 days, f) Failed to comply with the direction made at the Complaints and Client Relations Committee's meeting on 20 September 2006 in a timely manner or at all, g) Failed to deal with correspondence from the Society in a timely manner or at all and, in particular, failed to reply to the following letters from the Society: 27 June 2005, 25 July 2005, 26 August 2005, 26 September 2005, 12 October 2005, 26 October 2005, 2 February 2006, 3 April 2006, 10 April 2006, 28 April 2006, , , 17 July 2006, 22 August 2006, 7 September 2006, 16 January 2007, 16 February 2007, 1 March 2007, 9 March 2007, 21 March 2007 and 3 April 2007 The tribunal ordered that the respondent solicitor: a) Do stand censured, b) Pay a sum of 5,000 to the compensation fund, c) Pay the whole of the costs of the Law Society of Ireland, as taxed by a taxing master of the High Court, in default of agreement In the matter of James Dennison, a solicitor of Dennison Solicitors, Main Street, Abbeyfeale, Co Limerick, and in the matter of an application by named clients of the respondent solicitor to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2002 [7883/DT54/07] Named clients of the respondent solicitor (applicants) James Dennison (respondent solicitor) On 30 September 2008, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he: a) Acted in a deceitful and duplicitous manner in the course of acting on behalf of a client in the purchase of property, b) Caused financial loss and suffering to a client as a result of negligence and unprofessional conduct during a property transaction while acting as a solicitor, c) Failed to act in the interest of his client by failing to give correct advice or knowingly gave incorrect advice in relation to planning matters The tribunal ordered that the respondent solicitor: a) Do stand censured, b) Pay the sum of 10,000 to the compensation fund, c) Pay the sum of 3,630 in restitution to the applicants, without prejudice to any legal right of such party, d) Pay the applicants reasonable expenses for attending the hearings of the tribunal In the matter of James J O'Donoghue, solicitor, carrying on practice as James J O'Donoghue & Company, Solicitors, Shournagh House, Tower, Blarney, Co Cork, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2008 [4697/DT19/09] Law Society of Ireland (applicant) James J O'Donoghue (respondent solicitor) On 9 March 2010, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he: a) In a conveyancing matter identified in the Law Society's investigation report, deeds were updated from April 2006 to October 2007, notwithstanding the fact that the solicitor was in funds to pay the stamp duty at the correct time The PD form was updated to 19 October 2007 b) In another conveyancing matter identified, deeds were updated in order to reduce the penalties from 75,056 to 46,656, and the PD form in that matter, which was identified in the investigation report, was altered to 15 November 2007, although the sale closed in June 2006 c) In another conveyancing matter, stamp duty of 19,139 remained unpaid from a transaction that closed in May 2007, notwithstanding that the money remained in the solicitor's account d) In a transaction involving the purchase of lands, funds of 20,000 remained in the ledger although this sale closed in January 2007 e) In another matter identified in the investigation report, deeds were not stamped until January 2007, although the sale closed in July 2004 and penalties were paid from funds remaining in the client ledger, notwithstanding the fact that the solicitor was in funds to stamp the deeds at the correct time f) The solicitor acted for both vendor and purchaser in new house transactions identified in the investigation report in apparent breach of SI no 85 of 1997, the Solicitors (Professional Conduct and Discipline) Regulations of 1997 g) Section 68 letters were inserted into files requested for inspection These section 68 letters had never been submitted to the clients and the solicitor admitted that they were prepared for the purposes of the inspection The tribunal ordered that the respondent solicitor: a) Do stand censured, b) Pay a sum of 7,000 to the compensation fund, c) Pay the whole of the costs of the Law Society of Ireland, as taxed by a taxing master of the High Court, in default of agreement The tribunal noted the respondent solicitor's undertaking to discharge the Law Society's costs in respect of the investigation of the respondent solicitor's practice by the Society's investigating accountant on 9 December 2009In the matter of James M Sweeney, solicitor, carrying on practice under the style and title of James M Sweeney at 14 New Cabra Road, Phibsborough, Dublin 7, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts, 1954 to 2002 [3572/DT393] Law Society of Ireland (applicant) James M Sweeney (respondent solicitor On 4 November 2003, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found that the respondent solicitor was guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he: a) Failed to reply to correspondence from the society b) Failed to attend a meeting of the Registrar's Committee when requested to do so arising out of his failure to reply to the society's correspondence c) Was in serious delay in administering the estates of a family d) Failed to answer multiple correspondence from the solicitors for the complainant The tribunal ordered that the respondent solicitor: i) Do stand censured in respect of the findings set out at (a) and (b) above ii) Pay a sum of 1,000 to the compensation fund in relation to the finding set out at (c) above iii) Pay a sum of 1,000 to the compensation fund in relation to the finding set out at (d) above iv) Pay the whole of the costs of the Law Society of Ireland as taxed by the taxing master of the High Court in default of agreement In the matter of James M Sweeney, a solicitor practising as James M Sweeney at 14 New Cabra Road, Phibsboro, Dublin 7, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2008 [3572/DT46/09] Law Society of Ireland (applicant) James M Sweeney (respondent solicitor) On 27 April 2010, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he: a) Failed to reply to correspondence from the complainant solicitor, dated , 11 October 2006, 22 January 2007, 1 March 2007, 3 July 2007 and 7 November 2007, and b) Failed to reply to letters from the Society to him, dated 4 December 2007, 18 December 2007, 14 January 2008, 22 January 2008, 31 January 2008 and 12 February 2008 The tribunal ordered that the respondent solicitor: a) Do stand censured, b) Pay a sum of 6,000 to the compensation fund, c) Pay the whole of the costs the Law Society of Ireland, to be taxed by a taxing master of the High Court, in default of agreement In the matter of James O'Mahony, a solicitor practising under the style and title of James O'Mahony, Solicitor, at 16 Stoneybatter, Dublin 7, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2002 [4831/DT76/06] Law Society of Ireland (applicant) James O'Mahony (respondent solicitor) On 6 March 2007, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he: a) Failed to ensure there was furnished to the Society an accountant's report for the year ended 31 August 2005 within six months of that date, in breach of regulation 21(1) of the Solicitors'Accounts Regulations 2001; c) Through his conduct, showed disregard for his statutory obligations to comply with the Solicitors' Accounts Regulations and showed disregard for the Society's statutory obligation to monitor compliance with the Solicitors' Accounts Regulations for the protection of clients and the public The tribunal ordered that the respondent solicitor: a) Do stand admonished and advised, b) Pay a sum of 500 to the compensation fund, c) Pay the whole of the coss of the Law Society of Ireland as taxed by a taxing master of the High Court in default of agreement In the matter of James O'Mahony, a solicitor practising under the style and title of James O'Mahony, Solicitor, at 16 Stoneybatter, Dublin 7, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2008 [4831/DT15/09] Law Society of Ireland (applicant) James O'Mahony (respondent solicitor) On 30 June 2009, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he: a) Failed to comply with a letter of undertaking, given to IIB Homeloans on behalf of his named client on 8 April 1999, to return registered title deeds in a timely manner or at all, b) Acted on behalf of his client and his client's parents without advising either party to get independent legal advice, c) Acted in the inter-family transfer without ever meeting or taking instructions from his client's parents, who were transferring their interest to their son, d) Failed to respond to the Society's letter of 12 June 2008 in a timely manner The tribunal ordered that the respondent solicitor: a) Do stand censured, b) Pay a sum of 2,000 to the compensation fund, c) Pay the whole of the costs of the Law Society of Ireland or any person appearing before them as taxed by a taxing master of the High Court in default of agreement In the matter of James O'Neill, a solicitor of Lindos, Mount Venus Road, Rathfarnham, Dublin 14, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2008 [2586/DT99/08] Law Society of Ireland (applicant) James O'Neill (respondent solicitor) On 24 February 2009, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he: i) Failed to comply with an undertaking that he furnished to the complainant on 25 February 2004 in a timely manner or at all, ii) Furnished a letter of undertaking dated 25 February 2004 to the complainant at a time when he did not have a current practising certificate and had indicated to the Society that he had retired from practice on 31 December 2003 The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal ordered that the respondent solicitor: Do stand censured, Pay the whole of the costs and expenses of the Law Society of Ireland as taxed by a taxing master of the High Court in default of agreement In the matter of James P Murphy, a solicitor of Doire, Ballygaddy Road, Tuam, Co Galway, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2002 [3438/DT36/07 and High Court record no 2008 no 17SA] Law Society of Ireland (applicant) James P Murphy (respondent solicitor) On 17 January 2008, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he: a) Misappropriated money received from clients when he was in the employment of a named firm of solicitors, b) Admitted that he had received and retained 77,150, received in all but one case in cash from clients on foot of costs, which monies were retained by the respondent solicitor and never put through the books of named firms of solicitors, c) Failed to disclose the full extent of his misappropriation when originally requested to do so, having only disclosed a misappropriation of 43,400 after his dismissal from a named firm of solicitors, d) Took instructions in relation to a will, a power of attorney and enduring power of attorney from a named elderly man in a nursing home, who could not speak or write, in circumstances where there was evidence that the potential beneficiary had made two previous attempts to gain control over the man's money and had failed in circumstances where it was not appropriate to take such instructions, e) The respondent solicitor, based on information obtained from clients, received and misappropriated 104,885 as of , although the respondent solicitor only admitted that he had received and retained 77,150 in total The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal recommended to the High Court that the name of the respondent solicitor should be struck off the Roll of Solicitors On Monday 7 April 2008, the President of the High Court ordered, pursuant to the Solicitors Acts, that the respondent solicitor shall be suspended from practising as a solicitor until further order In the matter of James P O'Neill, solicitor, carrying on practice at Lindos, Mount Venus Road, Rathfarnham, Dublin 16, 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 to 2002 [2586/DT408] Law Society of Ireland (applicant) James P O'Neill (respondent solicitor) On , the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found that the respondent solicitor was guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he had: a) Failed to respond to the society's correspondence and in particular letters of 27 March 2002, , , 17 June 2002, 31 July 2002, 19 August 2002, 27 November 2002, 5 December 2002, 6 January 2003, 30 January 2003, 20 February 2003 and 27 March 2003 in a timely manner or at all b) Failed to comply with the notice served on him pursuant to section 10 of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act,1994 The tribunal ordered that the respondent solicitor: a) Is hereby censured b) Pay a sum of 2,500 in respect of each of the findings of misconduct, that is, 5,000 c) Pay the whole of the costs of the Law Society of Ireland as taxed by a taxing master of the High Court in default of agreement In the matter of James P O'Neill, a solicitor of Lindos, Mount Venus Road, Rathfarnham, Dublin 14, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2002 [2586/DT79/05] Law Society of Ireland (applicant) James P O'Neill (respondent solicitor) On 3 October 2006, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct as a solicitor in that he is in breach of the provisions of the Professional Indemnity Insurance Regulations and, in particular, the provision of statutory instrument number 312 of 1995, as amended by statutory instrument number 362 of 1999, having failed to obtain run-off cover for the year 2005 in accordance with the requirements of those regulations The tribunal ordered that the respondent solicitor do stand censured In the matter of Joan Quinn, a solicitor formerly practising as Quinn & Co Solicitors, at 23A The Village Green, Tallaght, Dublin 24, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2008 [6646/DT25/09 and High Court Record 2009 no 82 SA] Law Society of Ireland (applicant) Joan Quinn (respondent solicitor) On 9 June 2009, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in her practice as a solicitor in that she: a) Caused and allowed a deficit on the client account to arise in the sum of 918,060 as at 4 February 2008, b) Permitted a deficit on the client account to arise due to unallocated transfers to office account of 722,263 and caused and allowed a debit balance in the sum of 195,797, c) Caused claims in the sum of 937,57633 to be paid from the compensation fund, d) Caused a net sum of 303,076, after taking account of recoveries of 634,500, to be paid from the compensation fund, e) Caused and permitted transfers from client account to office account without there being any valid reason or invoice to transfer the said money, and in doing so breached regulation 7(i)(ii) and regulation 7(i)(iii), f) Permitted a debit balance to arise on the estate of a deceased named client of 195,797, in breach of regulation 7(2), g) Caused a debit balance to appear on the estate of a deceased named client by paying out two cheques in the sum of 225,000 each to an executor, h) Caused and permitted fees, not invoiced, to be held in the client account amounting to the sum of 255,038, which were originally not invoiced and posted to the books of account, in breach of regulation 5(2)(c) The tribunal directed: i) That the respondent solicitor is not a fit person to be a member of the solicitors' profession, ii) That the name of the respondent solicitor be struck off the Roll of Solicitors The tribunal directed that the matter be referred forward to the High Court and, on 12 October 2009, the President of the High Court ordered: 1) That the name of the respondent solicitor shall be struck from the Roll of Solicitors, 2) The court made no order as to the costs of the proceedings herein In the matter of John A Mc Donough, solicitor, practising as Mc Donough & Breen, Solicitors, Distillery House, Distillery Lane, Dundalk, 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 1954-2002 Law Society of Ireland (applicant) John A Mc Donough (respondent solicitor) On 25 November 2008, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he: a) Failed to comply with the complainant's letter dated 10 March 2005 to provide certain items and to hold monies on trust until these items were resolved, b) Failed to adequately respond to the complainant's letters dated 10 March 2005, , , 21 June 2005, 21 July 2005, 25 July 2005, 19 September 2005, 6 October 2005, 21 August 2006, 6 November 2006 and 9 January 2007 respectively, c) Failed to respond adequately to the Society's correspondence during the course of this investigation, resulting in the respondent solicitor paying a contribution of 500 towards the costs of the Society's investigation, d) Failed to reply adequately to all of the outstanding matters raised in the complainant's letter to him, dated 15 August 2007 The tribunal ordered that the respondent solicitor: a) Do stand admonished and advised, b) Pay a sum of 5,000 to the compensation fund, c) Pay the whole of the costs of the Law Society of Ireland, or of any person appearing before them, as taxed by a taxing master of the High Court, in default of agreement In the matter of John A O'Connell, solicitor, who carries on practice in the firm of Nuala G Liston & Co at 8 Day Place, Tralee, Co Kerry, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts, 1954 to 2002 [6467/DT383] Law Society of Ireland (applicant) John A O'Connell (respondent solicitor) On 25 November 2003, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found that the respondent solicitor was guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he had: a) Failed to apply for a practising certificate for the year 2003 in a timely manner, having only applied for same on 10 March 2003 b) Practised as a solicitor without a practising certificate for the period 1 January 2003 to 10 March 2003 in breach of the provisions of the Solicitors Acts, 1954 to 2002 The tribunal ordered that the respondent solicitor do stand censured In the matter of John B Harte, solicitor, practising under the style and title of James Harte & Son, 39 Parliament Street, Kilkenny, 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 to 2002 [2259/DT398] Law Society of Ireland (applicant) John B Harte (respondent solicitor) On 28 September 2004, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in that he had: a) Failed to comply with an undertaking given to a named solicitor's firm on 22 October 1996 to have a defunct public right of way to a well removed as a burden from a Land Registry folio in a timely manner or at all b) Failed to respond to 13 letters from the complainants to him prior to their making a complaint to the society c) Failed to respond to correspondence from the society in the investigation of the complaint in a timely manner or at all, and in particular failed to reply to letters from the society dated 12 April 2002, 24 April 2002, , , 26 June 2002, 3 July 2002, 15 July 2002, 25 July 2002, 7 November 2002, 13 February 2003 d) Failed to attend at Registrar's Committee meetings despite being requested to do so and in particular the meetings of 11 June 2002, 24 September 2002 and 5 November 2002 The tribunal ordered that the respondent solicitor: a) Do stand censured b) Pay a sum of 5,000 to the compensation fund c) Pay the whole of the costs of the Law Society of Ireland as taxed by a taxing master of the High Court in default of agreement In the matter of John B Harte, solicitor, practising under the style and title of James Harte & Son, 39 Parliament Street, Kilkenny, 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, 1954-2002 [2259/DT399/03] Law Society of Ireland (applicant) John B Harte (respondent solicitor) On 7 December 2004, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in that he had: a) Failed to respond in a timely manner to the complainants' correspondence in relation to the delay in closing the sale b) Failed to respond to the complainants' enquiries as to the whereabouts of the purchase monies c) Failed to respond to the society's specific enquiry as to whether or not he held the purchase monies on deposit receipt and to detail interest accrued thereon d) Failed to reply to letters from the society and in particular the society's letters of 7 November 2002, 19 November 2002, 2 December 2002 and 21 February 2003 e) Failed to attend at the Registrar's Committee meeting on 18 February 2003 and on 25 March 2003, despite being requested to do so The tribunal ordered that the respondent solicitor: i) Do stand censured ii) Pay a sum of 6,000 to the compensation fund iii) Pay the whole of the costs of the Law Society of Ireland and of any person appearing before the tribunal, as taxed by a taxing master of the High Court, in default of agreement In the matter of John B Harte, a solicitor carrying on practice as a partner in the firm of James Harte & Son, Solicitors, at 39 Parliament Street, Kilkenny, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2008 [2259/DT53/09] Law Society of Ireland (applicant) John B Harte (respondent solicitor) On 15 September 2009, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he: a) Delayed in complying with an undertaking given to National Irish Bank and dated 16 November 2006 in respect of named properties in a timely manner, having only complied with same in April 2009, b) Failed to reply to the Society's correspondence, and in particular to the Society's letters of , 25 June 2008, 7 July 2008, 11 August 2008, 27 August 2008, 28 October 2008 in a timely manner or at all The tribunal ordered that the respondent solicitor: a) Do stand censured, b) Pay a sum of 7,500 to the compensation fund, c) Pay the whole of the costs of the Law Society of Ireland as taxed by a taxing master of the High Court in default of agreement In the matter of John B Mc Glynn, a solicitor formerly carrying on practice as John Mc Glynn & Company at 11 Castle Street, Athlone, Co Westmeath, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2002 [7068/DT90/07 and High Court record no 2009 no 5 SA] Law Society of Ireland (applicant) John B Mc Glynn (respondent solicitor) On 21 October 2008, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he: a) Failed to extract a grant of probate to the estate of a named client and did not gather in liquid assets of approximately IR100,000, b) Misappropriated clients' money from three other clients' ledger accounts, including IR60,000 from one of the three ledger accounts, to pay the beneficiaries of the estate of a named client, c) Misappropriated clients' money of 4,000 from the ledger account of a named client and used the money to make a payment for another client, d) Misappropriated two client account cheques for a total of either 3,000 or 5,000 for his own personal purposes and caused the cheques to be debited to the clients' ledger account of a named client, e) Misappropriated IR50,000 for his own personal use out of IR120,000 received for a named client, f) Misappropriated 106,70356 from the clients' ledger account of a named client to discharge the mortgage of another named client, after having previously misappropriated the money that should have been used to discharge the mortgage, g) Falsely entered on the cheque stub for the above cheque for 106,70356 that the payment related to a named client, which caused the bookkeeper to make a false entry in the books of account, h) Misappropriated 30,000, 3,723 and 5,500 from the clients' ledger account of a named client, i) Falsely entered on the cheque stubs for the above three cheques that the payments related to a named client, which caused the bookkeeper to make three false entries in the books of account, j) Falsely entered on a client account lodgement stub that the sum of 65,000 was received for a named client, when it was actually received for another named client, which caused the bookkeeper to make a false entry in the books of account, k) Caused a debit balance of 15,48470 on the clients' ledger account of a named client because he had previously misappropriated the named client's money, l) Failed to discharge the mortgage on a named client's property because he was unable to do so, as he had previously misappropriated the named client's money, m) Misappropriated 5,000 or 6,000 from an estate and used the money to buy things for his new house, n) Misappropriated the amounts of IR20,000 and 1,200 received from clients to pay stamp duty, o) Obtained 100,000 from a named client after telling him untruthfully that there was an investment opportunity that would earn 30% after six months; he then misappropriated 92,500 of the 100,000, p) Untruthfully represented to his former solicitor partner in a named firm of solicitors and his reporting accountant that the 100,000 obtained from a named client was a loan to him (the respondent solicitor) from the named client; this caused his reporting accountant in his report dated 28 June 2005 to understate the deficit in client monies by 100,000, q) Misappropriated 100,000 from the clients' ledger account of a named client; he paid the 100,000 to his brother, r) Obtained a total of 100,000 from a named client and another named client on the false pretence that the money would be invested in a building development for a return of 30% or 35%, and he then used the money to reimburse the clients' ledger account of another named client, s) Concealed his misappropriations of clients' moneys through a system of systematic teeming and lading in the books of account of a named firm of solicitors and another named firm of solicitors, t) Failed to keep books of account while in sole practice, u) Left deficits totalling 166,278 on four files when he left a named firm of solicitors, v) Left deficits totalling 484,533 on various files when he left another named firm of solicitors, 63,500 of which was carried forward from the practice of another named firm of solicitors, w) Created a deficit of 147,051 in the client account of John Mc Glynn & Co 128,655 of which was created when he paid that amount to clear part of the deficit in his previous practice, x) Obtained a total of 185,000, to clear part of the deficit in a named firm of solicitors, from two relatives and a named client by stating to his relatives that he had "financial commitments on leaving the practice" of the same named firm of solicitors and he informed the same named client that he needed the money to set up in practice, y) Gave a loan of 12,000 to a named client from a client account, which was a personal loan and was not authorised by the client whose ledger account was debited with the payment, z) A number of times failed to make a full disclosure when given the opportunity to do so The tribunal recommended that: a) The respondent solicitor is not a fit and proper person to be a member of the solicitors' profession, and b) His name be struck off the Roll of Solicitors The tribunal directed that the matter be referred forward to the High Court and, on 16 February 2009, the President of the High Court ordered that: 1) The respondent solicitor is not a fit and proper person to be a member of the solicitors' profession, 2) The name of the respondent solicitor be struck from the Roll of Solicitors, 3) The Law Society do recover the costs of the proceedings herein and the costs of the proceedings before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal as against the respondent when taxed or ascertained In the matter of John BK Lindsay, a solicitor formerly practising as Lindsay & Company, Solicitors, at 47 Wellington Quay, Dublin 2, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2008 [3483/DT/116/08] Law Society of Ireland (applicant) John BK Lindsay (respondent solicitor) On 30 June 2009, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor, John BK Lindsay, guilty of misconduct in that he had: a) Failed to comply with a direction of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee made on 16 April 2008 up to the date of the swearing of the Society's grounding affidavit (on 27 November 2008), b) Failed to respond to multiple correspondence from the Society, c) Through his lack of cooperation with the Society's investigation of the complaint, effectively frustrated the Society in resolving the matter, d) Breached section 68(1) of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act 1994 in failing to provide the information prescribed by the section, e) Failed to reply to queries about the administration of an estate The tribunal ordered that the respondent solicitor: a) Do stand censured, b) Pay a sum of 2,500 to the compensation fund, c) Pay the whole of the costs of the Law Society of Ireland, including witnesses' expenses, to be taxed by a taxing master of the High Court, in default of agreement In the matter of John BK Lindsay, a solicitor formerly practising as Lindsay & Company, Solicitors, at 47 Wellington Quay, Dublin 2, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2008 Law Society of Ireland (applicant) John BK Lindsay (respondent solicitor) On 30 June 2009, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor, John BK Lindsay, guilty of misconduct in that he: 1) Was in serious delay in the administration of an estate, 2) Failed to respond to numerous letters from the Society, 3) Failed to provide progress reports to the Society as directed by the committee, 4) Failed in particular to provide a progress report as specifically directed by the committee on or before 10 January 2004, 5) Breached his undertaking given to the committee on 24 March 2004 to furnish a response within 14 days, 6) Failed to attend the meeting of the committee on 28 April 2004, 7) Failed to attend the meeting of the committee on 26 September 2007 The tribunal ordered that the respondent solicitor: a) Do stand censured, b) Pay a sum of 7,500 to the compensation fund, c) Pay the whole of the costs of the Law Society of Ireland, including witnesses' expenses, to be taxed by a taxing master of the High Court, in default of agreement In the matter of John BK Lindsay, a solicitor formerly practising as Lindsay & Company, Solicitors, at 47 Wellington Quay, Dublin 2, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2008 [3483/DT32/10] Law Society of Ireland (applicant) John BK Lindsay (respondent solicitor) On 24 November 2010, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he: 1) Failed to respond to multiple letters from the Society, 2) Through his conduct, showed a disregard for the responsibilities associated with practice as a solicitor The tribunal made an order: a) Admonishing and advising the respondent solicitor, b) Ordering the respondent solicitor to pay a sum of 1,000 to the compensation fund, c) Ordering the respondent solicitor to pay the whole of the costs of the Law Society, including witness expenses, as taxed by a taxing master of the High Court in default of agreement And the tribunal took into account the following finding(s) of misconduct on the part of the respondent solicitor previously made by them and not rescinded by the High Court, namely: - Order of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal made on 30 June 2009 (record no 3483/DT66/08), - Order of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal made on 30 June 2009 (record no 3483/DT116/08)In the matter of John D Devane, solicitor, practising as John Devane, Solicitor, 7 Quinlan Street, The Crescent, Limerick, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2002 [7909/DT79/07] Law Society of Ireland (applicant) John D Devane (respondent solicitor) On 12 June 2008, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he had: a) Misrepresented the position of the complainant's action during the course of a meeting with the complainant on , thus causing the complainant to inadvertently misrepresent the position to the Society in a letter dated 21 June 2005 b) Misrepresented to the Society, in a letter dated 24 August 2005, that matters concerning the complainant had now been satisfactorily resolved c) Misrepresented to the Society, in a letter dated 5 October 2005, that he was endeavouring to secure a conclusion to the matter and hoped to do so prior to Christmas 2005, where in fact he was not Furthermore, he misrepresented that, if the matter did not settle within that period of time, the latest time for settlement would be in the following term d) Provided the complainant with false and/or misleading information, as evidenced in her letter to the Society dated 21 June 2005, by representing to her that the action was being progressed and would either be settled within eight weeks of that date or, failing this, would be heard in court by October 2005 or as soon as possible thereafter e) Failed to provide any adequate response to the Society's inquiries during this investigation and, in particular, failed to respond properly or at all to the Society's letters of 13 March 2006, 27 April 2006, and 17 July 2006 The tribunal ordered that the respondent solicitor: a) Do stand censured, b) Pay a sum of 15,000 to the compensation fund, c) Pay the whole of the costs of the Law Society of Ireland, including witness expenses, as taxed by a taxing master of the High Court, in default of agreement In the matter of John Duffy, a solicitor formerly practising as John Duffy & Co Solicitors, at Main Street, Monasterevin, Co Kildare, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2008 [7660/DT01/09 and High Court record 2009 no 87 SA] Law Society of Ireland (applicant) John Duffy (respondent solicitor) On 17 June 2009, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he: a) Falsely represented by letter dated 19 February 2007 that a deposit of 7 million had been paid on behalf of a named client to the respondent solicitor to act as a deposit for the sale of the shares in a named limited liability company to the above-mentioned named client in circumstances where no such sum was in fact paid by the named client, b) Falsely represented by letter dated 19 February 2007 that a deposit of 7 million had been paid on behalf of a named client to the respondent solicitor to act as a deposit for the sale of the shares in a named limited liability company to the above-mentioned named client in circumstances where no such sum was in fact paid by the named client and in circumstances where that letter was furnished as security to a named third-party financial institution in order to secure a loan for a named limited liability company in the sum of 8825 million, c) Falsely represented to a named third-party financial institution by email dated 19 July 2007 that he had served a notice on a named client threatening to forfeit the deposit if the sale was not closed by return in circumstances where he had not served such a notice, d) Falsely represented, by implication, to a named third-party financial institution by email dated 19 July 2007 that he continued to hold a deposit in the sum of 7 million that had been paid on behalf of a named client to the respondent solicitor to act as a deposit for the sale of the shares in a named limited liability company to the above-mentioned named client in circumstances where no such sum was in fact paid by the named client, e) Falsely represented, by implication, to a named third-party financial institution by email dated 7 November 2007 that he continued to hold a deposit in the sum of 7 million that had been paid on behalf of a named client to the respondent solicitor to act as a deposit for the sale of the shares in a named limited liability company to the above-mentioned named client in circumstances where no such sum was in fact paid by the named client, f) Falsely represented to a named firm of solicitors, solicitors for a named third-party financial institution, by letter dated 13 November 2007, that he continued to hold a deposit in the sum of 7 million that had been paid on behalf of a named client to the respondent solicitor to act as a deposit for the sale of the shares in a named limited liability company to the above-mentioned named client in circumstances where no such sum was in fact paid by the named client, g) Falsely represented to another named firm of solicitors, solicitors for the receiver, by telephone conversation dated 31 January 2008, that he continued to hold a deposit in the sum of 7 million in his client account, which had been paid on behalf of the same named client to the respondent solicitor to act as a deposit for the sale of the shares in a named limited liability company to the above-mentioned named client in circumstances where he did not hold such funds The tribunal directed that: i) The respondent solicitor is not a fit person to be a member of the solicitors' profession, ii) The name of the respondent solicitor be struck off the Roll of Solicitors, iii) The respondent solicitor pay the whole of the costs of the Law Society of Ireland, including witnesses' expenses, to be taxed in default of agreement The tribunal directed that the matter be referred forward to the High Court and, on 12 October 2009, the President of the High Court ordered: 1) That the respondent solicitor is not a fit person to be a member of the solicitors' profession, 2) That the name of the respondent solicitor shall be struck from the Roll of Solicitors, 3) That the Law Society do recover the costs of the proceedings herein and the costs of the proceedings before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal to include witness expenses as against the respondent when taxed or ascertained In the matter of John F Condon, a solicitor practising as Mc Mahon & Tweedy Solicitors, Merchant's House, 27-30 Merchant's Quay, Dublin 8, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954 to 2008 [3127/DT/100/09] Law Society of Ireland (applicant) John F Condon (respondent solicitor) On , the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he: a) Failed to comply with an undertaking given to the complainants on 18 December 2006 in a timely manner, having only finally complied with same on , b) Failed to respond adequately or at all to correspondence from the Society in the investigation of the complaint and, in particular, the Society's letters of 19 December 2007, 18 January 2008, 1 April 2008 and 23 June 2008 The tribunal ordered that the respondent solicitor: a) Do stand censured, b) Pay a sum of 3,000 to the compensation fund, c) Pay the whole of the costs of the Law Society of Ireland, to be taxed by a taxing master of the High Court, in default of agreement In the matter of John Fetherstonhaugh, a solicitor practising as Fetherstonhaugh Solicitors, Patrick Street, Mountmellick, Co Laois, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2002 [3270/DT07/07] Law Society of Ireland (applicant) John Fetherstonhaugh (respondent solicitor) On 22 November 2007, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he: a) Failed to ensure that there was furnished to the Society an accountant's report for the year ended 28 February 2006 within six months of that date, in breach of regulation 21(1) of the Solicitors' Accounts Regulations 2001 (SI 421 of 2001), in a timely manner or at all, b) Through his conduct, showed disregard for his statutory obligations to comply with the Solicitors' Accounts Regulations and showed disregard for the Society's statutory obligation to monitor compliance with the Solicitors' Accounts Regulations for the protection of clients and the public The tribunal ordered that the respondent solicitor: a) Do stand censured, b) Pay a sum of 2,000 to the compensation fund, c) Pay the whole of the costs of the Law Society of Ireland as taxed by a taxing master of the High Court, in default of agreement In the matter of John G Casey, a solicitor practising as Casey & Company Solicitors at North Main Street, Bandon, Co 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 to 2002 [5355/DT482/04] Law Society of Ireland (applicant) John G Casey (respondent solicitor) On 13 October 2005, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he had: a) Failed to advise a named complainant that the notice of appeal served on the complainant on behalf of his client on 24 October 2003 had in fact not been filed and could not be filed; b) Despite this and having received a letter from the named complainant's office on 6 November 2003 requesting him to withdraw the appeal, the solicitor still did not advise the named complainant that the appeal had not been successfully filed and failed to respond to his letter; c) Despite having received the notice of motion and support papers by registered post on 19 November 2003, the solicitor made no attempt to advise the named complainant of his failure to have his notice of appeal filed The tribunal ordered that the respondent solicitor i) Do stand censured, ii) Pay the whole of the costs of the Law Society of Ireland (including the complainant's expenses of attending the tribunal) as taxed by a taxing master of the High Court in default of agreement In the matter of John J Kilraine, a solicitor practising as Kilraine & Company, Nile Lodge Corner, Galway, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2002 [6868/DT85/06] Law Society Of Ireland (applicant) John J Kilraine (respondent solicitor) On , the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he: a) Was in serious delay in progressing an action on behalf of his client; b) Notwithstanding that the claim arose on 28 February 2000, did not issue proceedings until 27 February 2003; c) Failed to take steps to enter into settlement negotiations when invited to do so by letter dated 18 August 2004 from a solicitor for one of the defendants; d) Failed to enter into settlement negotiations despite repeated assurances given to the Society that he would do so; e) Failed to answer correspondence from the complainant; f) Breached section 68(1) of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act 1994 for failing, on taking instructions or as soon as practicable thereafter, to provide in writing the information prescribed by the section; g) Failed to inform the solicitors for the defendants that an offer made in October 2001 was not acceptable until February 2004; h) Failed to reply to numerous letters from the Society; i) Failed to provide monthly progress reports on his client's case, as directed by the Complaints and Client Relations Committee at its meeting on 23 March 2005; j) Obstructed the Society by his conduct in carrying out its statutory obligation of investigating complaints The tribunal ordered that the respondent solicitor: a) Do stand censured, b) Pay a sum of 6,000 to the compensation fund, c) Pay the whole of the costs of the Law Society of Ireland as taxed by a taxing master of the High Court in default of agreement In the matter of John J Kilraine, solicitor, formerly practising as Kilraine & Company at Nile Lodge Corner, Galway, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2002 [6868/DT87/07] Law Society of Ireland (applicant) John J Kilraine (respondent solicitor) On 12 June 2008, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of professional misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he: a) Breached regulation 21(1) of the Solicitors' Accounts Regulations (SI no 421 of 2001) in failing to ensure that there was furnished to the Society an accountant's report covering his financial year ended 28 February 2007 within six months thereafter, that is, by 31 August 2007, b) Failed to attend a meeting of the Regulation of Practice Committee when required to do so on 18 October 2007, c) Through his conduct, showed a disregard for his own statutory obligations and the Society's statutory obligation to monitor compliance with the Solicitors' Accounts Regulations for the protection of clients, the solicitors' profession and the public The tribunal ordered that the respondent solicitor: a) Do stand censured, b) Pay a sum of 2,000 to the compensation fund, c) Pay the whole of the costs of the Law Society of Ireland, as taxed by a taxing master of the High Court, in default of agreement In the matter of John J Kilraine, solicitor, formerly practising as Kilraine & Company at Nile Lodge Corner, Galway, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2002 [6868/DT88/07] Law Society of Ireland (applicant) John J Kilraine (respondent solicitor) On 12 June 2008, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of professional misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he: a) Breached regulation 21(1) of the Solicitors' Accounts Regulations (SI no 421 of 2001) in failing to ensure that there was furnished to the Society an accountant's report covering his financial year ended 28 February 2006 within six months thereafter, that is, by 31 August 2006, b) Through his conduct, showed a disregard for his own statutory obligations and the Society's statutory obligation to monitor compliance with the Solicitors' Accounts Regulations for the protection of clients, the solicitors' profession and the public The tribunal ordered that the respondent solicitor: a) Do stand censured, b) Pay a sum of 2,000 to the compensation fund, c) Pay the whole of the costs of the Law Society of Ireland, as taxed by a taxing master of the High Court in default of agreement In the matter of John J Kilraine, solicitor, formerly practising as Kilraine & Company at Nile Lodge Corner, Galway, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2002 [6868/DT58/08] Law Society of Ireland (applicant) John J Kilraine (respondent solicitor) On 4 November 2008, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of professional misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he: a) Failed to comply with the direction of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee given on 28 November 2007 that he pay a total contribution of 1,000 towards the costs of the Society for his failure to correspond with the Society in respect of the complaint of a named complainant within one month of being informed of the said direction, having been so informed by letter dated 10 December 2007, and failed to pay the said contribution up to the date of the swearing of the Society's affidavit (on 5 June 2008), b) Failed to reply in a timely manner to the Society's correspondence in respect of the complaint made by the complainant and, in particular, to the Society's letters seeking a response to the complainant's letter of complaint dated 3 September 2007 The tribunal ordered that the respondent solicitor: a) Do stand censured, b) Pay a sum of 1,000 to the compensation fund, c) Pay a sum of 1,000 to the Law Society of Ireland in respect of the sum identified as due and owing to the Society in charge (a) above, d) Pay the whole of the costs of the Law Society of Ireland, as taxed by a taxing master of the High Court, in default of agreement In the matter of John Kilraine, a solicitor formerly practising as Kilraine & Company Solicitors, at Nile Lodge Corner, Galway, Co Galway, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2008 [6868/DT89/07 and High Court record no 2009 no 64 SA] Law Society of Ireland (applicant) John Kilraine (respondent solicitor) On 4 November 2008, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he: a) Failed to prepare CGT returns for two clients after having been paid for doing the work, b) Failed to stamp seven deeds/leases for clients within the requisite time after having been paid for the work, c) Delayed in registering up to 38 deeds/leases for clients over a period from 1997 to 2005 after having been paid for the work, d) Breached regulation 12 of the Solicitors' Accounts Regulations 2001 by failing to keep books of account written up to date, e) Failing to maintain professional indemnity insurance cover for the period 1 January 2006 to 3 April 2006 in breach of the Professional Indemnity Insurance Regulations, f) Failed to comply with directions of the Regulation of Practice Committee to complete stamping and registration within a specified time, g) Failed to attend a meeting of the Regulation of Practice Committee when asked to attend The tribunal directed that: i) The respondent solicitor should not be permitted to practise as a sole practitioner or in partnership; that he be permitted only to practise as a solicitor 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, ii) The respondent solicitor pay the whole of the costs of the Law Society of Ireland to be taxed in default of agreement The tribunal directed that the matter be referred forward to the High Court and, on 29 June 2009, the President of the High Court ordered that: 1) The respondent solicitor be permitted only to practise as an assistant solicitor in the employment of, and under the direct control and supervision of, another solicitor of at least ten years' standing, to be approved in advance by the Law Society of Ireland, 2) The Law Society do recover the costs of the proceedings herein and the cost of the proceedings before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal when taxed and ascertained In the matter of John Kilraine, a solicitor formerly practising as Kilraine & Company, Solicitors, at Nile Lodge Corner, Galway, Co Galway, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2008 [6868/DT56/08 and High Court record no 2009 no 65 SA] Law Society of Ireland (applicant) John Kilraine (respondent solicitor) On 4 November 2008, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he: a) Failed to progress adequately the complainant's claim in the recovery of his special damages arising out of a road traffic accident claim initially heard at Loughrea District Court on 9 March 2007, b) Failed to pay the balance sum of 500 towards the costs of the Society's investigation, as directed by the Complaints and Client Relations Committee at its meeting held on 28 November 2007, c) Failed to adequately respond to the Society's correspondence and, in particular, letters dated 28 August 2007, 10 September 2007, 20 September 2007, 28 September 2007, 18 October 2007, 14 November 2007, 3 December 2007, 28 January 2008, 4 February 2008 and 23 April 2008, d) Failed to attend the Complaints and Client Relations Committee meeting on 28 November 2007 as required without any adequate explanation, e) Failed to comply with the direction of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee at its meeting of 23 January 2008 to attend its meeting of 4 March 2008, f) Failed to comply with the direction of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee at its meeting of 4 March 2008 to attend its meeting of 16 April 2008 The tribunal directed that i) The respondent solicitor should not be permitted topractise as a sole practitioner or in partnership; that he be permitted only to practise as a solicitor 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, ii) The respondent solicitor pay the whole of the costs of the Law Society of Ireland, including witness expenses, to be taxed in default of agreement The tribunal directed that the matter be referred forward to the High Court and, on 29 June 2009, the President of the High Court ordered that: 1) The respondent solicitor be permitted only to practise as an assistant solicitor in the employment of, and under the direct control and supervision of, another solicitor of at least ten years' standing, to be approved in advance by the Law Society of Ireland, 2) The Law Society do recover the costs of the proceedings herein and the cost of the proceedings before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal when taxed and ascertained In the matter of John Martin Carr, a solicitor formerly practising in the firm of William Davis & Company, Solicitors, 74 Old Seamus Quirke Road, Westside Business Park, Galway, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2002 [4214/DT43/08] Law Society of Ireland (applicant) John Martin Carr (respondent solicitor) On 30 July 2009, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he: 1) Provided inadequate professional services, chiefly in the form of delay to the complainant, for a period in excess of ten years, 2) Failed to reply to the Society's correspondence and, in particular, letters dated 4 December 2006, 25 January 2007 and 9 March 2007, resulting in a direction of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee meeting on 18 April 2007 The tribunal ordered that the respondent solicitor: a) Do stand admonished and advised, b) Pay the sum of 3,000 to the compensation fund, c) Pay the whole of the costs of the Law Society of Ireland, including witness expenses, as taxed by a taxing master of the High Court, in default of agreement In the matter of John Mc Kenna, solicitor, practising in the firm of Peter J Mc Kenna at 18 Sandymount Green, Dublin 4, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts, 1954 to 2002 [4544/DT354] Law Society of Ireland (applicant) John Mc Kenna (respondent solicitor) On , the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he: a) Was in serious delay in registering his client's title to her property b)Was in serious delay in lodging all documentation in relation to his client's conveyancing transaction with his client's building society c) Failed to reply to telephone calls from his client enquiring about the situation d) Failed to reply to correspondence from the society about the matter e) Failed to attend a meeting of the Registrar's Committee when requested to do so f) Misled the Registrar's Committee in a letter dated 30 July 2001 when he represented that he was forwarding the title deeds to his client's building society g) Misled the Registrar's Committee in a further letter dated 19 March 2002 when he represented that he had forwarded his client's title deeds to her building society when he had not h) Failed to comply with a notice pursuant to section 10 of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act, 1994 The tribunal made an order: a) Censuring the respondent solicitor b) Directing the respondent solicitor to pay a sum of 1,500 to the compensation fund c) Directing the respondent solicitor to pay the whole of the costs of the Law Society of Ireland as taxed by a taxing master of the High Court in default of agreement In the matter of John Mc Kenna, solicitor, practising in the firm of Peter J Mc Kenna at 18 Sandymount Green, Dublin 4, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts, 1954 to 2002 [4544/DT355] Law Society of Ireland (applicant) John Mc Kenna (respondent solicitor) On , the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he: a) Failed to reply to multiple correspondence from his client about the purchase of property b) Failed to reply to multiple correspondence from his client's new solicitor about the above purchase c) Failed to register his client as owner of the property and failed to disclose to him and his new solicitor that he had lost the title documents to the property d) Failed to account to his client for interest accrued on monies held by him on behalf of his client e) Further seriously prejudiced his client in failing to cooperate with the efforts of his client's new solicitor to register his former client's title to the property f) Failed to reply to correspondence and telephone calls from the society about the matter g) Misled the Registrar's Committee on when he represented that the purchase deed had been stamped when he knew it had not h) Misled his client's new solicitor in a telephone conversation on 13 February 2001 when he represented that the purchase deed had been stamped i) Further prejudiced his client in exposing him to considerable potential interest penalties arising out of his failure to stamp the purchase deed and his representation that it had been stamped j) Failed to write to his client's new solicitor as requested by the Registrar's Committee on to agree a figure for interest k) Falsely represented to his client's new solicitor in a letter dated that he was in the process of reconstructing the title to the property when in fact he was doing nothing to remedy the situation l) Failed to comply with a direction of the Registrar's Committee pursuant to section 8(1) of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act, 1994 that he hand his client's file over to his new solicitor m) Failed to co-operate with his client's new solicitor in his efforts to reconstitute the title The tribunal made an order: a) Censuring the respondent solicitor b) Directing the respondent solicitor to pay a sum of 1,500 to the compensation fund c) Directing the respondent solicitor to pay the whole of the costs of the Law Society of Ireland as taxed by a taxing master of the High Court in default of agreement In the matter of John W Synnott, a solicitor carrying on practice under the style and title of John Synnott & Company, Solicitors, at Dame House, 24 Dame Street, Dublin 2, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2002 [3035/DT40/06] Law Society of Ireland (applicant) John W Synnott (respondent solicitor) On 3 October 2006, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he was in breach of the provisions of section 68(2) of the 1994 Solicitors (Amendment) Act, which states that a solicitor shall not act for a client in connection with any contentious business on the basis of calculating charges on a percentage basis In the circumstances of this case, the solicitor acknowledged and agreed that he had deducted charges from a client's settlement (for personal injuries arising out of a road traffic accident) on the basis of a 10% solicitor/client fee The tribunal ordered thatthe respondent solicitor: a) Do stand censured, b) Pay a sum of 2,000 to the compensation fund, c) Pay the whole of the costs of the Law Society of Ireland, as taxed by a taxing master of the High Court in default of agreement In the matter of John P Whelan, solicitor, practising as Matthew Mac Namara & Son, Solicitors, at Friar Street, Cashel, Co Tipperary, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2002 [5513/DT62/05] Law Society of Ireland (applicant) John P Whelan (respondent solicitor) On 27 April 2006, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in respect of the following complaints, as set out in paragraph 15(i) to (viii) inclusive of the affidavit sworn on behalf of the Society on 14 October 2005 as follows: i) Took substantial sums of money as 'solicitor/client' fees in personal injury cases, which were not recorded as income in the office books of account, so that the fee income of the respondent solicitor's practice was substantially understated in the books of account; ii) In most cases, caused two client account cheques to be written, both payable to the client and entered in the books of account as payments to the client, whereas one of the cheques was endorsed by the client, which the respondent solicitor then negotiated for his own use and benefit; iii) Failed to pay VAT on the fees in question or to return the fee income to the Revenue; iv) Provided incorrect information in relation to a number of matters to the investigating accountant in the course of an investigation under the Solicitors' Accounts Regulations 2001 on 17 February 2004 and 19 February 2004; v) Failed to disclose the solicitor/client fees to his reporting accountant; vi) Breached section 68(6) of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act 1994 by failing to furnish to clients a bill as prescribed by the section as soon as practicable after the conclusion of contentious business carried out by him on behalf of the client; vii) Cashed or caused to be cashed 'solicitor/client' fee cheques in the amount of 184,066 over a three and a-half year period, usually in the family butcher shop, instead of paying such fees into the office account; viii) Breached the following regulations of the Solicitors' Accounts Regulations 2001: Regulation 12(2)(a): The books of account did not show "the true financial position" in relation to the solicitor/client cheques The books showed the cheques as having been paid to the clients, whereas they were actually fees drawn by the respondent solicitor Regulation 12(1): "Proper books of account" were not maintained when cheques, recorded as having been paid to the clients, were actually paid to the respondent solicitor Regulation 11(1): In none of the personal injury files examined were the clients furnished with a "bill of costs which specifies the amount of the professional fees payable by the client", including outlays Regulation 10(2): The respondent solicitor cashed 'solicitor/client' cheques totalling 76,91063 and a further cheque for 2,500 The respondent solicitor did not pay all moneys received in respect of solicitor/ client fees into the office account Regulation 8(3)(a): The payee details on the solicitor/client cheques recorded the client as the payee, whereas it was in fact the respondent solicitor who received the proceeds of the cheque Regulation 8(2): The solicitor/client cheques were not drawn in favour of the respondent solicitor and were not paid into the office account Regulation 7(3) and 7(1)(a)(iii): In none of the personal injury files examined were the clients furnished with a bill of costs (as defined) Furthermore, the solicitor/client fees drawn were not drawn within a period "not exceeding three months after" furnishing a bill of costs The tribunal ordered that the respondent solicitor: a) Do stand censured, b) Pay a sum of 15,000 to the compensation fund, c) Pay the whole of the costs of the Law Society of Ireland as taxed by a taxing master of the High Court in default of agreement In the matter of Joseph Fahey, a solicitor of Ballygar Road, Mountbellew, Co Galway, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2002 [6687/DT70/06] Law Society of Ireland (applicant) Joseph Fahey (respondent solicitor) On 6 November 2007, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he: a) Failed to comply with an undertaking dated 7 November 2003 to ACC Bank to stamp and register the deed of charge and deed of transfer and as soon as practicable to lodge the deeds together with the certificate of title with the bank in respect of a named property in Co Galway on behalf of a named client, b) Failed to respond to the Society's correspondence, and in particular the Society's letters of 31 March 2006, 25 April 2006, and , c) Failed to respond to the specific enquiries set out in the Society's letter of 31 March 2006 The tribunal ordered that the respondent solicitor: a) Do stand censured, b) Pay a sum of 350 to the compensation fund, c) Pay the whole of the costs of the Law Society of Ireland, as taxed by a taxing master of the High Court, in default of agreement In the matter of Joseph Fahey, a solicitor of Ballygar Road, Mountbellew, Co Galway, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2002 [6687/DT78/06] Law Society of Ireland (applicant) Joseph Fahey (respondent solicitor) On 6 November 2007, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he: a) Delayed in complying with his undertaking given to the Irish Nationwide Building Society and dated 9 December 2002 in respect of a named property in Co Galway by failing to complete and register the mortgage in favour of the Irish Nationwide Building Society in a timely manner, having only completed same in January 2006, b) Failed to comply with his undertaking dated 9 December 2002 in relation to another named property in Galway, c) Released the proceeds of the sale of the last-mentioned named property in Co Galway without obtaining the consent of the Irish Nationwide Building Society in advance, d) Failed to reply to the Society's correspondence, and in particular the Society's letters of 11 October 2005, 28 October 2005, 17 November 2005, 20 December 2005, 10 January 2006, 6 February 2006, 14 February 2006, 16 March 2006, 29 March 2006, 6 April 2006 The tribunal ordered that the respondent solicitor: a) Do stand censured, b) Pay a sum of 1,000 to the compensation fund, c) Pay the whole of the costs of the Law Society of Ireland, as taxed by a taxing master of the High Court, in default of agreement In the matter of Joseph Fahey, solicitor, of Ballygar Road, Mountbellew, Co Galway, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2002 [6687/DT68/06 and High Court record no 2SA 2008] Law Society of Ireland (applicant) Joseph Fahey (respondent solicitor) On 6 November 2007, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that: a) At the early stages of the investigation, it was not possible to determine the true clients' fund position because the books of account were in arrears The accountant's report for 28 February 2003 showed a deficit of 270,083 as of the reporting date This deficit was mainly caused by debit balances The accountant's report for the year ended 29 February 2004 showed a deficit in client funds of 116,103 at the date, again mainly caused by debit balances The accountant's report for the year ended 28 February 2005 showed a deficit in client account of 64,216 as of the reporting date b) Subject to the matters set out in paragraph 22 of the investigating accountant's report, there was an apparent deficit of 32,687 in the client account as of 31 August 2005 c) Debit balances amounted to 32,687 as of the date of 31 August 2005 d) In June 2004, the books of account were almost two years in arrears Since October 2004, the books were written up by a very competent bookkeeper and at the time of the investigation they were approximately five weeks in arrears e) In a purchase by a named client from a named vendor, the stamp duty amounted to 5,142 Interest and penalties were avoided because the transfer deed was 'updated' to , although the purchase closed in January 2002 f) In another purchase by the aforementioned named client, it would appear that stamp duty at 9% plus interest and penalty may have been avoided because the deed was 'updated' from on or about 30 October 2001 to 20 November 2002 g) In the course of acting for a named client in relation to a purchase of property, interest and penalty on stamp duty of 7,140 were avoided because the transfer deed was 'updated' from in or about September 2003 to 20 August 2004 h) In the course of acting for a named client in relation to the purchase of a property, interest and penalty on stamp duty of 9,560 were avoided because the transfer deed was 'updated' from 2 February 2004 to 4 April 2005 i) In the course of acting for two named clients in relation to the purchase of one site each, interest and penalty on the stamp duty amounts of 1,125 were avoided because the transfer deeds were 'updated' from in or about August 2004 to 20 April 2005 and 25 August 2005 respectively j) The solicitor acted for a named builder in relation to the sale of new houses, and in six cases he also acted for the purchasers of the houses, in breach of the Solicitors (Professional Practice Conduct and Discipline) Regulations of 1997 (SI no 85 of 1997) The tribunal directed that the matter be referred forward to the High Court and, on 7 April 2008, the President of the High Court ordered, pursuant to section 8 of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act 1960, as substituted by section 18 of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act 1994 and amended by section 9 of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act 2002: i) That the respondent solicitor should not be permitted to practise as a sole practitioner or in partnership, that he be permitted only to practise as an assistant solicitor 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, ii) That the respondent solicitor do deliver to Fair & Murtagh Solicitors all or any documents, files and papers in his possession or within his procurement arising from his practice as a solicitor, including all ledger cards and funds held for and on behalf of clients files, iii) That the Law Society do recover the costs of the proceedings in the High Court and the costs of the proceedings before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal In the matter of Joseph Griffin, a solicitor practising as Joseph Griffin and Company, Solicitors, 93 O'Connell Street, Limerick, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954 to 2002 [3474/DT13/05] Client in person (applicant) Joseph Griffin (respondent solicitor) On 7 March 2006, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he had failed to carry out his client's instructions The tribunal ordered that the respondent solicitor: a) Do stand censured, b) Pay the sum of 5,000 to the compensation fund, c) Pay the sum of 11,30850 as restitution to his client, without prejudice to any legal right of his client, d) Pay the expenses of his client and that of his client's witness, measured in the sum of 150In the matter of Joseph Griffin, a solicitor practising as Joseph Griffin & Company, Solicitors, 93 O'Connell Street, Limerick, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2008 [3474/DT98/10] Law Society of Ireland (applicant) Joseph Griffin (respondent solicitor) On 25 January 2011, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he: a) Failed to ensure there was furnished to the Society an accountant's report for the year ended 31 October 2009 within six months of that date, in breach of regulation 21(1) of the Solicitors' Accounts Regulations 2001 (SI no 421 of 2001), b) Through his conduct, showed disregard for his statutory obligation to comply with the Solicitors' Accounts Regulations and showed disregard for the Society's statutory obligation to monitor compliance with the Solicitors' Accounts Regulations for the protection of clients and the public The tribunal ordered that the respondent solicitor: a) Do stand advised and admonished, b) Pay a sum of 500 to the compensation fund, c) Pay the whole of the costs of the Law Society of Ireland as taxed by a taxing master of the High Court in default of agreement In the matter of Joseph Traynor, solicitor, and Seamus Mallon, solicitor, practising as Traynor Mallon Solicitors 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 to 2002 [5554-3936/DT417] Law Society of Ireland (applicant) Joseph Traynor (first-named respondent solicitor) Seamus Mallon (second-named respondent solicitor) On 10 June 2004, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the first-named respondent solicitor and the second-named respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in respect of the following complaints set out in paragraph 14 of the affidavit of Patrick Joseph Connolly, sworn 7 August 2003, in that they: a) Allowed a deficit to arise in respect of client funds as of 30 November 2002 in the sum of 126,167, increasing as of 31 December 2002 to 250,693 b) Allowed this deficit to so arise in the practice of withdrawing costs from the client account in round sum amounts and failing to record these withdrawals in the ledger accounts of the clients concerned in breach of regulation 12(1) of the Solicitors' Accounts Regulations 2001 c) Failed to keep proper books of account in breach of regulation 12(1) of the Solicitors' Accounts Regulations 2001, thereby masking the deficit which was not readily apparent from the books of account that were presented to the investigating accountant d) Allowed the client bank account to be overdrawn on a number of occasions, as set out in paragraph 214 of the investigating accountant's report dated 7 February 2003 e) Allowed debit balances on the client ledger to occur on the client ledger account, as set out in the investigating accountant's report dated 7 February 2003 and in particular paragraph 215 to 219 thereof The existence of debit balances on the client ledger is in breach of regulation 7(1) and 7(2) of the Solicitors' Accounts Regulations 2001 The tribunal ordered that: a) The first-named respondent solicitor, Joseph Traynor, and the second-named respondent solicitor, Seamus Mallon, do stand censured b) The first-named respondent solicitor, Joseph Traynor, pay to the compensation fund a sum of 3,000 in respect of each of the charges, that is, a total of 15,000 c) The second-named respondent solicitor, Seamus Mallon, pay to the compensation fund a sum of 1,000 in respect of each of the charges, that is, 5,000 d) The first-named respondent solicitor and the second-named respondent solicitor pay the whole of the costs of the Law Society of Ireland as taxed by a taxing master of the High Court in default of agreement In the matter of Joseph Traynor, solicitor, formerly practising as Traynor & Company, Solicitors, 86 Clanbrassil Street, Dundalk, Co Louth, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2008 [5554/DT124/09 and High Court record no 2010 no 57 SA] Law Society of Ireland (applicant) Joseph Traynor (respondent solicitor) On 18 March 2010, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he: 1) Failed to honour an undertaking given to the complainant's clients, Start Mortgages Limited, in respect of his named clients, involving property at Rathcore, Enfield, Co Meath, in the solicitor's undertaking dated 4 March 2008, whereby he undertook to do the following: a) To ensure that the mortgage ranked as the first legal mortgage/charge on the property, b) As soon as practicable, to stamp and register the mortgage in the appropriate registry so as to ensure the lender obtained the first legal mortgage/charge on the property and, expeditiously, as soon as practicable thereafter, to lodge the following with the lender: i) All deeds and documents to the property, stamped and registered as appropriate, including if applicable the assignment of the life policy, stamped collateral to the mortgage, ii) The original mortgage (with certificate of charge endorsed thereon under rule 156 of the Land Registry Rules1972, if Land Registry title), iii) The Land Registry certificate or, if not issued, an up-to-date certified copy folio of the property showing the mortgage registered as a burden thereon, and iv) Certificate of title in the Law Society's standard form 2) Failed to adequately or at all respond to the complainant's correspondence, in particular letters dated 31 August 2008, 28 October 2008, 21 November 2008 and 18 December 2008 respectively The tribunal directed: a) That the respondent solicitor is not a fit person to be a member of the solicitors' profession, b) That the name of the respondent solicitor be struck off the Roll of Solicitors, c) That the respondent solicitor pay the sum of 50,000 as restitution to Start Mortgages Limited, d) That the respondent solicitor pay the whole of the costs of the Law Society of Ireland, including witness expenses, to be taxed by a taxing master of the High Court in default of agreement The tribunal directed that the matter be referred forward to the High Court and, on 5 July 2010, the President of the High Court ordered: 1) That the name of the respondent solicitor be struck from the Roll of Solicitors, 2) That the respondent solicitor pay the sum of 50,000 as restitution to Start Mortgages Limited, 3) That the applicant forward the papers in respect of this application to the Director of Public Prosecutions, 4) That the respondent solicitor surrender his passport forthwith to An Garda Siochana, 5) That the respondent solicitor pay the applicant the costs of the High Court proceedings, together with the costs of the disciplinary tribunal proceedings, to include witness expenses, to be taxed in default of agreement In the matter of Joseph Traynor, solicitor, formerly practising as Traynor & Company, Solicitors, 86 Clanbrassil Street, Dundalk, Co Louth, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2008 [5554/DT01/10 and High Court record no 2010 no 56 SA] Law Society of Ireland (applicant) Joseph Traynor (respondent solicitor) On , the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he: a) Caused or allowed a fictitious contract for the purported sum of 7 million in relation to the purchase of lands at Castlewarden, being a false and misleading contract as to the purchase price, as there was an existing contract for the sum of 46 million, b) Caused or allowed a fictitious contract for the purchase of lands at Castlewarden to bear the signature of the vendor and the complainant's signature as witness, when such signatures were not the signatures of the vendor and the complainant, c) Permitted or allowed a fictitious contract to be forwarded to the solicitors for a bank for the purchase of the site the bank placed reliance upon, d) Failed to progress the true contract for the purchase price of 46 million, leaving a capital balance outstanding of 1,140,000 plus interest, which entailed proceedings for specific performance being issued and served by the complainant, e) Failed to have the original deed of transfer signed by the purchaser dated, stamped and registered, f) Failed to explain why 34 million occurred on the client ledger account when he claimed that he had no money to stamp the deed, g) Failed to explain why there were two versions of a contract for the same lands, h) Released title documents held on trust to the order of the complainant pending payment of the full amount of the purchase monies, i) Failed to explain why he had not brought the matter of the fictitious contract and purported fraud to the immediate attention of the garda, j) Failed to respond adequately or at all to the complainant's correspondence, in particular letters dated 1 November 2006, 7 November 2006, 11 December 2006, 15 June 2007, 9 August 2007, 22 August 2007, 19 October 2007, 20 December 2007, 13 June 2008, 3 April 2009, 15 April 2009, 22 April 2009 and 27 April 2009, k) Failed to respond adequately or at all to the Society's correspondence, in particular letters dated 20 August 2009 and 21 September 2009 The tribunal directed: a) That the respondent solicitor is not a fit person to be a member of the solicitors' profession, b) That the name of the respondent solicitor be struck off the Roll of Solicitors, c) That the respondent solicitor pay the whole of the costs of the Law Society of Ireland, including witness expenses, to be taxed by a taxing master of the High Court in default of agreement The tribunal directed that the matter be referred forward to the High Court and, on 5 July 2010, the President of the High Court ordered: 1) That the name of the respondent solicitor be struck from the Roll of Solicitors, 2) That the applicant forward the papers in respect of this application to the Director of Public Prosecutions, 3) That the respondent solicitor surrender his passport forthwith to An Garda Siochana, 4) That the respondent solicitor pay the applicant the costs of the High Court proceedings, together with the costs of the disciplinary tribunal proceedings, to include witness expenses, to be taxed in default of agreement In the matter of Joseph Traynor, solicitor, formerly practising as Traynor & Company, Solicitors, 86 Clanbrassil Street, Dundalk, Co Louth, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2008 [5554/DT102/09 and High Court record no 2010 no 53 SA] Law Society of Ireland (applicant) Joseph Traynor (respondent solicitor) On 26 January 2010, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he failed, up to the date of referral to this tribunal, in a timely manner or at all, to honour an undertaking given to the complainant by letter dated 22 February 2008, whereby he failed to discharge the mortgage on title in favour of ACC Bank plc from the proceeds of sale of property at Tullydonnell, Ardee, Co Louth, and to furnish a mortgage vacate of the said mortgage, together with a cheque in the sum of 25, in respect of Land Registry fees as soon as possible thereafter The tribunal directed: a) That the respondent solicitor is not a fit person to be a member of the solicitors' profession, b) That the name of the respondent solicitor be struck off the Roll of Solicitors, c) That the respondent solicitor pay a monetary penalty of 800,000, d) That the respondent solicitor pay the whole of the costs of the Law Society of Ireland, including witness expenses, to be taxed by a taxing master of the High Court in default of agreement The tribunal urged that the papers in respect of this application be forwarded to the Director of Public Prosecutions The tribunal directed that the matter be referred forward to the High Court and, on 5 July 2010, the President of the High Court ordered: 1) That the name of the respondent solicitor be struck from the Roll of Solicitors, 2) That the respondent solicitor pay the sum of 800,000 as restitution to a named client, 3) That the applicant forward the papers in respect of this application to the Director of Public Prosecutions, 4) That the respondent solicitor surrender his passport forthwith to An Garda Siochana, 5) That the respondent solicitor pay the applicant the costs of the High Court proceedings, together with the costs of the disciplinary tribunal proceedings, to include witness expenses, to be taxed in default of agreement In the matter of Joseph Traynor, solicitor, formerly practising as Traynor & Company, Solicitors, 86 Clanbrassil Street, Dundalk, Co Louth, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2008 [5554/DT11/10 and High Court record no 2010 no 55 SA] Law Society of Ireland (applicant) Joseph Traynor (respondent solicitor) On , the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he: a) Failed to honour an undertaking given to the complainant on behalf of a named client for property at Lislin, Mullagh, Co Cavan, dated 31 August 2007, in which he undertook to register the mortgage of the complainant in the appropriate registry and to ensure that the lender/complainant obtained a first legal mortgage on the property and, as soon as practical thereafter, to lodge with the lender/complainant all deeds and documents properly stamped and registered as appropriate together with the original mortgage, b) Failed to reply adequately to the complainant's correspondence and to the complainant's solicitors' correspondence, in particular letters dated 9 December 2008, 9 January 2009, 28 January 2009, 16 February 2009 and 26 February 2009, c) Failed to adequately respond to the Society's correspondence, in particular letters dated and , d) Failed to attend or arrange representation before the Complaints and Client Relations Committee meeting on 9 October 2009, despite being directed to attend The tribunal directed: a) That the respondent solicitor is not a fit person to be a member of the solicitors' profession, b) That the name of the respondent solicitor be struck off the Roll of Solicitors, c) That the respondent solicitor pay the sum of 570,000 as restitution to Start Mortgages, d) That the respondent solicitor pay the whole of the costs of the Law Society of Ireland, including witness expenses, to be taxed by a taxing master of the High Court in default of agreement The tribunal directed that the matter be referred forward to the High Court and, on 5 July 2010, the President of the High Court ordered: 1) That the name of the respondent solicitor be struck from the Roll of Solicitors, 2) That the respondent solicitor pay the sum of 570,000 as restitution to Start Mortgages Limited, 3) That the applicant forward the papers in respect of this application to the Director of Public Prosecutions, 4) That the respondent solicitor surrender his passport forthwith to An Garda Siochana, 5) That the respondent solicitor pay the applicant the costs of the High Court proceedings, together with the costs of the disciplinary tribunal proceedings, to include witness expenses, to be taxed in default of agreement In the matter of Joseph Traynor, solicitor, formerly practising as Traynor & Company, Solicitors, 86 Clanbrassil Street, Dundalk, Co Louth, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2008 [5554/DT125/09 and High Court record no 2010 no 58 SA] Law Society of Ireland (applicant) Joseph Traynor (respondent solicitor) On 18 March 2010, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he: a) Failed to honour an undertaking given to the complainant, dated 17 November 2004, whereby he undertook to do the following: 1) Execute security documents in that, prior to negotiating the loan cheque or the proceeds thereof, he failed to ensure that the borrower had executed a mortgage deed/charge in the lender's standard form as produced by the lender over the property, 2) Ensure that the mortgage ranked as a first legal mortgage/charge on the property, 3) Register the mortgage in the appropriate registry so as to ensure that the lender/complainant obtained a first legal mortgage/charge on the property and, expeditiously, as soon as practicable thereafter, to lodge the following documents with the lender/complainant: i) All deeds and documents to the property, stamped and registered as appropriate, including, if applicable, the assignment of the life policy, stamped collateral to the mortgage, ii) The original mortgage (with certificate of charge endorsed thereon under rule 156 of the Land Registry Rules 1972, if Land Registry title), iii) If Land Registry title, the land certificate or, if not issued, an up-to-date certified copy folio of the property showing the mortgage registered as a burden thereon, iv) The complainant's certificate of title in the Law Society's standard form 4) Hold all title documents of the property in trust for the lender/complainant b) Failed to adequately or at all respond to the complainant's correspondence, in particular letters dated 18 July 2008, 6 October 2008 (twice), 22 October 2008, 7 January 2009, 9 January 2009 and 6 February 2009, c) Failed to adequately respond to the Society's correspondence, in particular letters dated 23 February 2009, 11 March 2009, 19 March 2009, 1 April 2009 and 3 June 2009 respectively The tribunal directed: a) That the respondent solicitor is not a fit person to be a member of the solicitors' profession, b) That the name of the respondent solicitor be struck off the Roll of Solicitors, c) That the respondent solicitor pay the sum of 45,27594 to KBC Mortgages Limited, d) That the respondent solicitor pay the whole of the costs of the Law Society of Ireland, including witness expenses, to be taxed by a taxing master of the High Court in default of agreement The tribunal directed that the matter be referred forward to the High Court and, on 5 July 2010, the President of the High Court ordered: 1) That the name of the respondent solicitor be struck from the Roll of Solicitors, 2) That the respondent solicitor pay the sum of 45,27594 as restitution to KBC Homeloans Limited, 3) That the applicant forward the papers in respect of this application to the Director of Public Prosecutions, 4) That the respondent solicitor surrender his passport forthwith to An Garda Siochana, 5) That the respondent solicitor pay the applicant the costs of the High Court proceedings, together with the costs of the disciplinary tribunal proceedings, to include witness expenses, to be taxed in default of agreement In the matter of Joseph Traynor, solicitor, formerly practising as Traynor & Company, Solicitors, 86 Clanbrassil Street, Dundalk, Co Louth, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2008 [5554/DT126/09 and High Court record no 2010 no 59 SA] Law Society of Ireland (applicant) Joseph Traynor (respondent solicitor) On 18 March 2010, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he: a) Failed to honour an undertaking given to the complainant's clients, Start Mortgages Limited, in respect of his named client, involving property at Rosehill, Mullagh, Co Cavan, in a solicitor's undertaking dated 25 January 2008, whereby he undertook to do the following: i) To register the mortgage in the appropriate registry to ensure that the complainant's clients, Start Mortgages Limited, obtained the first legal charge on the property, ii) To, as soon as practicable thereafter, register the first legal charge on the property and to lodge with the lender, Start Mortgages Limited, all deeds and documents properly stamped and registered, iii) As soon as practicable after registration of Start Mortgages Limited first legal mortgage of the property, to lodge the original mortgage with the lender, Start Mortgages Limited, iv) To ensure the borrowers acquiring the property obtained good marketable title to it or, where the borrower already owned the property, to satisfy himself that such borrower had good marketable title to it b) Failed to adequately or at all respond to the complainant's correspondence, in particular letters dated 9 December 2008, 9 January 2009, 28 January 2009, 16 February 2009 and 26 February 2009 respectively The tribunal directed: a) That the respondent solicitor is not a fit person to be a member of the solicitors' profession, b) That the name of the respondent solicitor be struck off the Roll of Solicitors, c) That the respondent solicitor pay restitution in the sum of 180,000 to Start Mortgages, d) That the respondent solicitor pay the whole of the costs of the Law Society of Ireland, including witness expenses, to be taxed by a taxing master of the High Court in default of agreement The tribunal directed that the matter be referred forward to the High Court and, on 5 July 2010, the President of the High Court ordered: 1) That the name of the respondent solicitor be struck from the Roll of Solicitors, 2) That the respondent solicitor pay the sum of 180,000 as restitution to Start Mortgages Limited, 3) That the applicant forward the papers in respect of this application to the Director of Public Prosecutions, 4) That the respondent solicitor surrender his passport forthwith to An Garda Siochana, 5) That the respondent solicitor pay the applicant the costs of the High Court proceedings, together with the costs of the disciplinary tribunal proceedings, to include witness expenses, to be taxed in default of agreement In the matter of Joseph Traynor, solicitor, formerly practising as Traynor & Company, Solicitors, 86 Clanbrassil Street, Dundalk, Co Louth, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2008 [5554/DT75/09 and High Court record no 2010 no 54 SA] Law Society of Ireland (applicant) Joseph Traynor (respondent solicitor) On 26 January 2010, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he: a) Failed to honour an undertaking on 25 August 2006 to lodge the title documents relating to lands at Castlewarden, Naas, Co Kildare, immediately upon the sale being completed, b) Failed to honour an undertaking on 29 August 2006 to stamp and register the title documents relating to lands at Castlewarden, Naas, Co Kildare, c) Failed to honour an undertaking on 26 September 2006 to stamp the deed of transfer in respect of the sale of lands at Castlewarden, Naas, Co Kildare, d) Failed to honour an undertaking on 13 February 2007 to stamp the title documents relating to lands at Castlewarden, Naas, Co Kildare, and to arrange to have them lodged in the Land Registry within six weeks from that date, e) Failed to comply with the direction of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee on 11 February 2009 to reply to the Society by 1 March 2009 with a copy of the stamped deed, the dealing number and copy correspondence to ACC Bank plc informing them that the deed was stamped The tribunal directed: a) That the respondent solicitor is not a fit person to be a member of the solicitors' profession, b) That the name of the respondent solicitor be struck off the Roll of Solicitors, c) That the respondent solicitor pay a monetary penalty of 630,000 to the Revenue Commissioners, d) That the respondent solicitor pay the whole of the costs of the Law Society of Ireland, including witness expenses, to be taxed by a taxing master of the High Court in default of agreement The tribunal urged that the papers in respect of this application be forwarded to the Director of Public Prosecutions The tribunal directed that the matter be referred forward to the High Court and, on 5 July 2010, the President of the High Court ordered: 1) That the name of the respondent solicitor be struck from the Roll of Solicitors, 2) That the respondent solicitor pay the sum of 630,000 to ACC Bank plc, who will remit said sum to the Revenue Commissioners if due in respect of stamp duty, or retain if not due, 3) That the applicant forward the papers in respect of this application to the Director of Public Prosecutions, 4) That the respondent solicitor surrender his passport forthwith to An Garda Siochana, 5) That the respondent solicitor pay the applicant the costs of the High Court proceedings, together with the costs of the disciplinary tribunal proceedings, to include witness expenses, to be taxed in default of agreement In the matter of Joseph W Fahey, a solicitor practising as Joseph W Fahey, Ballygar Road, Mountbellew, Ballinasloe, Co Galway, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts, 1954-2002 [6687/DT452/04] Law Society of Ireland (applicant) Joseph W Fahey (respondent solicitor) On 3 February 2005, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he had failed to file his accountant's report covering his financial year ended 28 February 2003 with the society, in breach of regulation 21(1) of the Solicitors' Accounts Regulations, in a timely manner The tribunal ordered that the respondent solicitor: a) Do stand admonished b) Pay a sum of 350 to the compensation fund c) Pay the contribution of 650, being part of the costs of the Law Society of Ireland In the matter of W Joseph Fahey, a solicitor of Ballygar Road, Mountbellew, Co Galway, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2002 [6687/DT37/08] Law Society of Ireland (applicant) W Joseph Fahey (respondent solicitor) On 23 October 2008 and 13 November 2008, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he: a) Retained at least 3,800 in respect of stamp duty on behalf of a named complainant, but failed to furnish same to the Revenue or to return same to the client in a timely manner, b) Failed to reply to the Society's correspondence and, in particular, the Society's letters of 17 August 2007, 30 August 2007, 7 September 2007, 24 September 2007, 10 October 2007, 19 October 2007, 5 November 2007, c) Failed to comply with the direction of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee, made at its meeting on 28 November 2007, to respond to the Society's letter of 24 September 2007 within one month, d) Failed to register the named complainant's property in the Land Registry in a timely manner or at all, e) Failed to reply to all the issues raised in a letter from the named complainant dated 7 September 2007 And by reason of the submissions made and the fact that the respondent solicitor has voluntarily agreed to pay the stamp duty (which in the normal course of events would be the responsibility of the client) in addition to the penalty imposed by the Revenue (upwards of 20,000), the tribunal is of the opinion that it is appropriate to make an order pursuant to subsection 9 of section 7 (as substituted by section 17 of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act 1994 and amended by section 9(d) of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act 2002) of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act 1960 The tribunal ordered that the respondent solicitor: a) Do stand censured, b) Pay the whole of the costs of the Law Society of Ireland, as taxed by a taxing master of the High Court, in default of agreement In the matter of Joseph W Fahey, a solicitor previously carrying on practice under the style of Joseph Fahey & Co Solicitors, Mountbellew, Ballinasloe, Co Galway, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2008 [6687/DT67/09] Law Society of Ireland (applicant) Joseph W Fahey (respondent solicitor) On 16 February 2010, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he: a) Failed to ensure there was furnished to the Society an accountant's report for the year ended 28 February 2008 within six months of that date, in breach of regulation 21(1) of the Solicitors' Accounts Regulations 2001 (SI no 421 of 2001) in a timely manner, b) Failed to ensure there was furnished to the Society a closing accountant's report up to and including the date of cessation of his practice on 4 April 2008 (within six months of that date), in breach of regulation 26(2) of the Solicitors' Accounts Regulations 2001 (SI no 421 of 2001) in a timely manner The tribunal ordered that the respondent solicitor: a) Do stand censured, b) Pay a sum of 1,000 to the compensation fund, c) Pay a contribution of 1,000, being part of the costs of the Law Society of Ireland In the matter of Kathryn Monaghan, a solicitor carrying on practice as Kathryn Monaghan & Associates, Tuam Road, Galway, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2008 [8202/DT66/09] Law Society of Ireland (applicant) Kathryn Monaghan (respondent solicitor) On 11 December 2009, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in her practice as a solicitor in that she: a) Updated a deed from 17 February 2008 to 8 December 2008, thereby avoiding the question of interest and penalty on stamp duty of 24,600, b) Updated a deed from August 2006 to 18 December 2008, thereby avoiding interest and penalty on stamp duty of 8,750, c) Failed to advise the lender that the entire proceeds of the mortgage was not going to be applied in accordance with the stated purpose set out in the letter of loan sanction in respect of the property identified at paragraph 24(h) and (i) of the investigation report, d) Acted for six clients in relation to the purchase of four investment properties in a development and failed to advise the lender prior to the investigation of her practice that the purchase price informed to the lender was greater than the actual purchase price in respect of each of the properties as set out in paragraphs 25, 26, 27 and 28 of the investigation report, e) Failed to protect the clients' interests in a situation where the lender was misinformed about the true purchase price of the properties, f) Updated the four deeds in respect of four named properties from 22 June 2007 to dates in August and September 2007, thereby avoiding interest and penalties on stamp duty due The tribunal ordered that the respondent solicitor: a) Do stand censured, b) Pay a sum of 2,500 to the compensation fund, c) Pay 50% of the costs of the Law Society of Ireland as taxed by a taxing master of the High Court in default of agreement In the matter of Keith Finnan, solicitor, carrying on practice under the style and title of Keith Finnan & Company at Humbert Mall, Main Street, Castlebar, Co Mayo, 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 to 2002 [4346/DT397] Law Society of Ireland (applicant) Keith Finnan (respondent solicitor) On 11 March 2004, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found that the respondent solicitor was guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he had: Failed to respond to correspondence from the society and in particular to the letters dated 12 November 2002, 26 November 2002, 5 December 2002, 18 December 2002, 5 February 2003 and 24 February 2003 The tribunal ordered that the respondent solicitor: a) Do stand censured b) Pay a sum of 250 to the compensation fund c) Pay the whole of the costs of the Law Society (including witnesses' expenses) as taxed by a taxing master of the High Court in default of agreement In the matter of Keith Finnan, a solicitor practising as Keith Finnan & Company, Humbert Mall, Main Street, Castlebar, Co Mayo, 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, 1954-2002 [4346/DT463/04] Law Society of Ireland (applicant) Keith Finnan (respondent solicitor) On 12 October 2004, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in that he had: a) Failed to apply for a practising certificate for the year 2004 in a timely manner, having only applied for same on 31 March 2004 b) Practised as a solicitor without a practising certificate for the period 1 January 2004 to 31 March, in breach of the provisions of the Solicitors Acts, 1954 to 2002 The tribunal ordered that the respondent solicitor: a) Do stand censured b) Pay a sum of 1,500 to the compensation fund c) Pay the whole of the costs of the Law Society of Ireland as taxed by a taxing master of the High Court in default of agreement In the matter of Keith Finnan, a solicitor practising as Keith Finnan & Company at Humbert Mall, Main Street, Castlebar, Co Mayo, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954 to 2002 [4346/DT56/05] Law Society of Ireland (applicant) Keith Finnan (respondent solicitor) On 23 February 2006, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he failed to file his accountant's report for the year ended 31 January 2004, in breach of regulation 21(1) of the Solicitors' Accounts Regulations 2001, statutory instrument no 421 of 2001, in a timely manner The tribunal ordered that the respondent solicitor: a) Do stand censured, b) Pay a sum of 500 to the compensation fund, c) Pay a contribution of 500 towards the costs of the Law Society of Ireland In the matter of Keith Finnan, solicitor, carrying on practice under the style and title of Keith Finnan & Company at Humbert Mall, Main Street, Castlebar, Co Mayo, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954 2002 [4346/DT05/06] Law Society of Ireland (applicant) Keith Finnan (respondent solicitor) On , the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found that the respondent solicitor was guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he had: a) Failed to ensure there was furnished to the Society an accountant's report for the year ended 31 January 2005 within six months of his annual accounting date, in breach of regulation 21(1) of the Solicitors' Accounts Regulations 2001 (SI no 421 of 2001); b) Through his conduct, showed disregard for his statutory obligations to comply with the regulations and showed disregard for the Society's statutory obligation to monitor compliance with the Solicitors' Accounts Regulations for the protection of clients and the public The tribunal ordered that the respondent solicitor: a) Do stand censured, b) Pay a sum of 1,500 to the compensation fund, c) Pay the whole of the costs of the Law Society of Ireland as taxed by a taxing master of the High Court in default of agreement In the matter of Keith Finnan, a solicitor practising as Keith Finnan & Company, Solicitors, Humbert Mall, Main Street, Castlebar, Co Mayo, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2002 [4346/DT27/08] Law Society of Ireland (applicant) Keith Finnan (respondent solicitor) On 24 July 2008, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he: a) Up to the date of swearing of the Society's affidavit, failed to comply fully with an undertaking given to the complainants on 22 December 2005 in a timely manner, b) Failed to respond to the complainants' correspondence in relation to the undertaking in a timely manner, c) Failed to respond to the Society's correspondence, and in particular the Society's letters of 24 July 2006, 4 August 2006, 24 August 2006, 8 November 2006, 4 December 2006, 19 December 2006, 30 January 2007, 8 March 2007, , 8 June 2007, 2 July 2007, 5 July 2007, 30 July 2007, 13 August 2007, 21 August 2007, 3 September 2007, and 28 September 2007, d) Failed to comply with a notice served pursuant to section 10 of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act 1994, which notice was served by registered post on 30 January 2007, in a timely manner, e) Failed to comply with the directions of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee at its meeting on to have a progress report filed with the Society on or before 6 June 2007, f) Failed to attend a meeting of the committee on 20 January 2007 despite being required to do so, thereby obliging the Society to apply to the High Court for an order requiring his attendance before the committee The tribunal ordered that the respondent solicitor: a) Do stand censured b) Pay a sum of 1,500 to the compensation fund c) Pay the whole of the costs of the Law Society of Ireland as taxed by a taxing master of the High Court in default of agreement In the matter of Keith Finnan, a solicitor practising as Keith Finnan & Company, Solicitors, Humbert Mall, Main Street, Castlebar, Co Mayo, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2002 [4346/DT53/08] Law Society of Ireland (applicant) Keith Finnan (respondent solicitor) On 9 December 2008, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he: a) Failed to respond to the Society's correspondence, and in particular the Society's letters of 11 September 2007, 24 September 2007, 4 October 2007, 16 October 2007, 7 December 2007, 28 January 2008, 7 February 2008, b) Failed to comply with the directions of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee, made at its meeting on 28 November 2007, to make a contribution of 400 towards the costs of the Society's investigation, c) Failed to comply with the direction of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee, made at its meeting on 6 February 2008, that he attend the next meeting of the committee on 10 April 2008 The tribunal ordered that the respondent solicitor: a) Do stand censured, b) Pay the sum of 3,000 to the compensation fund, c) Pay the whole of the costs of the Law Society of Ireland, as taxed by a taxing master of the High Court, in default of agreement In the matter of Keith Finnan, a solicitor practising as Keith Finnan & Company, Solicitors, Humbert Mall, Main Street, Castlebar, Co Mayo, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2002 [4346/DT57/08] Law Society of Ireland (applicant) Keith Finnan (respondent solicitor) On 9 December 2008, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he: a) Delayed in the discharge of his undertaking to furnish a deed of discharge for a named property, having only furnished same in January 2008, b) Failed to furnish the necessary documentation to the complainant to allow their clients to obtain ownership of named properties in accordance with the terms of the contract dated 23 February 2005 and set out in the complainant's letter of 14 February 2008 in a timely manner or at all, c) Failed to respond to the Society's correspondence and, in particular, the Society's letters of 31 July 2007, 13 August 2007, 21 August 2007, 3 September 2007, 1 October 2007, 13 November 2007, 3 December 2007, d) Failed to attend the meetings on 26 September 2007 and 28 November 2007, despite being required to do so, e) Failed to comply with the direction made by the Complaints and Client Relations Committee at its meeting on 28 November 2007 to pay the sum of 450 towards the cost of the investigation The tribunal ordered that the respondent solicitor: a) Do stand censured, b) Pay the sum of 3,500 to the compensation fund, c) Pay the whole of the costs of the Law Society of Ireland, as taxed by a taxing master of the High Court, in default of agreement In the matter of Keith P Finnan, a solicitor previously practising as Keith Finnan & Company, Solicitors, Humbert Mall, Main Street, Castlebar, Co Mayo, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954 to 2008 [4346/DT134/09 and High Court 2010 no 49SA] Law Society of Ireland (applicant) Keith Finnan (respondent solicitor) On 13 April 2010, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he: a) Failed to ensure there was furnished to the Society an accountants report for the year ended 31 January 2009 within six months of that date, in breach of regulation 21(1) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations 2001 (SI no 421 of 2001), b) Through his conduct, showed disregard for his statutory obligation to comply with the Solicitors Accounts Regulations, and showed disregard for the Societys statutory obligation to monitor compliance with the Solicitors Accounts Regulations for the protection of clients and the public. Vernon resident who has played a lot of ball, written about others playing a lot of ball and loves to wax eloquently about Mt. We are fortunate to have access to many of his short stories and observations to show here.Someone who likes a challenge will be all over you, and you’ll happily bait them with a little cat and mouse game.Don't get so carried away that you forget to let yourself get caught—at least temporarily.Eglin (1891–1937), who was killed in a crash of his Northrop A-17 pursuit aircraft on a flight from Langley to Maxwell Field, Alabama.

The company's storage elevators were not damaged by the blaze. Mc Kim's IGA donated hot chocolate and Toler's and Platoline donated coffee and plastic cups.You'll be in the driver's seat, Cancer, so it’s up to you how far you want it to evolve (if at all).That said, this lunar eclipse can pave the way for a deeply bonded connection that stands the test of time.For example, enter "giraffe" and you'll get back words like "gazellephant" and "gorilldebeest".Enter "south america" and "chess" and you'll get back words like "checkuador".

Leave a Reply