390 / 432
GAZETTE
AUGUST/SEPTEMBER
1994
THE HIGH COURT
Cases presented to the High
Court between 1 September
1993 and 31 August 1994
4
Censured, fined and costs
1
Fined and costs
3
Awaiting presentation to
the High Court
2
Cases adjourned by the
President of the High Court
last year
1
Respondent ordered not to practise
as a solicitor save as an assistant
solicitor in the employment of
a solicitor of not less than 10 years
standing to be approved by the Law
Society. Also fined and ordered to
pay to the Law Society its costs.
1
Fines ranging from £1,000 to £5,000
were imposed in the appropriate cases.
During the year under review 53 new
applications were received alleging
misconduct on the part of solicitors in
respect of their handling of their clients
legal affairs. As can be seen from the
above table the majority of the new
applications were initiated by members
of the public. These figures may not in
fact be indicative of any growth in
public dissatisfaction with solicitors
but rather emanate from the public's
awareness of the Committee, partly as
a result of the Law Society's practice
of advising complainants who appear
to be dissatisfied with the Society's
treatment of their complaint, of their
right to make a direct application to
the Committee.
Upon receipt of an application for an
inquiry the first step is to decide
whether or not there is a prima facie
case for inquiry. It is at this stage of
the proceedings that the majority of
applications from the public fail. They
do so because the grounding affidavits
are inadequately drafted, do not
disclose acceptable grounds of
misconduct or relate to the area of
negligence. There is a tendency to
confuse negligence with misconduct.
The Committee has no power to award
compensation or redress to clients who
have suffered as a result of a mistake
made by their legal advisor. Clients
who feel their solicitors may have been
guilty of negligence should seek the
advice of an independent legal advisor
who will advise them of their remedies.
Notwithstanding this, it should be said
that gross negligence can amount to
misconduct, and it is a matter for the
Committee to make this decision based
on the evidence proffered.
In a number of private applications
where the Committee directed that an
inquiry should be held, it subsequently
transpired that while the circumstances
outlined in the grounding affidavit were
not intended to be misleading, all
relevant facts were not disclosed.
Consequently the Committee found the
solicitor concerned was not guilty of
misconduct. I would like to emphasise
that there is an onus on every deponent
bringing an application before this
Committee to include all pertinent facts
and not just those which would tend to
substantiate their perception of the
situation.
Misconduct is defined under Section 3
of the Solicitors Act 1960 and includes
(a) The commission of treason or a
felony or a misdemeanour.
(b) The commission outside the State
of a crime or an offence which
would be a felony or a
misdemeanour if committed in the
State.
(c) The contravention of a provision of
the Solicitors Acts 1954/1960 or
any Order or Regulation made
thereunder.
(d) Conduct tending to bring the
profession into disrepute.
The Committee is concerned with the
nature of complaints now coming
before it e.g. failing to make full and
frank disclosures to clients. According
to the Guide to Professional Conduct
of Solicitors in Ireland " . . . a solicitor
should at all times uphold the dignity
of the profession and avoid any
conduct or activities inconsistent with
that dignity." Consequently it is
incumbent on every solicitor to be
open, frank and honest with his clients
at all times. To be otherwise will
reflect badly on the profession and
bring it into disrepute.
The most common ground for
complaint continues to be failure to
communicate with clients, colleagues
and the Law Society. Every solicitor
has a duty to reply quickly, fully and
accurately to these parties.
With the recent enactment of the
Solicitors (Amendment) Act 1994 the
Disciplinary Committee, as it is
presently constituted, will in the near
future be replaced by the Disciplinary
Tribunal with new powers and duties.
However until the coming into force of
the relevant provisions of the Act of
1994 in respect of the Tribunal the
Disciplinary Committee will continue
to function pursuant to the Solicitors
Acts 1954/1960.
I would like to record my thanks to the
members of the Committee for their
hard work and support during the past
year.
Walter Beatty
Chairman
I R I S H
D O C U M E N T
E X C H A N G E
366