135 / 270
GAZETTE
JULY-AUGUST 1980
Action by Solicitor Against Law
Society Fails
An action brought by John Fanning ("the first-named
plaintiff') and Noel C. Fanning, a solicitor's apprentice
(apprenticed to his father, the first-named plaintiff) ("the
second-named plaintiff) against the Incorporated Law
Society of Ireland failed in the High Court on 27 March
1980 following a hearing before Mr. Justice Sean Butler. In
his unreserved judgment delivered on that day Mr. Justice
Butler held that in so far as any Order of the High Court or
any freezing order (under Section 20 of the Solicitors
(Amendment) Act, 1960) of the President of the High
Court (Finlay P.) made affected either the plaintiffs' bank
accounts they referred only to the first-named plaintiffs
(solicitor's) client's money accounts and therefore the
second-named plaintiff could not in any way have suffered
damage. Mr. Justice Butler held that the first-named
plaintifTs claim for damages for breach of his rights in
natural justice, or, alternatively, breach of his
constitutional rights, had not been established.
The Compensation Fund Committee of the Law
Society, at a meeting held on 30 March 1977, had
formed the opinion that it was proper to apply to the High
Court pursuant to Section 20( 1) of the Solicitors (Amend-
ment) Act, 1960, to make an Order freezing the first-
named plaintiffs bank accounts. A freezing order was
made by the President (Finlay P.) on 1 April 1977.
Section 20(1) provides as follows:
CONTROL OF BANKING ACCOUNTS OF SOLICITORS
"(1) Where the Society are of opinion that a solicitor
or a clerk or servant of a solicitor has been guilty of
dishonesty in connection with that solicitor's practice
as a solicitor or in connection with any trust of which
that solicitor is a trustee, they may apply to the High
Court, and the High Court may make an order
directing either—
(a) that no banking company shall, without leave of
the High Court, make any payment out of a
banking account in the name of the solicitor or
his firm, or
(b) that a specified banking company shall not,
without leave of the High Court, make any pay-
ment out of a banking account kept by such
company in the name of the solicitor or his
firm."
The first-named plaintiff claimed that this freezing order
was an order which affected him adversely, (which the
Court held to be true) and that it was made without notice
to him and without giving him an opportunity of being
heard (which on the facts the Court found was not true).
The Court found that in fact both plaintiffs knew from the
previous June 1976 that the Law Society was
investigating the financial affairs of the first-named
plaintiffs firm (Fanning & Co., 45 Gardiner Street,
Dublin 1). Mr. P. J. Connolly, the Law Society's
accountant, gave evidence that he did not get any reason-
able co-operation from the first-named plaintiff in seeking
financial and accounting information about Fanning &
Company, and, as a result of this, the Law Society
(through the Compensation Fund Committee) in January
1977 took a decision that the firm be formally
investigated by its accountant, and Mr. Connolly was
duly appointed an authorised officer to carry out such an
investigation under Regulation 20 of the Solicitors'
Accounts Regulations, 1967 (S.I. No. 44 of 1967), as
inserted by the Solicitors' Accounts (Amendment)
Regulations, 1970 (S.I. No. 231 of 1970).
The first-named plaintiff was notified of this by letter
from the Law Society of 1 February 1977. However, not-
withstanding this, Mr. Connolly was not able to
inspect the books of the first-named plaintifTs firm. Mr.
Connolly made appointments with the
first-named
plaintiff which were fruitless and promises were made by
the first-named plaintiff which were not kept and in effect
Mr. Connolly was not getting anywhere. The Director
General of the Law Society (Mr. James Ivers) wrote a
letter on 28 February 1977, some five weeks before the
freezing order was ultimately made on 1 April 1977, the
letter clearly informing the first-named plaintiff what the
Society's thinking and intentions were, and stating (inter
alia) that "this decision will not be pursued if you furnish
the accounts and give Mr. Connolly an opportunity to
check the accounts" . . . but that "if you do not co-
operate and furnish the accounts, an application for a
(freezing) order will be made, ex-parte".
Furthermore, in reply to a written request from the
first-named plaintiff whether any complaints had been
made and whether any client was complaining that he had
not been paid and asking for any such complaints against
—Continued on page 131.
SOCIETY OF YOUNG SOLICITORS
AUTUMN SEMINAR
Week-end: 8/9 November, 1980
in
The Talbot Hotel, Wexford
Lectures:
Landlord & Tenant (Amendment) Act, 1980.
Speaker: Maurice R. Curran, Solicitor.
The Conclusiveness of the Register
Speaker: J. Brendan Fitzgerald, Solicitor, Deputy Register,
Land Registry.
Insurance Claims — The Solicitor's Role?
Speaker: Gerald J. A. Sheean, A.C.I.I.,
Claims Controller, Sun Alliance Group.
Consumer Information Act, 1978, and Sale of Goods & Supply
of Services Act, 1980.
Speaker: James Murray, B.L.,
Director of Consumer Aflairs.
FULL PROGRAMME AND REGISTRATION FORMS
WILL BE CIRCULATED SHORTLY.
129