The Gazette 1975

Northern Ireland c id English Cases

SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE OF

NORTHERN IRELAND

Solicitor suspended for four years for not keeping

proper accounts

In the matter of Hubert J. O'Neill, a Solicitor.

[Lowry, LCJ. July 23, 1974.]

It is unnecessary for present purposes to take this

matter back beyond 19th September, 1973, when in

a letter from the Secretary of the Law Society certain

matters were put to Mr. Hubert O'Neill, whom I

shall refer to as "the solicitor", in respect of his

accounts. A correspondence ensued. The solicitor

a s invited to appoint an Accountant to audit and

Produce his books. He did not do so by ^ h October,

the date mentioned in the letter frc ( the Law

Society, and the Law Society, though they had been

willing to approve of the Accountant proposed by the

solicitor, which accountant felt unable to audit his

books at that time, then, in accordance with the

Accounts Regulations made under 2.33 of the

Solicitors Act (Northern Ireland) 1938, which I shall

call "the Act", appointed Messrs. Atkinson and Boyd.

The accounts were produced, so far as they could

be, to that firm of accountants by the solicitor and

they made a report. This matter was made the subject

°f complaints and put before the Disciplinary Com-

mittee of the Law Society which met on 1st May.

As well as that it appears that a number of com-

plaints had been received by the Law Society from

different clients of the solicitor and on 7th March,

1972, the Secretary of the Law Society drew these

matters to the attention of the solicitor and asked

lor his explanations. Another subject of complaint is

that the solicitor failed to deal with those enquiries

expeditiously and that I shall return to in due course.

When the Disciplinary Committee met on 1st May,

the solicitor had intimated the previous day his

inability to attend and the Disciplinary Committee

Went ahead with the hearing, which was in accord-

mice with the rules made for that purpose. Having

considered the applications which were made by

the Secretary of the Law Society in relation to the

alleged defaults of the solicitor, the Committee on

t May found as follows:—

0 ) That the respondent (which in this context means

the solicitor) had failed to keep proper books and

accounts as required by regulation 1 of the

Solicitors' Accounts Rules, 1939;

) That the respondent had failed to prepare proper

Balance Sheets and Statements as required by

regulation 2 of the Solicitor's Accounts Rules,

1939;

(3) That the respondent had made a false declaration

for the purpose of obtaining a practising

certificate for the year ended 5th January, 1972.

The Committee noted that they were satisfied

that paragraphs 1 and 2 of the declaration were

false;

(4) That the respondent had failed to obtain prac-

tising certificates for the years ended 5th

January, 1973, and 5th January, 1974, while

holding himself out as being entitled to practise

during those years;

(5) That the respondent had failed in a reasonable

time to make proper answer to the Society

regarding matters on which he was required to

report.

The matter came before me under section 19(6)

of the Act and it is my duty to deal with it in

accordance with section 21 which provides as

follows:—

"(1) The Lord Chief Justice after hearing a report

by the Committee under section 19 of this Act

or an appeal from a decision of the Committee

under section 20 of this Act may

(a) cause the name of the solicitor to whom the

or the appeal relates to be struck off the

roll; or

(b) suspend the said solicitor from practising

for such time as the Lord Chief Justice may

determine; or

and impose a fine upon him;

and the Lord Chief Justice may also find the

said solicitor liable in any costs and expenses

which may be involved in the proceedings

before him or in the investigation of the said

solicitor's conduct by the Committee and may

make any order in relation to the case which he

may see fit.

(2) Before making an order under this section the

Lord Chief Justice shall hear the parties or

give them an opportunity of being heard on the

report by the Committee, or on the appeal to

the Lord Chief Justice from a decision of the

Committee, as the case may be."

The case has been clearly presented by Mr. Sheil

and Mr. Mooney has said everything which could

properly be said for the solicitor concerned. The

solicitor has not attended and appears content to

rely on his affidavits, the correspondence and the

submissions now made by Counsel. I am satisfied,

and Counsel agrees, that my duty of hearing the

parties or giving them an opportunity of being heard

has been performed.

In regard to the keeping of accounts, the Society

relies on section 33 of the Act and regulations 1 and

2 of the accounts regulations and on section 34.

Section 33 gives power to the Society to make

regulations and I refer to the first two which are—