The Gazette 1991

GAZETTE

DECEMBER 1991

The High Court

Cases presented to the High Court between the 1st September,

1990 and the 31st August, 1991

Name of solicitor struck off the Roll

"Suspended from practising as a solicitor for three years 1

Practising Certificate to be withheld until the High

Court shall make an Order to the contrary

Practising Certificate limited so that for the next three

years the solicitor practises under the supervision of a

solicitor of not less than 10 years standing who is

acceptable to the Society.

Cautioned in respect of delays. Costs awarded.

Censured, fined and costs

Censured and costs

Adjourned

Awaiting presentation to the High Court

Cases adjourned by the President of the High Court

last year

Remitted to the Disciplinary Committee

Stay on Order of Suspension - Adjourned

Remitted to the Disciplinary Committee Adjourned

Censured and costs

'Suspended from practising as a solicitor for three years

These Orders were made in respect of the same solicitor.

Fines of £1,000 were imposed in the appropriate cases.

Failure to reply to the Society's

correspondence.

Failure to attend a meeting of the

Registrar's Committee or Compen-

sation Fund Committee when

requested to do so.

Failure to reply to correspondence

from clients or the client's new

solicitors.

Commentary

The Disciplinary Committee, which

is a s t a t u t ory body who l ly

independent of The Incorporated

Law Society of Ireland, is at present

constituted under the Solicitors'

Acts 1954 and 1960. It is a

Committee of ten practising

solicitors and its powers are

restricted to receiving and hearing

complaints of alleged misconduct

in accordance with the Rules made

under Section 16 of the 1954 Act.

During the year it has come to the

attention of the Committee that

members of the profession still fail

to appreciate the significance of

the Disciplinary Committee and the

role it plays in regulating the

conduct of solicitors. They fail to

understand that it is a committee

of the High Court and is

unconnected to the Law Society's

procedures in relation to the

conduct of solicitors.

The majority of applications which

come before the Committee issue

from the Law Society, but any party

may make a direct application. This

year approximately 38% of

applications received were from

members of the public. However, it

must be stressed t hat the

Committee had no power to carry

out its own investigations and any

informal complaint is usually

referred to the Law Society, with

the consent of the complainant, for

enquiry.

This year saw a decline in the

number of applications which came

before the Disciplinary Committee

for consideration and this is a very

welcome sign. Notwithstanding

this, the Committee still found it

necessary to sit regularly through-

out the year. The seriousness of the

matters considered by the

Committee is illustrated by the fact

that five solicitors had their names

struck off the Roll of Solicitors,

one was suspended and another

had his practising certificate

restricted.

Under Section 3 of the Solicitors

Act 1960 misconduct 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 of

Regulation made thereunder,

(d) conduct tending to bring the

profession into disrepute.

Forms leading to the institution of

an inquiry into the conduct of a

solicitor may be obtained from the

Clerk to the Committee, Blackhall

Place, Dublin 7.

An analysis of the findings of the

Committee would indicate that

there have been very serious

breaches of the Solicitors Accounts

Regulations during the period under

review. A very critical view was

taken of solicitors who had mis-

appropriated clients funds, engag-

ed in the practice of teeming and

lading, created and maintained

deficits on clients account, or who

improperly and without authority

advanced the funds of one client to

the benefit of another. The Com-

mittee in such cases had no

hesitation in finding misconduct

and reporting the matter to the

President of the High Court, with a

recommendation that the solicitors

either be struck off the Roll of

4 22