289 / 424
GAZETTE
N E W S
Disciplinary Cases
NOVEMBER 1995
The High Court - 1995 No. 4SA
In the matter of James M. Sweeney
a solicitor formerly carrying on
practice under the style and title of
James Sweeney, 14, New Cabra
Road, Phibsboro, Dublin and now of
F. H. O'Reilly & Co. Dublin.
On 24 July, 1995 the President of the
High Court considered two
disciplinary matters in relation to the
above solicitor, being 3 5 7 2/DC . 1 3 47
and 3 5 7 2/DC . 1 3 4 8. In respect of both
matters the President made an order
censuring the solicitor,
James M.
Sweeney,
regarding his conduct as a
solicitor. In respect o f 3572/DC. 1348
the President ordered that the solicitor
pay a fine to the Society in the sum of
£ 5 0 0. In respect of 3572/DC. 1347 the
President ordered that the solicitor pay
the costs of the hearing before the
Disciplinary Committee and the costs
of the High Court. The President made
no order in respect o f the costs
relating to 3572/DC. 1348 before the
Disciplinary Committee.
The President had before him two
reports o f the Disciplinary Committee
both dated 27 April 1995 in respect of
the two matters referred to above,
which were before the Disciplinary
Committee on 10 November 1994.
In relation to 3572/DC. 1347, on
the basis of admissions by the
solicitor the Committee was o f the
opinion that there had before
misconduct on the part o f the solicitor
in that he:
a. failed to inform his client that he
had not instituted proceedings
within the statutory period;
b. failed to inform his client that he
had received a defence to the
proceedings instituted pleading the
Statute o f Limitations;
c. informed his client that the case
was listed for hearing when he
knew that this was not true;
d. failed to make full and frank
disclosure o f his delay in
instituting those proceedings;
e. failed to reply to the S o c i e t y 's
correspondence and to furnish the
Society with an explanation in
relation to his non compliance with
his client's instructions;
f. failed, when requested to do so, to
attend before the Registrar's
Committee of the Society on two
occasions;
In relation to 3572/DC. 1348 the
Committee on the solicitor's
admissions was o f the opinion that the
solicitor was guilty o f conduct tending
to bring the profession into disrepute
in that he had:
a. misappropriated clients' monies,
including £ 7 , 3 4 7 . 91 being part o f a
residuary estate for his own use
and benefit;
b. caused a deficit to occur on the client
account in the sum of £ 7 , 3 4 7 . 9 1;
c. failed to administer the estate
concerned in a timely manner or at
all, notwithstanding the
instructions to do so;
d. failed to respond to his client's
correspondence and instructions;
e. failed to reply to the S o c i e t y 's
correspondence and to furnish the
Society with an explanation in
relation to his non compliance with
his client's instructions;
f. failed, when requested to do so, to
attend before the Registrar's
Committee of the Society on one
occasion.
The High Court - 1994 No. 12SA
In the matter of Joseph Quirke a
solicitor formerly carrying on
practice under the style and title of
Quirke & Co. Church Street,
Midleton, Co. Cork and
in the matter of the Solicitors Acts
1954 and 1960.
On 2 4 July, 1995 the President o f the
High Court made an order on consent
that the above named Joseph Quirke
stand censured regarding his conduct
as a solicitor and pay a fine to the
Society in the sum o f £ 2 , 0 00 together
with the costs of the proceedings
before the Disciplinary Committee
and the High Court.
The President had before him a report of
the Disciplinary Committee dated 25
October 1994 in respect of a hearing
conduct on 28 July 1994. The
Committee found that the Solicitor had
been guilty of misconduct in that he had:
a. falsely represented to a solicitor
colleague that he was acting for a
third party in relation to a claim,
when he was not;
b. concealed from his solicitor
colleague the identity o f his true
client;
c. procured that his solicitor colleague
process a claim in the name of the
third party concerned when the said
third party had never instructed the
solicitor to bring any claim;
d. continued this concealment from
his solicitor colleague that he was
not in fact acting for the said third
party notwithstanding the receipt
of a letter dated 19 De c emb er 1991
from his solicitor colleague
referring to the third party as "our
mutual client. . .";
265