367 / 424
GAZETTE
DECEMBER 1995
The Disciplinary Committee Annual
Report for 1994/1995
Committee:
Walter Beatty, Chairman
W.B. Allen
Clare Connellan
Andrew 0. Donnelly
Terence Dixon
Michael Hogan
Donal Kelliher
Eugene McCague
Moya Quinlan
Grattan d'Esterre Roberts
Between 1 September 1994 and
31 August 1995 the Disciplinary
Committee met on 25 occasions.
The following applications were
considered by the Committee during
this period:-
NEW APPLICATIONS:
Law Society
Prima facie
cases found
At Hearing
Misconduct
Misconduct - adjourned
to consider
recommendation
Applications dismissed
Adjourned
Awaiting inquiry
Private
Prima facie
cases found
Prima facie
cases not found
Awaiting
prima facie
decision
At Hearing
No Misconduct
Misconduct
Leave to withdraw after
inquiry directed
Awaiting inquiry
44
27
15
4
12
1
APPLICATIONS FROM
PREVIOUS YEARS:
Law Society
Prima facie
decision
adjourned
At Hearing
Misconduct
No Misconduct
Adjourned
34
Censured and costs
Awaiting presentation
to the High Court
25
Private
Awaiting a
prima
facie
decision
2
No
prima facie
9
At Hearing
No Misconduct
1
Inquiry adjourned
7
Date of inquiry to
be fixed
1
Leave to withdraw
after inquiry directed
2
SUBJECT MATTERS OF
COMPLAINTS
Solicitors Accounts Regulations
Fraud
Conveyancing
Probate
In previous years it was customary to
outline some of the main grounds
upon which the Committee found
misconduct. In view of the fact that
the results of hearings before the
President of the High Court are now
published in the Law Society
Gazette
the necessity of setting out these
grounds is no longer necessary.
THE HIGH COURT
Cases presented to the
High Court between
1 September 1994
and 31 August 1995
4
Censured, fined and costs
3
Fines ranging from £500 to £2,500
were imposed in the appropriate cases.
The year under review has been
marked by an apparent decrease in the
number of cases coming before the
Disciplinary Committee. However it
should be mentioned that new
applications ceased to come before the
Disciplinary Committee from 12 May
1995, when the Disciplinary Tribunal
came into operation pursuant to S.I.
No. 124 of 1995.
All the usual hardy annuals such as
breaches of the Solicitors Accounts
Regulations, failure to comply with
undertakings, correspond with
clients, colleagues and the Society,
and to carry out clients' instructions
appeared with their usual regularity.
In addition to the foregoing the
Committee encountered some of
the most serious and weighty
complaints ever to come before it.
While only a small number of
solicitors were involved it is
nevertheless disquieting to find that
members of the solicitors profession
have brought the profession into
disrepute by misappropriating
substantial sums of clients' funds,
misleading the High Court and their
professional body in relation to the
deficit in clients' funds, knowingly
producing false documents to the High
Court and committing acts of perjury.
As officers of the Court solicitors
have an onerous responsibility to
behave in a fashion that is honourable
and above reproach. Clients are
justifiably frustrated when their legal
representatives fail to provide a proper
and adequate service. This feeling of
frustration is often compounded when
solicitors disregard the Society's
communications and on occasions
mislead it.
Over the years the Committee has
343