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 w 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; t 2 ) 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 (c) censure the said solicitor or censure him 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—