The Gazette 1958-61

correspondence ensued in the course of which a financial adjustment was arrived at. Mr. Duggan had not, however, handed over the papers by June 3rd 1957 and on that date Mr. Lanigan wrote to the Society enclosing a copy of the correspondence and complaining of the fact that the papers had not been handed over. The correspondence disclosed that portion of the trust funds, viz., £1,830 worth of 3-}% Exchequer Bonds, which had stood in the sole name of Mr. Duggan as trustee, had been transferred into the names of his bank's nominees. At the time of Mr. Lanigan's letter these funds had been replaced and the final adjustment of accounts showed that Mr. Duggan was owed a sum of £119.13.6. The second matter in point of time was in relation to two clients Michael and Patrick Dwyer. On I4th August 1957 they obtained judgment against Mr. Duggan in the High Court for £1,620.8.8 and costs in respect of moneys received by him as their Solicitor. At the time the certificate was refused Mr. Duggan had succeeded in paying £1,473.9.11. By the time the matter came before the Chief Justice the whole amount of the judgment, apart from costs, had been paid. The third matter in point of time was in respect of a client Michael Mahon. On October 3Oth 1957 he wrote to the Society complaining that Mr. Duggan had £1,300 belonging to him for a period of over ten years and that he could not get any satisfaction. At the time the Certificate was refused Mahon had been paid sums on account leaving a balance due of £396.12.11., and by the time the matter came before the Chief Justice this balance had been discharged. Mr. Duggan was, in accordance with the provisions of the Act, asked by the Society for an explanation of his conduct in respect of each of these matters. He offered an explanation by letter in the case of the Dwyers and Mahon and by letter and orally in the case of the Kane Smiths. In the case of these last mentioned clients his explanation was that he had been requested by his Bank Manager to transfer the Exchequer Bonds to the bank's nominees, apparently by •way of security for an overdraft; that he did not think that the bank would use the stock; that he admitted he was wrong in making the transfer ; that prima facie it appeared to be a conversion by him of trust funds, but that he never had any intention of converting them and did not at the time realise or appreciate that that was what the transaction amounted to; and that the funds had been replaced and any other loss would be made good. He was sending on the Kane Smith documents to Mr. Lanigan and was apologising for the delay. He did so, in fact, on July ist, 1957. In the case of Michael and Patrick Dwyer his explanation was that the Society were already aware of the circumstances and that he could add nothing to what he had already told them. He said that the amount due to these clients had been originally greater than the amount of the judgment and had been reduced by him; and that since the judgment he had made further payments and had made arrangements for the discharge of any balance due which were satisfactory to the Dwyers. In the case of Michael Mahon he explained that in or about September 1956 he had furnished an account to his client shewing a balance due of£1,386 including interest; that he had correspondence with Mahon's Solicitor with regard to payment indicating how and from what source he proposed to make payment; that he had paid £700 on account out of that source—a good debt due to him—and would be able to pay the balance of £686 out of the same source. He said that the fact that the moneys remained so long in his own hands was in no way due to his own default or neglect. He said that the delay was due to the fact that Mahon and his brother could not agree as to how a large sum to which they were both entitled would be divided between them; that he had offered to put the whole amount into court; and that he had been dissuaded from doing so.

In relation to all three matters, and by way of general explanation he described the circumstances under which his solicitor's business had been acquired by him and carried on. Reference will be made to this matter later on. The Society considered that these explanations were not satisfactory and, on Mr. Duggan applying for a practising certificate for 1958, they in accordance with the provision of Section 49 of the Act directed the Registrar to refuse it. We consider that the Society had good cause to complain of the conduct of Mr. Duggan in relation to each of these three matters, and to consider that in each case he had failed to give them an explanation which they could regard as sufficient and satisfactory. Although the explanations appear to have been candid enougn and, in a sense, as satisfactory as the stubborn facts would allow, the Society had, therefore, ample jurisdiction to apply the provisions of Section 49 of the Act and to direct the Registrar to refuse to issue Mr. Duggan with a practising certificate. When considering whether a certificate should or should not be issued the Society should, however, take into account all the relevant circumstances existing at the time tne decision has to be made, having due regard to : the interests of the public ; the interests of the profession ; the interests of the clients of the solicitor in question ; and the interests of the solicitor himself. No attempt should be made to lay down a rule which should be applied to all cases irrespective of individual circumstances. We are not suggesting that any such attempt was made by the Society in this case but wish to make plain, what is indeed obvious, that each case must be decided on its own peculiar merits. It is hardly necessary to add that when the matter has to be considered on appeal the same considerations apply. In this case Mr. Duggan inherited his solicitor's business from his father. It was an old established country practice run on lines, as regards accountancy matters, that left much to be desired. No separate banking accounts were kept in respect of clients' moneys and the firm's moneys. Advances were made by the firm to clients on account of moneys to become due to them in respect of estates to be administered, sales to be completed, and otherwise. No adequate or proper accounts were kept in the office. Mr. William Duggan carried on apparently in much the same fashion until some years ago matters got into confusion. Clients owed him moneys which he could not immediately collect, while he owed other clients moneys which he could not immediately pay. As a result of something which does not appear in the evidence the Society took action under Clause 17 of the Fifth Schedule to the Act and applied to the High Court for an Order that no banking company should, without leave of the Court, make any payment out of a banking account kept by such company in the name of Duggan or his firm. The application was granted and the Order sought was made on July 3ist, 1956. Since then Mr. Duggan has not been able to operate any bank account. On the hearing of the appeal before the Chief Justice Mr. Duggan gave oral evidence and submitted himself to cross- examination by the Society's Counsel as to his affairs and conduct. He explained that since his bank account was "frozen" he had succeeded in getting in £15,000 of moneys due to him by clients which he had used to discharge his obligations to other clients. He said that there was about £6,ooa still due to him and about the same amount due by him to clients ; and that he owed the bank about £5,000 over and above the securities they held. He said that he hoped to pay off his outstanding liabilities to clients inside six months. He had a good practice which he was carrying on with the aid of an Assistant and from which he drew only £5 a week for his own use. No attempt was made on cross-examination to challenge his credibility or bona fdes. 55