The Gazette 1994

AUGUST/SEPTEMBER

1994

GAZETTE

open, frank and honest with his clients at all times. To be otherwise will reflect badly on the profession and bring it into disrepute. The most common ground for complaint continues to be failure to communicate with clients, colleagues and the Law Society. Every solicitor has a duty to reply quickly, fully and accurately to these parties. With the recent enactment of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act 1994 the Disciplinary Committee, as it is presently constituted, will in the near future be replaced by the Disciplinary Tribunal with new powers and duties. However until the coming into force of the relevant provisions of the Act of 1994 in respect of the Tribunal the Disciplinary Committee will continue to function pursuant to the Solicitors Acts 1954/1960. I would like to record my thanks to the members of the Committee for their hard work and support during the past year.

have suffered as a result of a mistake made by their legal advisor. Clients who feel their solicitors may have been guilty of negligence should seek the advice of an independent legal advisor who will advise them of their remedies. Notwithstanding this, it should be said that gross negligence can amount to misconduct, and it is a matter for the Committee to make this decision based on the evidence proffered. In a number of private applications where the Committee directed that an inquiry should be held, it subsequently transpired that while the circumstances outlined in the grounding affidavit were Consequently the Committee found the solicitor concerned was not guilty of misconduct. I would like to emphasise that there is an onus on every deponent bringing an application before this Committee to include all pertinent facts and not just those which would tend to substantiate their perception of the situation. not intended to be misleading, all relevant facts were not disclosed. (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 or Regulation made thereunder. The Committee is concerned with the nature of complaints now coming before it e.g. failing to make full and frank disclosures to clients. According to the Guide to Professional Conduct of Solicitors in Ireland " . . . a solicitor should at all times uphold the dignity of the profession and avoid any conduct or activities inconsistent with that dignity." Consequently it is incumbent on every solicitor to be (d) Conduct tending to bring the profession into disrepute. Misconduct is defined under Section 3 of the Solicitors Act 1960 and includes (a) The commission of treason or a felony or a misdemeanour.

THE HIGH COURT

Cases presented to the High Court between 1 September 1993 and 31 August 1994

4

Censured, fined and costs

1

Fined and costs

3

Awaiting presentation to the High Court

2

Cases adjourned by the President of the High Court last year Respondent ordered not to practise as a solicitor save as an assistant solicitor in the employment of a solicitor of not less than 10 years standing to be approved by the Law Society. Also fined and ordered to pay to the Law Society its costs. Fines ranging from £1,000 to £5,000 were imposed in the appropriate cases. During the year under review 53 new applications were received alleging misconduct on the part of solicitors in respect of their handling of their clients legal affairs. As can be seen from the above table the majority of the new applications were initiated by members of the public. These figures may not in fact be indicative of any growth in public dissatisfaction with solicitors but rather emanate from the public's awareness of the Committee, partly as a result of the Law Society's practice of advising complainants who appear to be dissatisfied with the Society's treatment of their complaint, of their right to make a direct application to the Committee. 1 1 Upon receipt of an application for an inquiry the first step is to decide whether or not there is a prima facie case for inquiry. It is at this stage of the proceedings that the majority of applications from the public fail. They do so because the grounding affidavits are inadequately drafted, do not disclose acceptable grounds of misconduct or relate to the area of negligence. There is a tendency to confuse negligence with misconduct. The Committee has no power to award compensation or redress to clients who

Walter Beatty Chairman

I R I S H D O C U M E N T E X C H A N G E

366