The Gazette 1995

GAZETTE

NOVEMBER 1995

N E W S

Disciplinary Cases

The High Court - 1994 No. 12SA

The High Court - 1995 No. 4SA

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; 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; In relation to 3572/DC. 1348 the Committee on the solicitor's

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:

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

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.

a. failed to inform his client that he had not instituted proceedings within the statutory period;

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

b. failed to inform his client that he had received a defence to the proceedings instituted pleading the Statute o f Limitations;