Judgment: 2022-01-11 · Court archive

Court of Appeal dismisses solicitor’s appeal against strike-off

The court upheld the High Court’s order striking Kathleen Doocey off the roll, finding that her admitted handling of client funds supported the sanction.

Court of Appeal · [2022] IECA 2

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Kathleen Doocey (Respondent)
  • Maurice Collins (Judge)
What

The court upheld the High Court’s order striking Kathleen Doocey off the roll, finding that her admitted handling of client funds supported the sanction.

Where

No place detail is included in this summary.

When

Judgment:

Other dates in the report
  • 31 December 2017

    The tribunal’s findings, reproduced in an edited appendix, included a €169,152 deficit on client accounts at 31 December 2017 and transfers of client money between accounts and into the solicitor’s office account. The findings also included inaccurate account records and omitted transactions. The judgment said the solicitor’s family made good the deficit, avoiding loss to clients or the Law Society’s Compensation Fund; that reduced the consequences but did not change the character of the misconduct.

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

Ms Doocey argued that the tribunal had not found dishonesty and that the High Court could not reach that conclusion without sending the matter back for further evidence. The Court of Appeal rejected that argument. It held that the High Court had relied on the admitted conduct in the tribunal’s findings and was entitled to assess its character when deciding sanction. The court also rejected her fair-procedures argument, finding she had been on notice that dishonesty was at issue during the High Court hearing.

The Court of Appeal has dismissed solicitor Kathleen Doocey’s appeal against the High Court order striking her off the roll of solicitors.

In a judgment delivered on 11 January 2022, Mr Justice Maurice Collins agreed with the judgment of Ms Justice Donnelly and said the appeal should be dismissed. Mr Justice Haughton also agreed. The appeal concerned the sanction for misconduct Ms Doocey had admitted; whether she committed misconduct was not disputed.

The Law Society sought strike-off before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal and again in the High Court. The tribunal had recommended lesser sanctions, but those recommendations did not bind the High Court. The Court of Appeal said the High Court was entitled to decide the appropriate sanction based on the tribunal’s findings and the solicitor’s prior disciplinary findings.

The tribunal’s findings, reproduced in an edited appendix, included a €169,152 deficit on client accounts at 31 December 2017 and transfers of client money between accounts and into the solicitor’s office account. The findings also included inaccurate account records and omitted transactions. The judgment said the solicitor’s family made good the deficit, avoiding loss to clients or the Law Society’s Compensation Fund; that reduced the consequences but did not change the character of the misconduct.

Ms Doocey argued that the tribunal had not found dishonesty and that the High Court could not reach that conclusion without sending the matter back for further evidence. The Court of Appeal rejected that argument. It held that the High Court had relied on the admitted conduct in the tribunal’s findings and was entitled to assess its character when deciding sanction. The court also rejected her fair-procedures argument, finding she had been on notice that dishonesty was at issue during the High Court hearing.

The appeal court concluded that the High Court was entitled to find the conduct dishonest and that strike-off was lawful and proportionate. It dismissed the appeal, leaving the High Court’s strike-off order in place.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review