The High Court has dismissed a Law Society appeal against a disciplinary tribunal finding that solicitor John G. Hayes did not commit misconduct by filing an accountant’s report late. The court made no order as to costs.
The appeal concerned a report for the accounting year ended 31 October 2009, which was due within six months. Hayes filed it on 13 October 2011, about 18 months late. A separate complaint over a closing accountant’s report was withdrawn by the Society and was not the complaint under appeal.
The Society argued that the filing requirement should be enforced strictly and that misconduct should have been found because the delay was admitted. An affidavit for the Society described timely reporting as important to client protection and the public interest, and said 99% of firms then filed on time.
Hayes said he had prepared his books and accounts but was closing his practice amid difficult personal circumstances. He said he was unsure about the wind-down procedures and believed, after correspondence from the Society, that a closing report was required but not the annual report. He said the Society first notified him in July 2010 that the annual report remained due. He also said he could not afford his accountant’s fees, which were almost €8,000, and was receiving a weekly social protection payment.
Hayes said he kept in contact with the Society and cooperated. He used €5,000 that later became available to pay his accountant, and the report was filed before a tribunal hearing. He maintained the delay was neither intentional nor reckless.
The tribunal had found no misconduct, citing the circumstances and its view that Hayes had made reasonable attempts to comply but lacked the money to pay for the report. The High Court said the reporting obligation must be taken seriously, while each case required consideration of its particular circumstances. It was satisfied Hayes had made every effort to comply and that his failure to file on time was neither intentional nor reckless.
The court said the Society had not established a sufficient basis to allow the appeal and that it could not find the tribunal had erred. It dismissed the appeal, leaving the tribunal’s no-misconduct finding in place.