The High Court has upheld a professional misconduct finding against solicitor Helen Lucey over her withdrawal of €259,000 from funds held for an estate beneficiary, ruling that the payment involved a conflict of interest and breached the Solicitors Accounts Regulations.
In a judgment delivered on 12 June 2018, President of the High Court Mr Justice Kelly dismissed Ms Lucey’s main appeal against findings by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT). He found that she remained the beneficiary’s solicitor in relation to the sale proceeds she held, even though the beneficiary had separately instructed A.&L. Goodbody.
The €259,000 was transferred from the client account to Ms Lucey in March 2007. She said it settled a claim against the beneficiary arising from three sets of High Court proceedings and a proposed counterclaim. The court heard that the settlement was negotiated with Finbarr Ross, whom the beneficiary had authorised in a 2006 letter to speak and make decisions on her behalf. Goodbody, which acted for the beneficiary, was not involved in the negotiations and learned of the settlement afterwards.
The judge accepted the Law Society’s expert evidence that Ms Lucey had a conflict of interest while holding the beneficiary’s money and pursuing a personal claim against her. He said the withdrawal was not permitted by the accounts regulations and that the settlement had not been handled in a proper and transparent way. The Law Society did not allege dishonesty.
The court also upheld misconduct findings concerning delays in distributing €21,128 in charitable bequests under Cornelius Buckley’s estate, paying €389,000 in charitable bequests under Joan Barrett’s estate, stamping four deeds, and paying €20,546 to a new solicitor in the James Keane matter. It allowed Ms Lucey’s appeals over funds of €93,765 and €45,251 in the related Eileen Donegan and John Creed files, finding reasonable doubt, and over €14,666 from a milk-quota sale for Michael Brown, accepting her explanation about difficulties obtaining the client’s cooperation.
The judgment addressed liability only. The court said penalty would be considered at a later hearing; the SDT’s recommended restrictions and the Law Society’s request for striking off and full restitution were not determined in this phase.