The High Court dismissed the Law Society of Ireland’s appeal against a decision not to hold a disciplinary inquiry into solicitor Michael Curneen. The court affirmed the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal’s finding that no prima facie case of misconduct had been established and awarded costs to Mr Curneen.
The Society had asked the court to set aside the Tribunal’s decision of 29 March 2012 and direct it to hold an inquiry. Its application followed an investigation into compliance with solicitors’ accounts rules and related statutory requirements.
The allegations included a claimed client-account deficit of €35,031.57 around 30 November 2010, debit balances, fees entered or taken without bills being furnished, €4,249.60 in barrister’s fees allegedly recovered in a costs bill but not paid to the barrister, and failures to provide bills or keep proper accounting records. These were allegations put before the Tribunal, not findings of misconduct by the High Court.
In an affidavit, Mr Curneen disputed that there had been a client-funds deficit in relation to two matters. He said six ledger debit balances totalled €159.82 and were corrected immediately. He gave explanations for fees in several client matters, including that some sums were refunded, and said clients had been notified of fees. He acknowledged that he had not been aware of certain accounts-rule requirements, including the requirement to deliver a bill before withdrawing funds.
The Society argued internally that Mr Curneen’s affidavit did not rebut its evidence and instead amounted to mitigation. The High Court, having considered the papers, concluded that the issues raised by the investigating accountant were not serious and had been satisfactorily clarified by Mr Curneen’s affidavit and a later letter. It said the material showed no danger to the public and that he had operated within permissible margins in dealing with client money.
The court also noted advice Mr Curneen received on practice management and his confirmation that he was implementing it to prevent similar errors. It recognised the Society’s investigation but concluded that an inquiry was not warranted in light of his response and cooperation. The court therefore affirmed the Tribunal’s decision and dismissed the Society’s motion with costs in Mr Curneen’s favour.