The High Court has ordered Patrick Enright’s name restored to the Roll of Solicitors, finding he was fit to practise and that restoration would not adversely affect public confidence in the profession or the administration of justice.
In an extempore judgment delivered on 31 May 2018, President of the High Court Mr Justice Kelly granted the application under section 19(4) of the Solicitors Act 1994. The court held that the case met the statutory tests for restoration.
The judgment recounts that Enright, admitted as a solicitor in 1986, forged 10 health insurance claims in 1994 while working for an American medical insurance company. The claims were made in the name of a fictitious doctor and sought about £12,000. The money was repaid. Enright later pleaded guilty to all 10 offences and served a prison sentence. He was struck off the Roll by the High Court in April 2016.
The judge said Enright’s dishonesty occurred while he was a solicitor but not while practising as one. He also considered that, during nearly 20 years of practice between the offences and his conviction, Enright had conducted himself properly and faced no complaints from the Law Society, clients or other authorities. The court had received numerous testimonials from former clients and others in the Castleisland area.
The Law Society’s relevant committee initially considered the restoration application premature. By May 2018, however, it had no objection to restoration and recommended that Enright undertake continuing professional development courses to familiarise himself with changes in the law. The judge said the Society’s view weighed heavily, while emphasising that the final decision belonged to the court.
The judge found that an informed and reasonable public, considering the evidence, would not lose confidence in the profession or the administration of justice. He described the matter as an exceptional case and exercised the court’s discretion in Enright’s favour.
Restoration was ordered without conditions. The judge rejected proposals that Enright practise under the supervision of a solicitor of at least 10 years’ standing or that a second person sign any account, describing those measures as unnecessary and disproportionate. The court instead recorded its understanding that Enright would complete appropriate courses agreed with the Law Society. The order was not conditional on those courses, but either side could bring a dispute about them back to court.