The High Court made no further order against solicitor Robert Taylor after he undertook to pay up to €10,000 to charity within 28 days, following a hearing into his handling of document discovery in a land-sale case.
In a judgment delivered on 21 December 2006, Mr Justice Kelly said Mr Taylor had fallen short of the standards expected of solicitors in litigation. The judge said the court could not ignore what had emerged in evidence, even though the underlying dispute had settled before the fifth day of trial.
Balla Lease Developments Limited had sought specific performance of a 3 December 2002 agreement for David Keeling to sell land in County Dublin for €2 million. Keeling’s defence was that a collateral agreement made the sale contract lapse if the budget announced the next day did not change capital gains tax legislation. The judge did not decide the merits of either side’s case because they settled.
The separate hearing concerned attendance notes created by Mr Taylor, a solicitor who acted for the company. The judgment said he prepared many notes between December 2005 and March 2006, using memory and records that showed dates but not the substance of meetings or calls. The notes were dated as if made when the events occurred, with nothing on their face indicating they had been created later.
The company’s first affidavit of discovery disclosed the notes without distinguishing those created later. After the defendant’s solicitors asked whether the notes were contemporaneous, Mr Taylor’s 10 May 2006 letter said they were typed from handwritten notes made at the time. He later clarified that only notes for two meetings were contemporaneous, and a supplemental affidavit identified approximate creation dates for the others.
Mr Taylor accepted that the first affidavit and his letter were misleading, while saying he had not intended to mislead. The judge said the representation in the letter was particularly serious. He exercised the High Court’s disciplinary jurisdiction over solicitors, without deciding whether the conduct amounted to contempt of court.
The judge considered Mr Taylor’s limited litigation experience, his apology and the low risk of repetition. He said a charity contribution would be preferable to a fine and sufficient to mark the court’s disapproval. On the undertaking to pay within 28 days, he made no further order. The judgment does not state whether the contribution was subsequently paid.