The Supreme Court has dismissed solicitor Barry Sheehan’s appeal against a professional misconduct finding by the Solicitors’ Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT). The judgment, delivered by Ms Justice Dunne on 17 February 2022, concluded the Court’s consideration of the appeal after an earlier judgment addressed its scope.
The misconduct finding concerned an email Sheehan sent to Bernard and Viola Bingham on 19 June 2014. The SDT found that the email threatened to destroy the couple’s files while offering them a final opportunity to make an offer towards his outstanding bill of costs. The Tribunal found the threat amounted to professional misconduct.
The SDT had considered two complaints. It found Sheehan guilty of misconduct over the threat to destroy the files, but found him not guilty on a separate complaint concerning refusal to return the files or provide access for a Supreme Court appeal. The Supreme Court noted that the Circuit Court had dismissed Sheehan’s claim for fees and the Binghams’ counterclaim seeking their files.
Sheehan argued that the disciplinary complaint was barred by res judicata, a principle preventing matters already decided from being litigated again, and that a statutory gateway provision prevented the SDT from hearing it. The Court said the 2014 email and threat had not been the subject of the earlier complaints or proceedings, so those arguments could not bar the misconduct complaint.
At the hearing, Sheehan also argued that the misconduct finding was “tainted” because the SDT heard the two complaints together. The Court said this contention had not been raised earlier in the proceedings and that Sheehan had identified nothing in the hearing or the Tribunal’s decision to support it. The SDT had considered the complaints separately and reached different outcomes on each.
The Court concluded there was no basis to find that hearing both complaints together denied Sheehan fair procedures. It dismissed the appeal. The judgment resolves the appeal before the Supreme Court; it does not report a new disciplinary hearing or alter the SDT’s separate outcome on the file access complaint.