The Court of Appeal has dismissed solicitor Katherine Doocey’s appeal against the High Court order striking her off the roll, holding that the admitted misconduct in her handling of client funds supported a finding of dishonesty and the ultimate sanction.
The judgment, delivered by Ms Justice Donnelly on 11 January 2022, concerned a High Court decision made after a Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal inquiry. The Tribunal found misconduct on all 24 complaints after Ms Doocey admitted the allegations and accepted that the facts amounted to professional misconduct. It recommended conditions on her practising certificate, rather than striking her off. The Law Society sought a strike-off, and the High Court made that order under section 8 of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act 1960.
The complaints followed an accounts investigation that found a deficit of more than €169,000 in Ms Doocey’s client account at the end of 2017. The judgment described transfers between client ledgers and from client accounts to the office account, as well as inaccurate account entries. The Tribunal’s findings included using one client’s funds to cover another client’s shortfall. A €50,000 deficit linked to payments made after a cyber-attack was part of the evidence, but the judgment said that did not explain the larger account deficit.
Ms Doocey argued that the Tribunal had made no finding of dishonesty and that the High Court could not go beyond its findings. She also challenged the proportionality of the strike-off, relying on her inexperience, the steps taken to supervise her practice, repayments and the absence of client losses. The Court of Appeal rejected her argument that the High Court had breached fair procedures: dishonesty had been raised during the High Court proceedings, and she had made submissions on it.
The Court held that the Tribunal’s findings were based on Ms Doocey’s admissions to the conduct alleged, including the underlying facts. It concluded that the conduct was objectively dishonest, given her knowledge of the transactions and the pattern of transferring and misdescribing funds to cover deficits. The High Court was entitled to assess sanction independently and was not bound by the Tribunal’s recommendation.
The appeal court found no error of principle in the High Court’s assessment of the proposed safeguards or the claimed mitigation. It said the High Court could regard later repayment as insufficient to mitigate the underlying misuse of client money. The appeal was dismissed. The proposed costs order was that the Law Society receive its appeal costs, to be adjudicated if not agreed; Ms Doocey had 14 days to seek a different order or a supplemental hearing.