The High Court dismissed Thomas Keane’s appeal against a Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal decision that there was no prima facie case of misconduct by solicitor Sean Foy.
The Tribunal’s decision, dated 12 August 2010, concerned allegations about Foy’s work for Keane in Circuit Court proceedings in O’Malley v. Keane. The High Court appeal was brought under section 7(12A)(a) of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal Act 1960. President Kearns delivered judgment on 11 April 2011.
Keane alleged that Foy had accepted proceedings from Garavan and O’Connor Solicitors but failed to provide them, misled a Circuit Court judge, and wrongly stated that he had come off record. He also alleged that the proceedings had been adjourned three times and that Foy had not passed on his full file.
The Tribunal rejected the allegations, citing a lack of evidence to support a prima facie case for inquiry, that some allegations did not disclose conduct capable of amounting to misconduct, and Foy’s response and exhibits. The judgment also records that the Law Society had investigated an earlier complaint in 1997, made no finding of misconduct, and that an independent adjudicator concluded the complaint had been handled fairly and impartially.
On the specific claim that Foy had not come off record, the High Court referred to several records. A 4 February 1994 ruling in O’Malley v. Keane noted that no appearance had been made for the first-named defendant when the case was called. A solicitor’s letter said Foy came off record after an adjournment to 5 November 1993. A letter from Foy to Keane, dated 11 November 1993, confirmed that the firm had officially come off record for Keane and Owen Keane. Foy also stated in an affidavit that he had ceased acting and had notified Keane.
The court said Keane had produced no evidence to counter those records. Keane said he did not receive the 11 November letter until 1996, but the court made no finding about when it was received. It said that even if the letter arrived only in 1996, that would not constitute misconduct.
Kearns P. agreed with the Tribunal’s findings and dismissed the appeal. The judgment therefore left the Tribunal’s decision in place; it did not make a finding about when Keane received the letter.