The Supreme Court has dismissed a solicitor’s appeal against a High Court decision that rejected his challenge to the Law Society of Ireland’s decision to refer a complaint about his conduct to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal.
The judgment, delivered by McKechnie J. on 23 February 2012, concerned a complaint by a client identified only as J.F. The client had instructed the solicitor, a sole practitioner with offices on Baggot Street in Dublin, in a personal injury action arising from a road traffic accident in September 1997. The action settled in February 2004 for €100,000 and party-and-party costs.
The client disputed the solicitor’s proposed €15,000 fee and complained to the Law Society in May 2004. The judgment records that the solicitor later retained €49,000 from the settlement proceeds, describing it as a lien for unpaid costs. After a bill of costs was issued and the retained funds were distributed, the client received a further €4,140.09.
The Society’s Complaints and Client Relations Committee examined the complaint and related issues, including the solicitor’s handling of the client’s concerns and compliance with statutory obligations. In September 2006, the committee decided that the correspondence disclosed prima facie evidence of misconduct warranting an application for an inquiry by the Tribunal. The Society made that application in September 2007. The Tribunal had taken no further disciplinary step by the time the judicial review proceedings were brought.
The solicitor argued that the Society had begun an investigation under section 9 of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act 1994, which governs complaints about excessive bills, and was required to complete that process before referring conduct matters. He also claimed the investigation lacked fair procedures, including adequate notice and an opportunity to respond.
The Supreme Court held that the Society had not committed itself to a section 9 inquiry. It found the Society’s focus had developed into a general conduct investigation and that the solicitor had been told by February 2005 that the issues were being considered in the context of a solicitor’s obligation not to bring the profession into disrepute. The court therefore did not decide what counted as a bill of costs under section 9 or what consequences would follow from non-compliance with that section.
The court also rejected the fair-procedures challenge. It found that the solicitor received the relevant correspondence and meeting minutes, was told what matters were under consideration, and had several opportunities to respond and attend committee meetings. The committee’s referral decision was not a finding of misconduct or a disciplinary sanction. Any Tribunal inquiry would involve its own procedures.
The appeal was dismissed. The judgment did not determine whether the solicitor had committed misconduct; it addressed the validity of the Society’s referral process.