The High Court has struck Kathleen Doocey off the Roll of Solicitors after finding that she repeatedly and deliberately moved client money to conceal a €169,152 shortfall in her client account.
In a judgment delivered on 2 November 2020, Ms Justice Irvine, President of the High Court, said the misconduct was at the upper end of seriousness and that striking Doocey off was the only appropriate sanction. The court made the orders sought by the Law Society of Ireland.
The case followed a Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal hearing in July 2019. Doocey admitted 24 findings of financial irregularities and admitted that they amounted to misconduct. The tribunal heard that she transferred money between client and business accounts and between client ledgers. The High Court said funds belonging to at least 13 clients were moved into other clients’ accounts to disguise the shortfall. It also found that transactions had sometimes been omitted from the books or misdescribed.
The tribunal had recommended that Doocey remain on the Roll subject to restrictions, including having another solicitor sign cheques and requiring supervisory approval for transfers. It also recommended a €10,000 payment to the compensation fund and a €1,500 contribution to the Law Society’s costs. The Society asked the High Court to impose the more severe sanction of striking her off.
The court considered the proposed supervision arrangements but had previously identified a weakness: their effectiveness depended on Doocey entering all cheques into the system. It concluded that the arrangements did not make a lesser sanction appropriate.
The court noted that the shortfall had been made good with family loans and that no client had suffered financial loss from the admitted conduct. It said those matters did not undo the misuse of client funds or the risk that clients could have been left short. The judgment also noted that Doocey had not filed an income tax return and was behind on VAT returns for 2017, 2018 and part of 2019.
The court rejected her characterisation of the account management as chaotic or incompetent. It said the deliberate transfers, concealment and prior disciplinary matters involving accounts weighed against her. It held that striking her off was necessary to protect the public, maintain confidence in the profession and mark the seriousness of the conduct.
The judgment records the Society’s application for the €10,000 compensation fund payment, €1,500 costs contribution and costs of the High Court application, with those costs to be taxed if not agreed. It concludes that the court would make the orders sought.