The Court of Appeal dismissed John F. Condon’s appeal against conditions attached to his 2016 practising certificate, including a requirement that he work under the supervision of a solicitor approved by the Law Society of Ireland.
In a judgment delivered on 15 February 2017, Mr Justice John Hedigan said there was ample evidence before the High Court to support its decision that supervision was necessary to protect the public, clients, the legal profession and Condon himself. The court found a clear and present danger of inadequate service to the public and continuing unprofessional conduct if he practised without supervision.
The judgment said eight findings of professional misconduct had been made against Condon between 2010 and 2015. He had been censured several times, and directed to pay the Law Society more than €20,000 in connection with those findings; the judgment said most, if not all, of that sum remained unpaid. Five disciplinary inquiries were pending when he applied for the 2016 certificate. The Law Society had also sought relief on four occasions after he failed to respond to complaints correspondence.
A supervisor who briefly worked with Condon in December 2015 produced a highly critical report, identifying substantial correspondence arrears and raising questions about the office account. The judgment said the supervision lasted only a few days because of the Christmas break. Condon later criticised the report and threatened to sue the supervisor, according to the judgment.
The Law Society committee decided in January 2016 to issue a certificate subject to conditions, including supervision by a solicitor of at least ten years’ standing approved in advance. Condon challenged that decision in the High Court, seeking an unconditional certificate or removal of the committee’s direction. The High Court refused those applications and imposed conditions. The Court of Appeal said Condon’s counsel did not challenge the High Court’s findings of fact or law at the appeal hearing; counsel said Condon remained in favour of an unconditional certificate but accepted the conditions if conditions were required. The judgment noted that Condon had been practising under a supervisor since 1 March 2016.
The court also dismissed as moot Condon’s appeal against a separate 2015 High Court decision concerning that year’s certificate. It said the 2015 conditions had since changed, no suggestion had been made that they would be reimposed, and the expired certificate offered no useful order the court could make. The Court of Appeal made no further order on that appeal.