Judgment: 2016-07-25 · Court archive

High Court confirms supervision conditions on solicitor’s 2016 practising certificate

The court refused John F. Condon’s appeal for an unconditional certificate, confirming the Law Society’s direction and setting out detailed supervision conditions through the end of 2016.

High Court of Ireland · [2016] IEHC 420

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • John F. Condon (Applicant)
  • The Law Society of Ireland (Respondent)
  • Anthony O’Rourke
  • Bill Stokes
What

The court refused John F. Condon’s appeal for an unconditional certificate, confirming the Law Society’s direction and setting out detailed supervision conditions through the end of 2016.

Where

No place detail is included in this summary.

When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

Condon argued that the committee lacked jurisdiction because there had been no new client complaints, that he had not received adequate notice of its concerns, and that the hearing was unfair. He also challenged the refusal to adjourn and said supervision was unjustified. The judge rejected those grounds. He held that the absence of new complaints did not prevent the committee from considering the application, and found that the correspondence and material provided gave adequate notice. He concluded that the committee was entitled to proceed without an adjournment and that the supervision conditions were justified.

The High Court has refused solicitor John F. Condon’s application for an unconditional 2016 practising certificate, confirming that he must practise under supervision and setting out conditions for that supervision through the end of the practice year.

In a judgment delivered on 25 July 2016, President of the High Court Mr Justice Kelly also refused to rescind the Law Society of Ireland committee’s direction. The appeal concerned the committee’s January decision that Condon practise under a solicitor of at least 10 years’ standing, approved in advance by the committee. By the time of the appeal, Condon had been practising under the supervision of solicitor Anthony O’Rourke since 1 March.

The judgment records eight findings of professional misconduct against Condon between 2010 and 2015, five pending disciplinary inquiries when he applied for his 2016 certificate, and earlier conditions on his certificates. The judge said supervision during 2015 had lasted only from 21 to 31 December, after delays in putting the arrangement in place. A report by the nominated supervisor, Bill Stokes, described a large backlog of mail and raised concerns about the practice. The judge said those matters entitled the committee to consider client protection.

Condon argued that the committee lacked jurisdiction because there had been no new client complaints, that he had not received adequate notice of its concerns, and that the hearing was unfair. He also challenged the refusal to adjourn and said supervision was unjustified. The judge rejected those grounds. He held that the absence of new complaints did not prevent the committee from considering the application, and found that the correspondence and material provided gave adequate notice. He concluded that the committee was entitled to proceed without an adjournment and that the supervision conditions were justified.

The court’s order confirms the 2016 certificate subject to 14 supervision conditions. They require O’Rourke to receive details of complaints and relevant circumstances, access incoming and outgoing post and practice files, review complaint-related files, attend the office at least weekly, and report monthly to the committee. Condon must copy Law Society complaints correspondence to O’Rourke, who must help ensure Society correspondence is answered within 14 days. The supervision is to continue until the end of the 2016 practice year.

The judgment concerns the 2016 certificate and the conditions attached to it; it does not determine the pending Court of Appeal matter concerning the 2015 certificate.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review