The High Court has refused a former solicitor’s application to stop or alter a disciplinary inquiry into a client’s complaint, finding no evidence that disputed correspondence or contact with a potential witness caused material prejudice.
In a judgment delivered on 29 July 2013, Ms Justice Iseult O’Malley refused the reliefs sought by Mary Cecilia Lyons in judicial review proceedings against the Law Society of Ireland and the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal. The underlying disciplinary complaint remains adjourned pending the outcome of the judicial review proceedings, the judgment said.
The complaint concerned money that passed through Ms Lyons’s client account while she acted for a client identified in the judgment as Mr G. He alleged that more than €200,000 had been paid to companies associated with a financial intermediary without his proper authority. Ms Lyons denied this. A separate allegation that a document had been forged was withdrawn.
The Law Society’s Complaints and Client Relations Committee referred the complaint for inquiry in 2010. In 2012, the Tribunal’s prima facie committee found a case to answer on several allegations, including failures to protect the client’s interests and payments allegedly made without adequate authorisation. It rejected two other allegations as adequately rebutted. The High Court was reviewing the fairness of that process; it did not determine the underlying misconduct allegations.
A central issue was four Law Society letters that Ms Lyons said she never received. The committee had accepted in October 2009 that she had not received them. The High Court said the committee never reversed that position and did not complain to the Tribunal that she had failed to answer the letters. Although the Society’s affidavit referred to the lack of replies without stating the committee’s acceptance, the court said the committee minutes and Ms Lyons’s affidavit made the position clear. It found no evidence that the Tribunal had been prejudiced.
The judgment also addressed contact between the Society’s solicitor and Mr Walshe, who was expected to give evidence in Ms Lyons’s favour. The judge said it would have been wiser to tell Ms Lyons’s solicitor about the contact. However, Mr Walshe conveyed the information himself, and the court found no resulting prejudice.
The court said the concerns about the Society’s affidavit could have been raised at the Tribunal hearing, where Ms Lyons could have sought a ruling on whether the correspondence issue was settled. It also observed that the main issues argued in the judicial review could appropriately have been addressed by the Tribunal. The court did not decide the delay issue, saying it was unnecessary in light of its findings. It refused the relief sought.