The High Court refused solicitor Owen Swaine’s application for judicial review of misconduct findings made by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, holding that his statutory appeal was the appropriate route to challenge them.
The tribunal had found Swaine guilty of misconduct on three complaints concerning a €60,000 fee paid by Quinn Insurance after a fire insurance claim involving Tambark Ltd, a company owned and controlled by its client, Henry Greally. It found that Greally had not been told the claim settled for €260,000, had not received a bill of costs for the fee, and that the money should have been lodged in Swaine’s client account. The tribunal recommended a censure, €1,000 to the Compensation Fund, €17,500 restitution to Greally and costs.
Swaine argued that the tribunal’s decision was contradictory, that it had unfairly amended one complaint, misinterpreted the Solicitors Regulations, and failed to explain the restitution award. The court noted that Swaine had a statutory right of appeal to the President of the High Court, which could proceed as a full rehearing and allow further evidence. His appeal was in suspense pending the judicial review proceedings.
Justice Noonan found that the complaints largely concerned how the tribunal assessed evidence or errors that could be addressed on appeal. He concluded that no prejudice had been shown from the amendment to the complaint about the bill of costs. He also described the inconsistency concerning a separate complaint about a February 2012 letter as an obvious typographical error that the tribunal had power to correct. The court refused judicial review.
The judgment also criticised the inclusion of the Law Society in the proceedings, based on correspondence indicating it would take no step before the appeal concluded. An addendum delivered two days later recorded that Swaine’s claim against the Society had in fact been withdrawn in November 2015, and that a December 2015 order recorded his agreement to pay €4,000 towards its costs. The judge said the last two sentences of paragraph 41 of the judgment were incorrect and should be read in light of the addendum.