The High Court has refused a solicitor’s application for discovery of 16 categories of Law Society documents but allowed him to amend his pleadings to add a reference to the European Convention on Human Rights prohibition of slavery and forced labour.
In a judgment delivered on 31 October 2018, Mr Justice Allen said the requested discovery was not relevant to the issues raised in the pleadings and was not shown to be necessary for the fair disposal of the proceedings or to save costs.
Michael O’Sullivan, representing himself, sought records covering periods of up to more than 20 years. The categories included records concerning the selection, nomination and training of people proposed for appointment to the Solicitors’ Disciplinary Tribunal, potential conflicts of interest, the Tribunal’s financing, and work done for the Law Society by the Tribunal chairman or his firm. He also sought records of the Society’s engagement with the Tribunal and of allegations of bias during hearings in 2014 and 2015.
The action challenges the validity and compatibility of the legislative framework governing the Tribunal, the judge said. It did not seek to address the process or substance of the inquiry and conclusions against O’Sullivan, apart from a Tribunal finding that he had a prima facie case to answer. The judge said the discovery request could not be used to search for a cause of action or to go behind earlier court orders.
The Tribunal’s 2015 report found O’Sullivan guilty of professional misconduct and recommended that he practise only as an assistant solicitor, under the direct supervision of a solicitor of at least 10 years’ standing approved by the Law Society. The High Court made orders sought by the Society in April 2016. The Court of Appeal dismissed O’Sullivan’s appeal in July 2018, and a consequential order followed on 4 October 2018.
O’Sullivan also sought leave to amend his summons and statement of claim to refer specifically to Article 4 of the Convention, which prohibits slavery and forced labour. The State defendants did not object, while the Law Society opposed the amendment. Justice Allen allowed it, noting that the proposed change concerned the alleged incompatibility of legislation, a matter for the Attorney General rather than the Society. He said he would hear counsel on whether the defences also needed amendment.
The ruling determined the discovery and amendment applications. It did not decide the underlying challenge to the legislative framework.