The High Court has directed the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal to hold an inquiry into allegations that a solicitor falsely witnessed a woman’s signature on company documents and later misled her new solicitor. The court stressed that it was deciding only whether there was a prima facie case requiring inquiry, not whether the allegations were ultimately true.
In a judgment delivered on 1 February 2021, Mr Justice Richard Humphreys allowed Deirdre O’Flynn’s appeal in part. The appeal followed the tribunal’s June 2020 decision that there was no prima facie case for an inquiry into the respondent solicitor’s conduct.
The dispute arose from the solicitor’s work for BOD Investments (IRL) Ltd, a company established by Ms O’Flynn and her former husband. Ms O’Flynn complained about events between 1997 and 2011, including alleged false witnessing of her signature and statements to her later solicitor that documents had been sent to her. The respondent denied involvement in forgery. In an affidavit, he said that documents may in some instances have been signed by Mr O’Flynn in the presence of firm staff before being given to him for his co-director to sign.
On the signature allegations, the judge noted that Ms O’Flynn had produced a handwriting expert’s report. He also referred to evidence that the respondent and members of his firm may have witnessed documents without her being present, and that the respondent swore a memorial stating the conveyance had been properly witnessed. He held that the evidence crossed the threshold for an inquiry; he did not determine that forgery or perjury had occurred.
The second group concerns alleged false or misleading information given to Ms O’Flynn’s new solicitor, David J. O’Meara & Company. The judgment cited correspondence in which the respondent said he had advised both Mr and Mrs O’Flynn, while a letter enclosing accounts had been addressed to Mr O’Flynn alone. The judge found a prima facie case requiring inquiry into those allegations as well.
The court dismissed the appeal on the other complaints, including those concerning tax, company payments and a property at Beecher Street. It confirmed the tribunal’s decision on those matters. The tribunal was directed to proceed with an inquiry under section 7(3) of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act 1960 on the two groups of allegations.
The respondent solicitor’s name was redacted in the judgment. The judgment records that Ms O’Flynn did not want her own name redacted.