The High Court dismissed Oliver Sheerin’s appeal against decisions by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal on complaints about solicitor William Murphy. The court said Sheerin had not made out a sufficient preliminary case to reverse the tribunal’s findings or shown grounds for it to consider his other complaints. It made no order as to costs.
The tribunal had found prima facie evidence of misconduct in relation to certain matters, including failures to provide cash accounts and files, explain where money went, and answer letters about specific sums. It found no such evidence on other matters. Sheerin appealed both the matters dismissed and the tribunal’s decision not to comment on several further allegations.
In his affidavit, Sheerin said he had instructed Murphy from 2003 to 2006 on 12 matters and wanted accounts for money entrusted to him. He alleged that Murphy had refused to provide cash accounts and that files he received in 2008 were incomplete. These were allegations in the appeal; the court did not make new findings that the alleged misconduct occurred.
Sheerin asked the court to have the tribunal consider sums beyond five examples of unaccounted money, revisit a complaint concerning investors’ alleged €20,700 loss, and examine allegations involving two sums, overcharging, and other possible misconduct. He also sought investigation of his allegation that €11,300 had been stolen from Kilcairne Investors, and asked the court to admonish the Law Society and its Independent Adjudicator.
The court said Sheerin had not adequately explained why the additional sums warranted consideration, why the tribunal should re-examine the evidence concerning the investors’ alleged loss, or why complaints the tribunal treated as repetitions were distinct. It also found the material presented did not warrant directing an investigation into the €11,300 allegation. The court said several other claims, including invoicing irregularities and insulting letters, lacked sufficient detail, and that the request to admonish the Society and adjudicator was unsupported by evidence.
The court concluded that the tribunal’s finding of no prima facie case on certain matters was appropriate and dismissed the appeal as without merit. The ruling did not reverse the tribunal’s findings of prima facie evidence concerning the specified accounting and file-related matters.