The High Court has refused former solicitor David Walsh’s application to have his name restored to the Roll of Solicitors, finding that he was not fit and proper to practise and that his return would adversely affect public confidence in the profession and the administration of justice.
Mr Justice Kelly, President of the High Court, dismissed the application on 23 January 2017 under section 10 of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act 1960, as amended. The Law Society of Ireland opposed restoration.
Walsh had been struck off in seven orders made on 27 May 2014, following disciplinary findings. The court said those orders did not record that he had consented to being struck off, contrary to his account. In January 2015, further disciplinary matters came before the court. It made no additional strike-off orders because Walsh was already off the roll; it recorded his undertaking not to seek an extension of time to appeal the earlier orders. The judge said those proceedings had not been dismissed, as Walsh had claimed.
The judge found that Walsh failed to disclose those seven further sets of proceedings and the undertaking in his restoration application. He said Walsh’s account substantially misrepresented the position and showed either a lack of understanding of his duty of candour or an intent to mislead.
The judgment also addressed disciplinary findings concerning Walsh’s practice accounts and handling of client money. In one set of proceedings, the tribunal made 40 findings of misconduct, including findings relating to a client-account deficit of about €26,039 and the transfer of money intended for searches and other outlays to the office account when the work had not been done or the expenses paid. The High Court characterised the relevant findings as dishonesty and held that the application therefore fell under section 10(4).
The Law Society said three restitution orders totalling €68,589 remained unpaid. It also reported that its Compensation Fund had paid €60,690.36. The judge considered the number and nature of the misconduct findings, the failure to cooperate with the Society over files, and the fact that several matters predated Walsh’s serious illness.
Walsh had relied on his cancer treatment, recovery and financial hardship, and said he hoped to return to work. The judge expressed sympathy for his health problems but concluded that they did not explain a substantial number of the matters that led to the complaints. The court dismissed the restoration application; it did not restore Walsh to the roll.