The High Court has dismissed Grace Jones’s appeal against a Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal decision that solicitor Michael O’Brien had not committed misconduct, making no order as to costs.
In a ruling delivered on 23 April 2012, the court considered two complaints that had proceeded to a Tribunal inquiry: whether Mr O’Brien led Ms Jones to believe she would recover fees previously paid to another firm, and whether his handling of her late mother’s will involved misconduct.
Ms Jones had instructed Mr O’Brien in April 2007 after a road traffic accident. She had already paid Nora Gallagher & Company Solicitors for their work on her personal injury claim. She argued that a letter from Mr O’Brien dated 22 January 2009 led her to believe those earlier fees would also be recovered.
The court said the letter referred to legal costs incurred by Mr O’Brien’s own firm and was not sufficient evidence that fees paid to the previous solicitors would be included. It made no finding of misconduct on that complaint.
On the will, Ms Jones wrote to Mr O’Brien in June 2007 asking him to begin probate and saying the firm held the will. The court rejected Mr O’Brien’s account that she made no further enquiries over the following months. It said that after receiving her instructions, he should have pursued the matter immediately and made further enquiries within his firm or of Ms Jones.
The will was located on 5 February 2008, after a file review prompted an enquiry to Ms Jones the previous day, and was passed to another solicitor in the firm for probate. Probate was issued in May 2009. Ms Jones said the delay contributed to vandalism at her late mother’s vacant home in April 2008 and made it harder to sell before the property market downturn.
The court found that Mr O’Brien acted immediately to correct the oversight once he became aware of it. It concluded the oversight did not amount to misconduct. The court also made no finding of misconduct on the other 12 complaints, which Ms Jones had sought to include in her appeal. It said those complaints were outside the permitted time for appeal, though it reviewed the related documents and correspondence.