The High Court has declined a solicitor’s application for judicial review aimed at stopping a Law Society committee from considering Section B of an accountant’s report about his practice.
Mr Justice John MacMenamin delivered judgment on 23 March 2006. He said the application was premature: the Compensation Fund Committee had not yet decided whether to refer the matter to the Disciplinary Tribunal, and the solicitor would have opportunities to make submissions during the process.
The case concerned Aisling Foley’s report, prepared after she was appointed to investigate the solicitor’s practice. The report’s Section B dealt with accountancy matters; Section C dealt with suspected bogus claims. In earlier proceedings, the Supreme Court held that investigating bogus claims was outside the relevant Solicitors Accounts Regulations and prohibited the Law Society from using evidence gathered in that investigation, including Section C.
The solicitor argued that the Supreme Court’s decisions also barred use of Section B, because the appointment and report could not be separated into lawful and unlawful parts. The Law Society had proposed considering Section B, with paragraph B9 redacted. Mr Justice MacMenamin concluded that the Supreme Court’s orders distinguished Section C from the rest of the report and did not prohibit consideration of Section B for accountancy matters. He rejected the claim that overlap between the sections automatically prevented use of material concerning alleged accounting irregularities.
The judge also rejected the solicitor’s fair-procedure challenge at this stage. He said he could raise objections about particular material, missing documents and the report’s admissibility with the committee, and later with the Disciplinary Tribunal if necessary. The committee’s role was limited to deciding whether to refer the matter; it could not impose disciplinary sanctions. Any further disciplinary steps would involve separate decisions and opportunities to make submissions.
The court declined to hear a separate argument that the committee’s proposed action was outside its legal powers because that ground had not been included in the leave granted for the judicial review. The judgment did not decide whether the solicitor had breached accounting rules or committed misconduct, and it did not determine whether the committee should refer the matter.