The High Court has ruled that striking a solicitor off the Roll does not remove the court’s jurisdiction to deal with the consequences of conduct that occurred while the person was on the Roll.
In a judgment delivered on 10 May 2010, President Kearns considered a jurisdiction question raised after an order striking off Michael J. Murphy, formerly practising as M.J. Murphy & Company in Galway. The judgment addresses the court’s authority to make further orders concerning a former solicitor, including orders affecting assets under section 20 of the Solicitors Acts.
The court had invited submissions from the Law Society of Ireland and Murphy on whether it retained jurisdiction after a solicitor was struck off under section 8 of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act 1964. The Society argued that where the person was on the Roll when the conduct occurred, the Society, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal and the court could still deal with its consequences after a later strike-off. It said otherwise a solicitor could avoid accountability for separate conduct because another matter had led to removal from the Roll.
Murphy’s counsel argued that a person struck off by order of the High Court was no longer subject to the Solicitors Acts. He relied on the wording of the legislation and submitted that the strict construction applicable to a penal process supported that interpretation.
Kearns P. focused on the 1994 amendment defining “solicitor” to include “a former solicitor” unless the context required otherwise. He held that the phrase covered someone who had qualified, been on the Roll and was no longer on it. He said that interpretation was supported by the purpose of the legislation and the absence of any basis to limit “former solicitor” to a person who had stopped practising but remained on the Roll.
The court accepted the Law Society’s interpretation of the term “former solicitor”. The judgment resolves the jurisdiction issue it was addressing: striking a solicitor off does not, by itself, prevent later disciplinary proceedings or orders concerning earlier conduct. It does not record a fresh finding on any separate complaint or make a specific further order about Murphy’s assets.