The Supreme Court has rejected a Law Society attempt to have two Dublin solicitors struck off the roll following admitted serious misconduct involving client accounts, false accounting records and tax evasion.
Colm Carroll and Henry Colley practised in partnership as Roger Greene & Sons on Bridge Street, Dublin. A Law Society investigation uncovered extensive breaches of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations. The Supreme Court judgment records that client and personal funds were mixed, undisclosed bank accounts were operated and accounting records were deliberately falsified.
The court found that the scheme was directed at tax evasion rather than defrauding clients. The solicitors also initially obstructed the Law Society investigation by supplying false information and failing to disclose relevant accounts. They later admitted the misconduct, cooperated with the investigation and settled outstanding matters with the Revenue Commissioners.
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal recommended that each solicitor be suspended for 12 months, followed by three years during which neither could practise as a sole practitioner or partner. Each was also to pay €50,000 to the Law Society Compensation Fund and half of the Society's costs.
The Law Society considered those sanctions insufficient and asked the High Court to strike both solicitors off. Mr Justice McKechnie instead adopted the tribunal's recommendations. He regarded the case as finely balanced but placed weight on the later admissions, cooperation, tax settlement and the fact that clients had not ultimately been left without money.
The Supreme Court said its task was not to decide what sanction it would have imposed itself. The question was whether the High Court's decision was legally open to it on the evidence.
Mr Justice Geoghegan held that it was. He stressed that the absence of actual client loss does not mean a solicitor who seriously breaches accounting rules can normally expect to avoid being struck off. However, taking all the circumstances together, the High Court was entitled to conclude that the lesser sanctions were sufficient.
The Law Society's appeal was therefore dismissed.