The High Court has remitted a solicitor’s disciplinary case to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal to reconsider the penalty, after finding that the solicitor had not been given clear advance notice that the complainants’ status as his clients could affect the sanction.
In a judgment delivered on 27 April 2012, President of the High Court Nicholas Kearns considered John F. Condon’s judicial review challenge to a tribunal decision made on 3 May 2011. The tribunal had recommended a six-month suspension, followed by restrictions on practising as a sole practitioner or in partnership, and ordered €2,000 in restitution to Paul and Cicely Gunton. It also recommended that Condon pay the Law Society’s costs.
The case arose from a 2000 conveyance of a site at Ballymote, County Sligo, from Sandy Perceval to the Guntons. Condon acted for Perceval. After the Guntons signed the deed, it was returned to Condon’s firm for stamping and registration. The judgment says the process took nine years despite repeated requests from the Guntons. Condon accepted responsibility for the delay, which caused them significant distress.
The tribunal found misconduct on all complaints except one concerning whether Condon had misled the Guntons into believing they were his clients. On that complaint, it found they were clients. The complaints included failures to respond to the Guntons and their solicitors and to correspondence from the Law Society. The tribunal also took account of an earlier misconduct finding against Condon when recommending the penalty.
Condon argued that the tribunal had penalised him on a basis he had not been charged with: treating the Guntons as his clients. The Law Society submitted that the tribunal could decide their status as a matter of fact and that Condon had opportunities to address it. The court noted that the client-status question was not itself a complaint, but held it was critical to whether professional misconduct had occurred and to the appropriate sanction. Given the significance of the penalty, fair procedures required the charges to be clearly formulated in advance.
The court found a valid complaint about the process, but considered whether judicial review relief was appropriate in light of the application’s lateness and Condon’s admitted delay. It did not quash the tribunal’s findings or remit the case for a new hearing. Instead, it proposed remitting the case for reconsideration of penalty only, on the basis that the Guntons were not Condon’s clients, though he owed them duties as members of the public. Under that approach, Condon would accept the complaints of delay. The judgment also said the earlier finding should not be considered in setting the penalty if it remained under appeal.
The supplied judgment text ends while setting out this proposed remedy; it does not include a formal final order. The precise terms of the disposition therefore remain unclear from this source.