The High Court has barred solicitor Michael O’Sullivan from practising as a sole practitioner or in partnership, directing that he may practise only as an assistant solicitor under the direct supervision of a solicitor with at least ten years’ standing approved in advance by the Law Society of Ireland.
Mr Justice McDermott made the order on 22 April 2016 after considering sanctions recommended by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal. The court also ordered Mr O’Sullivan to pay €10,000 to the Law Society’s compensation fund, €6,774.51 in restitution to former client James Nolan, and the Law Society’s costs, including counsel fees and witness expenses, to be taxed by the High Court taxing master if not agreed.
The Tribunal had found beyond reasonable doubt that Mr O’Sullivan was guilty of misconduct on seven matters arising from his handling of Mr Nolan’s personal injury case and the subsequent complaint. Among its findings, it said he sought a €15,000 solicitor-client fee plus VAT without explaining its basis, failed to respond appropriately to requests for information about the fee and case outlays, and deducted charges from settlement money without Mr Nolan’s written agreement or a reasonable estimate of costs recoverable from the defendant. It also found significant delay in transferring the client file to the Law Society.
The case had settled in February 2004 for €100,000 in damages and costs. Mr Nolan complained that he had not received a clear explanation of the fee and that money from the settlement was being retained. The judgment recounts that Mr O’Sullivan maintained a lien over funds pending resolution of the costs issue. The Tribunal found no misconduct on the specific allegation that he wrongfully retained the settlement money: it considered that he was legally entitled to retain it as a lien, though it said no reasonable solicitor would have acted in that way.
The Tribunal did not find misconduct on several other allegations, including failure to pursue party-and-party costs and failure to cooperate with the Society’s investigation. The High Court said the proven matters were serious but fell short of the more egregious misconduct involving fraud or dishonesty that might warrant striking a solicitor off the roll.
Mr O’Sullivan appeared in person in the High Court. He had also issued separate proceedings challenging the constitutionality of provisions of the Solicitors Acts and the validity of the Tribunal’s order. The judge declined to adjourn or strike out the disciplinary application pending those proceedings, and rejected his submissions concerning alleged bias in the Tribunal process. The court’s order applied the Tribunal’s recommended sanctions in full.