The High Court has dismissed an appeal by Timothy Maverley against a Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal decision that found no prima facie case of misconduct by his former solicitor, Brendan Clarke.
The appeal concerned four allegations arising from Clarke’s work for Maverley and two other plaintiffs in litigation heard in December 2011 and January 2012. The High Court issued its decision in that litigation on 18 January 2012. It found the defendants negligent and in breach of duty, but held that causation had not been established and dismissed the claim.
Maverley complained to the Tribunal in June 2013. He alleged that Clarke removed travel documents from trial exhibits against his instructions, misled him about whether they would be used later, provided an inaccurate costs bill that left €83,813.02 unaccounted for, and discussed his business affairs with a co-director without his consent.
Clarke said the decision to remove the documents was made by senior counsel, who later confirmed responsibility for it. He denied a concerted effort to keep the documents from the court. On costs, he said his office had accounted for the funds it received and that some payments were made directly to counsel. He also said the co-director was a client and that he had professional obligations to him.
The Tribunal found no prima facie misconduct on any of the four allegations. Maverley appealed, arguing that the Tribunal had not properly addressed evidence about the documents, the accounts and a meeting with his co-director. Clarke disputed those claims.
The High Court said responsibility for presenting the case in court lay primarily with counsel. It found no evidence that Clarke had acted wrongly over the removal of the travel documents or that there had been an effort to mislead Maverley or keep evidence from the court. The judge described the decision as a strategic one made by experienced counsel.
On the costs allegation, the court found that Maverley had introduced no fresh evidence showing that the Tribunal had erred or warranting a different conclusion. On the meeting, it accepted that Clarke owed duties to the co-plaintiffs and found nothing untoward in discussing the case and possible appeal with them, including matters related to Maverley. The court also accepted that Clarke’s notes accurately reflected the meeting.
The High Court dismissed the appeal. It did not determine the underlying negligence claim anew; its decision concerned the Tribunal’s no-prima-facie-misconduct determination.