Strike-off for Unauthorised Client-Account Fee Deductions and Systemic AML Non-Compliance (High Court confirmation under the 2015 Act)

1. Introduction

In The Law Society Of Ireland v Kearns (Approved) [2026] IEHC 411, the High Court (Barniville P) determined an application by the Law Society of Ireland to give effect to a Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal (“LPDT”) Determination and Recommendation. The LPDT had found multiple instances of misconduct by the respondent solicitor and recommended strike-off.

The respondent did not participate in the LPDT inquiry or in the High Court application, though the LPDT was satisfied as to service and awareness of the hearing.

The core issues for the High Court were:

  • whether the LPDT’s recommended sanction of strike-off complied with the applicable sanctioning principles under the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015 (“2015 Act”); and
  • whether, and in what sums, the respondent should pay the Society’s costs of (i) the LPDT proceedings and (ii) the High Court application.

2. Summary of the Judgment

The Court held that the LPDT had applied the correct legal principles and that the recommended sanction was appropriate. The Court:

  • ordered that the respondent’s name be struck off the Roll of Solicitors (s. 85(7)(f) of the 2015 Act);
  • ordered payment to the Society of €3,762 for the Society’s costs of the LPDT proceedings; and
  • ordered payment to the Society of €3,254 for the Society’s costs of the High Court application (both sums accepted as “measured” and reasonable).

A central feature of the case was the sustained deduction of substantial fees from a client account over many years without the evidential and regulatory safeguards required (notably the absence of invoices and fee authorisation), coupled with significant and prolonged anti-money laundering (“AML”) compliance failures and a pattern of non-engagement.

3. Analysis

3.1 Statutory and Regulatory Framework Applied

Although the application was brought under s. 82(2), s. 85(3) and s. 85(7) of the 2015 Act and Order 53D RSC, the substantive misconduct findings were rooted in the 2015 Act’s definition of misconduct (s. 50(1)) and in multiple underlying obligations. The LPDT (and the Court in reviewing the recommendation) treated the relevant heads of misconduct as:

  • s. 50(1)(e): breach of the Solicitors Acts 1954–2015 or regulations under them;
  • s. 50(1)(h): conduct likely to bring the profession into disrepute;
  • s. 50(1)(m): breach of the 2015 Act or regulations under it.

Importantly, the Court noted that this was not a dishonesty case under s. 50(1)(a) (“fraud or dishonesty”), but nevertheless involved very serious professional wrongdoing.

The underlying obligations implicated included:

  • Solicitors Accounts Regulations 2014 (including Regulation 7), governing withdrawals/charges from client account and the documentary basis/authority for fees;
  • s. 68 of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act 1994 and ss. 150 and 152 of the 2015 Act, requiring transparency as to legal costs and the provision of the Solicitor’s Dispute Resolution Procedure;
  • Criminal Justice Act 2010 (as inserted/amended by the Criminal Justice Act 2018): notably s. 30A (business risk assessment), s. 30B (client risk assessment documentation), and s. 54 (policies, controls and procedures);
  • Solicitors Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing Regulations 2020 (notably Regulations 5, 6 and 8), requiring AML risk frameworks and record-keeping.

3.2 What the LPDT Found (and Why It Mattered to Sanction)

The LPDT found all allegations (a)–(i) proven as fact and constituting misconduct under the relevant s. 50(1) heads. Several features drove the gravity assessment:

  • Repeated unauthorised fee deductions from client funds: fees totalling €46,853.47 were deducted on 22 occasions over 2013–2022 in an estate matter, in circumstances where there were no formal invoices on file and no indication of agreed/authorised fees. The LPDT treated this as the most serious aspect, describing it as “taking of fees without legal authority” over years.
  • Failure to follow the professional body’s direction: the respondent did not file an ancillary motion (as directed by the Regulation of Practice Committee) to have entitlement to fees determined, despite multiple opportunities. This compounded the original fees issue because it demonstrated continuing disregard for regulatory oversight and for a mechanism that might have regularised (or rejected) the claimed entitlement.
  • Costs transparency and dispute-resolution failures across multiple files: absence of invoices and lack of evidence that clients were provided the Solicitor’s Dispute Resolution Procedure was treated as systemic rather than accidental.
  • Serious AML compliance deficits: missing business risk assessments, missing client risk assessment documentation, and failures to implement and record AML policies/controls/procedures. The LPDT emphasised that these are foundational controls and that their absence exposed the practice to money laundering/terrorist financing risks.
  • Non-engagement: repeated failure to attend before the Regulation of Practice Committee, and non-participation in the LPDT inquiry.
  • Prior disciplinary history and non-payment of prior sanctions: three prior misconduct findings relating to late accountant’s reports, with censure/fines/costs ordered, none paid—supporting the LPDT’s view of deterioration and regulatory non-compliance.

3.3 Precedents Cited

Barniville P referenced his earlier 2026 decisions as setting out the statutory provisions and the High Court’s role on applications following a tribunal recommendation:

  • Legal Services Regulatory Authority v Edward O'Brien [2026] IEHC 348
  • Law Society v Ronan O'Brien [2026] IEHC 380
  • Law Society v McSweeney [2026] IEHC 400

While the detailed principles were not reproduced in this ex tempore judgment, the Court expressly applied the approach reflected in those authorities: the LPDT recommendation is influential and entitled to respect, but the Court must independently ensure the recommended sanction complies with the governing principles (including proportionality and the protective/deterrent functions of discipline). The Court emphasised it is not engaged in a “rubber-stamping exercise”.

3.4 Legal Reasoning: Why Strike-Off Was Confirmed

The Court’s reasoning is best understood as a structured confirmation that:

  1. The LPDT took the correct “stepwise” approach and evaluated the misconduct in the round, including totality and gravity.
  2. Public protection and confidence required removal from practice: the combination of (i) prolonged unauthorised client-account deductions, (ii) failure to regularise matters when directed, (iii) systemic AML failures, and (iv) non-engagement created an ongoing risk profile inconsistent with continued membership of the profession.
  3. Lesser sanctions were inadequate: the LPDT had considered conditions, supervision, education, restrictions, and suspension—alone or combined— but found they would not address the lack of insight, sustained non-compliance, absence of restitution, and systemic practice failures. The Court agreed that a sanction short of strike-off would not adequately protect the public or uphold standards.
  4. Absence of dishonesty did not neutralise seriousness: even without a dishonesty allegation, “taking of fees without legal authority” over years was treated as extremely serious misconduct.
  5. Deterrence and professional standards: the Court expressly linked strike-off to deterrence—both specific and general—and to maintaining the profession’s reputation.

3.5 Costs: High Court Will Order Reasonable “Measured” Costs in Addition to Strike-Off

Although the LPDT did not recommend costs (noting the High Court’s jurisdiction under s. 85(8)(a)), the Society sought the costs of both the tribunal process and the High Court application. The Court ordered both sums as “very reasonable”.

The decision confirms that, where misconduct is proven and a protective sanction is imposed, the High Court may (and commonly will) make costs orders to avoid the disciplinary process being subsidised by the profession or public funds, subject to reasonableness and statutory authority.

3.6 Impact

  • Client account governance: sustained fee deductions from client account without demonstrable authority/appropriate documentation can justify strike-off even absent a dishonesty finding, particularly where the practitioner shows no insight and does not rectify matters.
  • AML as a core competence issue: the Court endorsed the LPDT’s treatment of AML failures as serious professional misconduct capable of supporting removal from practice where deficiencies are fundamental and systemic.
  • Non-engagement aggravates: repeated failures to attend before the professional body, and absence from disciplinary hearings, materially worsen sanction outcomes by evidencing disregard for regulation and limiting meaningful mitigation.
  • High Court scrutiny remains real: the judgment reiterates that the High Court will independently assess whether the recommended sanction meets established principles, while still giving due weight to the LPDT’s specialist assessment.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

“Strike-off”
Removal of the solicitor’s name from the Roll of Solicitors. It is the most serious professional sanction and prevents practice as a solicitor, subject to any future restoration process (if available under law).
Misconduct “likely to bring the profession into disrepute” (s. 50(1)(h))
A broad standard capturing conduct that undermines public trust in solicitors, even if it is not criminal and even if dishonesty is not proven. In this case it included systemic failures (fees governance, AML controls, regulatory non-compliance, non-engagement).
Business risk assessment vs client risk assessment (AML)
A business risk assessment evaluates the overall ML/TF risks arising from the nature of the practice. A client risk assessment is file/client-specific and records why a particular client or matter presents low/medium/high risk and what controls apply.
“Measured” costs
Costs presented in a specified sum (typically by reference to a bill), accepted by the Court as reasonable in the circumstances. If not agreed, costs can be assessed by a Legal Costs Adjudicator.

5. Conclusion

[2026] IEHC 411 confirms that the High Court will uphold a strike-off recommendation where a solicitor’s misconduct shows sustained client-account fee irregularities, entrenched non-compliance with core regulatory duties (including AML), and a pattern of non-engagement and lack of insight. The Court reiterated its independent supervisory role over LPDT recommendations—eschewing “rubber-stamping”—and reinforced that costs orders may properly follow proven misconduct and protective sanctions where the amounts claimed are reasonable.