Law Society of Ireland v Enright

Factual and Procedural Background

The Law Society of Ireland applied to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal to have the name of the Respondent solicitor struck off the Roll of Solicitors, following findings that the Respondent was not a fit person to remain a member of the solicitors’ profession. The Respondent was admitted as a solicitor in 1986, initially worked in private practice, then as an assistant manager for a subsidiary of an American medical insurance company, before establishing his own legal practice in County Kerry.

In 1994, the Respondent forged ten documents purporting to be health insurance claims in the name of a fictitious doctor, seeking payment of medical expenses. The forged claims were processed and paid to post office boxes, with the Respondent’s brother intercepting the cheques. The Respondent’s motivation was to obtain funds after a redundancy payment from the insurance company did not materialise. The total amount involved was approximately €12,000, which has since been repaid.

Upon being confronted, the Respondent admitted the wrongdoing and undertook to repay the money. Criminal charges under the Forgery Act 1913 were brought against him, leading to a protracted legal process involving judicial review and appeals, including a complaint to the European Court of Human Rights, which resulted in a friendly settlement with the State.

Ultimately, the Respondent pleaded guilty to all ten offences in 2013 and was sentenced to twelve months’ imprisonment, which he served. Throughout the approximately 20 years following the offences, the Respondent conducted his private practice with propriety and without adverse notice from the Law Society or authorities. He presented around 100 testimonials from former clients supporting his good conduct.

The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found professional misconduct based on the conviction and imprisonment and recommended that the Respondent be struck off the Roll of Solicitors. The Respondent admitted misconduct but sought mitigation based on his subsequent conduct and client support.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Respondent solicitor’s name should be struck off the Roll of Solicitors following findings of professional misconduct arising from criminal convictions for forgery and dishonesty.
2. The appropriate sanction to impose on the Respondent, considering the nature of the offences, subsequent conduct, and public interest in maintaining confidence in the solicitors’ profession.
3. The relevance and application of precedent cases involving solicitors’ professional misconduct and sanctions, particularly in cases of dishonesty.

Arguments of the Parties

Respondent's Arguments

• Striking off the Respondent would be unfair and disproportionate given his impeccable conduct for over 20 years following the offences.
• The Respondent has the support of a substantial number of clients who attest to his fitness to practice.
• As a sole practitioner in a small community, the Respondent has a personal relationship with clients, distinguishing his case from others involving larger practices.
• A lesser sanction than striking off, such as suspension, would be more appropriate.
• Relied on precedent cases where suspensions rather than striking off orders were imposed, highlighting mitigating factors such as admissions, repayment, and absence of harm to clients or the Compensation Fund.

Law Society's Arguments

• Only a strike-off order is appropriate due to the seriousness of the Respondent’s criminal convictions for dishonesty, unlike other cases where solicitors were not convicted of criminal offences.
• The Disciplinary Tribunal recommended striking off, underscoring the gravity of the misconduct.
• Relied on authoritative precedent establishing that proven dishonesty by a solicitor almost invariably warrants striking off to maintain the profession’s reputation and public confidence.
• Emphasised that the sanction is not punitive, as the Respondent has already served a criminal sentence, but necessary to uphold the integrity and trustworthiness of the solicitors’ profession.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court acknowledged that the Respondent had paid the criminal penalty imposed and accepted responsibility for his misconduct. The Court considered the Respondent’s long period of proper conduct and support from clients, which reduced the likelihood of repetition of dishonesty. However, the Court emphasized the fundamental importance of maintaining public confidence in the solicitors’ profession as one where every member can be trusted absolutely.

Relying heavily on authoritative precedent, particularly the dictum of Sir Thomas Bingham M.R. in Bolton v. Law Society, the Court identified that proven dishonesty by a solicitor almost invariably requires striking off to preserve the profession’s reputation. The Court distinguished the present case from others where suspension was deemed sufficient, noting the criminal convictions for dishonesty and the Tribunal’s recommendation for striking off.

The Court concluded that although the sanction is not punitive given the prior criminal sentence, it is necessary to maintain the integrity and trustworthiness of the profession. Suspension was deemed inadequate to achieve this purpose.

Holding and Implications

The Court ordered that the Respondent’s name be struck off the Roll of Solicitors, giving effect to the recommendation of the Disciplinary Tribunal and the Law Society.

This decision directly affects the Respondent by removing his entitlement to practice as a solicitor. The Court noted that such an order is not necessarily permanent, as restoration to the Roll may be possible in the future under appropriate conditions and after the passage of time. No new precedent was established; rather, the decision applied established principles to the facts of the case to uphold the public interest and the profession’s reputation.