Law Society of Ireland v Corrigan (Approved)

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion concerns an application by Company A for orders related to a solicitor (the "Solicitor") pursuant to the Solicitors (Amendment) Act 1960 (as amended). The Solicitor admitted misconduct and dishonesty involving misappropriation of client funds and permitting a deficit in client accounts. The Solicitor had been practicing since 2004, initially in partnership, then as a consultant, before establishing his own practice.

The investigation commenced following a complaint from a client ("Client A") who paid purchase monies for an apartment, but the Solicitor paid the vendor's solicitors €50,000 less than due. An authorised person was appointed to investigate, revealing the Solicitor had taken €17,500 from settlement monies of another client ("Client B") to pay personal debts and withheld fees due to senior counsel. The Solicitor used funds from Client A to reimburse Client B, resulting in a total admitted deficit of approximately €64,742.50.

The Solicitor cooperated fully, disclosed all information promptly, closed his client account, surrendered his practising certificate, and arranged for transfer of files. He explained severe personal and family difficulties, including his wife's life-limiting neurodegenerative illness and the care needs of a son with cerebral palsy. The Solicitor was the sole earner and carer in his household.

Company A's Regulation of Practice Committee met several times to monitor repayment plans and the Solicitor's intentions to return to practice under supervision. The Solicitor reimbursed the Compensation Fund in full with family assistance, paid outstanding fees to senior counsel, and remained cooperative throughout. The matter was referred to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal ("Tribunal") for inquiry.

The Tribunal found the Solicitor guilty of misconduct based on admitted facts and recommended sanctions including restrictions on practice but did not recommend striking the Solicitor off the Roll. Company A applied to the High Court seeking an order striking the Solicitor off the Roll, contending that the Solicitor was not a fit person to remain on the Roll due to the seriousness of the misconduct.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the court should impose the sanction recommended by the Solicitors' Disciplinary Tribunal or the more severe sanction sought by Company A, specifically whether the Solicitor should be struck off the Roll of Solicitors.

Arguments of the Parties

Company A's Arguments

• The Solicitor's admitted misconduct involved dishonesty and misappropriation of client funds, which undermines public confidence and the reputation of the solicitors' profession.
• Solicitors hold a privileged position of trust regarding client monies and must adhere to the highest standards of honesty, probity, and trustworthiness.
• Despite mitigating circumstances, the Solicitor's conduct warranted the ultimate sanction of striking off to protect the public and maintain the profession's reputation.
• Reliance on established legal principles and precedent that misconduct involving dishonesty almost invariably results in striking off.
• The Solicitor's reimbursement of funds and remorse do not negate the need for a severe sanction.
• Company A referred to the case Law Society of Ireland v. D'Alton as authoritative on the relevant principles and sanctions.

Solicitor's Arguments

• The misconduct was a discrete, one-off event arising from exceptional personal and family circumstances, including severe illness and financial pressures.
• The Solicitor has shown genuine remorse, shame, and has taken full responsibility from the outset.
• The Solicitor cooperated fully with investigations and disciplinary processes, promptly ceased practice, and arranged for restitution of all funds including compensation and fees.
• Powerful testimonials from professional colleagues and members of the Bar attest to the Solicitor's character and support his potential supervised return to practice.
• Requested that the court accept the Tribunal's recommended sanctions, which allow for supervised practice without access to client funds, rather than striking off.
• Emphasized that the misconduct was not part of a pattern but an isolated incident under extreme pressure.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court acknowledged the admitted misconduct involving serious dishonesty by the Solicitor, including misappropriation of client funds and allowing a significant deficit in client accounts. It recognized that such misconduct typically warrants striking off to protect the public, maintain the profession's reputation, punish wrongdoing, discourage misconduct, and uphold proportionality.

However, the court carefully considered significant mitigating factors. These included the Solicitor's exceptionally difficult personal and family circumstances—specifically, his wife's severe neurodegenerative illness and the care needs of a disabled child—the Solicitor's sole earner and carer status, his genuine remorse, full cooperation, immediate admissions, restitution of all misappropriated funds with family assistance, and the absence of any prior disciplinary history.

The court also gave weight to the powerful testimonials from respected legal professionals attesting to the Solicitor's character and support for his supervised return to practice. It noted that the misconduct was an isolated incident occurring under extreme pressure, not part of a pattern.

Balancing these factors, the court concluded that a strike off would be disproportionate and inappropriate in this exceptional case. It found that the Tribunal's recommended sanctions, while restrictive, did not fully reflect the seriousness of the misconduct and mitigating circumstances combined.

Accordingly, the court fashioned a middle-ground sanction modeled on principles from D'Alton: a suspension for twelve months from the date of the application, followed by restrictions permitting practice only as an assistant solicitor under supervision by a solicitor of at least ten years' standing, with no access to client funds. The restrictions would apply to all future practising certificates after suspension.

The court further ordered that Company A would have liberty to re-enter proceedings to seek striking off if the Solicitor breaches restrictions or commits further dishonesty. The Solicitor was also ordered to pay costs related to the Tribunal and the High Court application.

Holding and Implications

The court's final decision was to suspend the Solicitor from practice for twelve months from the date of the application (27 April 2023), with the suspension expiring on 24 April 2024.

Following suspension, the Solicitor is permitted to practise only as an assistant solicitor under the direct supervision of a solicitor with at least ten years' standing approved by Company A, and is prohibited from having access to client funds. These restrictions apply to all practising certificates issued after the suspension period.

Company A retains the right to immediately re-enter proceedings to seek striking off in the event of any breach of these restrictions or any further dishonesty.

The Solicitor must also pay a contribution towards Company A's costs before the Tribunal and the costs of the High Court application.

No new precedent was established by this decision; rather, the court applied established principles with careful consideration of exceptional mitigating circumstances to impose a proportionate sanction balancing public protection and fairness to the Solicitor.