The Law Society Of Ireland v Kearns (Approved)

Factual and Procedural Background

This is a summary of an application by Company A for orders under s. 82(2), s. 85(3) and s. 85(7) of the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015 and Order 53D RSC following a Determination and Recommendation of the Tribunal dated 27 March 2026. The Tribunal found the Respondent guilty of multiple counts of professional misconduct under s. 50(1)(e), (h) and (m) of the 2015 Act arising from deficiencies in practice including repeated unauthorised fee deductions from a client account, failures to comply with regulatory directions and deficits in anti-money laundering systems. The Tribunal recommended that the Respondent be struck off the Roll of Solicitors. Company A sought that the Court give effect to the Tribunal's recommendation and also sought orders for costs measured at €3,762 for Tribunal proceedings and €3,254 for this application. The matter was heard ex tempore by Judge Barniville on 11 June 2026. The Respondent did not attend the Tribunal inquiry or the Court application and there was evidence before the Tribunal from Attorney MacCarthy and affidavit material from Attorney Connors and Attorney Fenelon.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the High Court should give effect to the Tribunal's recommendation that the Respondent be struck off the Roll of Solicitors under s. 85(7)(f) of the 2015 Act.
2. Whether the Court should order the Respondent to pay Company A's costs of the Tribunal proceedings (s. 85(8)(a)) measured at €3,762.
3. Whether the Court should order the Respondent to pay Company A's costs of the High Court application measured at €3,254 (or alternatively as assessed).

Arguments of the Parties

Applicant's Arguments

• Company A submitted that the findings of repeated unauthorised fee deductions, non-compliance with directions, ongoing regulatory and AML failures, and the Respondent's pattern of non-engagement justified strike off.
• Company A argued that the Tribunal applied an appropriate stepwise and proportional approach and that lesser sanctions would not protect the public or uphold professional standards.
• Company A sought costs of the Tribunal proceedings (€3,762) and costs of this Court application (€3,254), asserting those measured amounts were reasonable.

Respondent's Arguments

• The Respondent did not attend the Tribunal inquiry or the High Court application and made no oral submissions; limited mitigating correspondence had been filed referring to health and financial difficulties, which the Tribunal treated as of limited weight.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court reviewed the Tribunal's findings of fact and misconduct, including findings that the Respondent had (a) deducted €46,853.47 by unauthorised withdrawals on 22 occasions over nine years, (b) failed to comply with directions to file an ancillary motion to determine entitlement to fees, (c) failed to maintain required invoices and client dispute resolution documentation, and (d) failed to implement basic AML risk assessments, policies, records and client risk documentation. The Court noted the Respondent's pattern of non-engagement and limited mitigation put forward.

The Court assessed whether the Tribunal had applied the correct legal principles on sanction and concluded it had. Applying those principles, the Court agreed that lesser sanctions (restriction, conditions, suspension, supervision or education) would not address the lack of insight, failure to make restitution, sustained regulatory disregard, and systemic AML failings that posed ongoing risk. The Court therefore concluded that strike off was proportionate and necessary to protect the public and maintain confidence in the profession. The Court also evaluated the reasonableness of the measured costs claimed by Company A and found them appropriate.

Holding and Implications

HOLDING: The Court adopted the Tribunal's recommendation and ordered that the Respondent's name be struck off the Roll of Solicitors. The Court also ordered the Respondent to pay Company A's costs of the Tribunal proceedings in the measured sum of €3,762 and to pay Company A's costs of this High Court application in the measured sum of €3,254.

Implications: The direct effect is the Respondent's removal from the Roll and the imposition of the specified costs liabilities. The Court stated that the Tribunal's recommended sanction complied with applicable legal principles; no new legal precedent beyond applying those principles to the facts was created.