Solicitor Disciplinary Tribunal Decisions

Introduction

Welcome to the Irish Claims Board’s solicitor disciplinary records page. We believe that understanding solicitor conduct is crucial for anyone navigating the claims process. Remember, the Irish Claims Board offers a free assessment on claims—we should be your first port of call before engaging a solicitor. Our expert team is here to provide clear, unbiased advice, empowering you to make informed decisions without cost or commitment. This page highlights disciplinary records to help you stay aware of solicitor conduct and choose trustworthy professionals when needed.

Back to list

Details for Raphael M Gilmore

Name

Raphael M Gilmore

Address

Gilmore Solicitors, 22 Bridge Street, Ringsend, Dublin 4

Date of Order

27/07/2020

Decision

In the matter of Raphael M Gilmore, a solicitor previously practising as Gilmore Solicitors, 22 Bridge Street, Ringsend, Dublin 4, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2015 [2019/DT29 and High Court record 2020 32 SA]

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)

Raphael Gilmore (respondent solicitor)

 

On 16 January 2020, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:

1) Failed to keep proper books of accounts, in breach of regulations 13 and 25 of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations,

2) Allowed a deficit of €213,309 in client funds as of 11 November 2018,

3) Failed to stamp and register ten deeds, despite being in funds to do so,

4) Misled the Society and the Regulation of Practice Committee by producing a false closing accountant’s report,

5) Misled the Regulation of Practice Committee and the Society at the meeting of 27 June 2018 by denying that the closing accountant’s report that was produced was false,

6) Misled the Regulation of Practice Committee and the Society by producing false payment logs to indicate that the deficit in relation to a named client had been cleared, when this was not the case,

7) Misled the Regulation of Practice Committee by stating that the deficit in relation to another named client was cleared, when this was not the case,

8) Misled the Regulation of Practice Committee and the Society at its meeting of 6 December 2017 by indicating that the deficit was cleared,

9) Misled the Regulation of Practice Committee and the Society by indicating that nine out of the ten deeds had been stamped, when this was not the case,

10) Allowed an undated letter from his reporting accountant to be submitted to the Regulation of Practice Committee and the Society in January 2018, which was later shown to be falsified,

11) Failed to abide by his commitment to the Regulation of Practice Committee to have cheques co-signed by his reporting accountant and instead falsified his reporting accountant’s signature on client account cheques to circumvent this requirement,

12) Submitted a falsified office bank-account statement to his reporting accountant.

 

The disciplinary tribunal ordered that the Law Society bring its findings and report before the High Court.

 

On 27 July 2020, the High Court made orders that:

1) The respondent solicitor’s name be struck off the Roll of Solicitors,

2) The respondent solicitor pay a sum in measured costs to the Law Society.