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.
Anthony O'Gorman Anthony F O'Gorman and Co, Solicitors, St Michael’s Road, Gorey, Co Wexford 08/06/2020 In the matter of Anthony O'Gorman, solicitor, formerly practising as Anthony F O'Gorman and Co, Solicitors, at St Michael’s Road, Gorey, Co Wexford, and in the matter of an application by the Law Society of Ireland to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal [3163/DT160/15 and High Court record 2017/11SA] Law Society of Ireland (applicant) Anthony O'Gorman (respondent solicitor) On 18 May 2016, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in the following matters: 1) The respondent solicitor failed, in the course of and arising from his practice as a solicitor, to maintain (as part of his accounting records) proper books of account and such relevant supporting documents as to enable clients’ moneys, handled and dealt with by the solicitor, to be duly recorded and the entries relevant thereto in the books of account to be appropriately vouched, and thereby failed to comply with regulation 12 of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations 2001-2013, 2) Between January 2013 and June 2014, the respondent solicitor transferred moneys by way of round sum transfers in cash from the client account to the office account, and thereby created a deficit in the client account of €321,386 as of 30 June 2014, and thereby failed to comply with regulation 7(1) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations, £) Between January 2013 and June 2014, the respondent solicitor withdrew moneys totalling €321,386 by way of round-sum transfers from the client account to the office account, in breach of regulations 8(1) and/or 8(2) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations, 4) Between January 2013 and June 2014, the respondent solicitor ‘cashed’ cheques totalling €154,876.46, some of which may have been used for costs but which were not properly recorded, in breach of regulation 12 and/or regulation 8(1) and/or 8(2) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations, 5) In respect of a named matter, the respondent solicitor deducted costs from the client account prior to receipt of costs in the matter, thereby creating a debit balance of €31,376, in breach of regulation 7(2)(a) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations, 6) As of 30 September 2014, the respondent solicitor allowed debit balances to arise in respect of a client ledger account, in breach of regulation 7(2)(a) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations, 7) The respondent solicitor failed to complete balancing statements not later than two months after the balancing date to which they relate, and thereby failed to comply with regulation 12(7)(b) of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations, 8) In respect of the period 1 January 2013 and 30 June 2014, the respondent solicitor failed to have a formal written anti-money-laundering policy document in place, in breach of section 54 of the Criminal Justice (Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing) Act 2010, 9) During the period between 1 January 2013 and 30 June 2014, the respondent solicitor failed to comply with the provisions of section 68(6) of the Solicitors Amendment Act 1994, in that clients were not informed of the costs recovered on a party-and-party basis and that the respondent solicitor had failed to provide a full account to clients. The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal referred the matter to the High Court and, in record number 2017/11SA, the High Court made the following order on 23 March 2018: 1) The respondent solicitor pay to the applicant the sum of €14,500 then owing, arising from costs of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, 2) The matter stand adjourned to 3 April 2020, the court noting the undertakings given by the respondent solicitor not to apply for a practising certificate again and never to practise nor seek to practise as a solicitor, nor hold himself out as a solicitor entitled to practise. The matter came back before the High Court on 8 June 2020. The High Court noted the renewed undertakings given by the respondent solicitor not to apply for a practising certificate again and never to practise nor seek to practise as a solicitor, nor hold himself out as a solicitor entitled to practise, and made the following order: that the applicant do recover against the respondent solicitor the sum of €31,766.55 in costs. Details for Anthony O'Gorman
Name
Address
Date of Order
Decision