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.
Alan Lloyd AM Maloney & Co, Solicitors, Harbour Street, Tullamore, Co Offaly 20/05/2019 In the matter of Alan Lloyd, a solicitor formerly practising in the firm of AM Maloney & Co, Solicitors, Harbour Street, Tullamore, Co Offaly, and in the matter of an application by the Law Society of Ireland to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2015 [2018/DT38 and High Court record 2019/6 SA] Law Society of Ireland (applicant) Alan Lloyd (respondent solicitor) On 20 November 2018, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he: 1) Practised as a solicitor/provided legal services while there was not a practising certificate for the practice year 2016 in respect of him in force, contrary to section 55 of the principal act and/or section 56(1) and/or (2) of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act 1994, 2) Held himself out as a person entitled to practise/provide legal services during the practice year 2016 while there was not a practising certificate in respect of him in force, 3) Attended at Tullamore Garda Station on 12 August 2016 and provided legal services and/or held himself out as a person entitled to provide legal services in respect of a person detained under section 2 of the Criminal Justice (Drug Trafficking) Act 1996 while not qualified to do so, by reason of there not being a practising certificate in respect of him in force, 4) Attended at Tullamore Garda Station on 15 September 2016 and provided legal services and/or held himself out as a person entitled to provide legal services in respect of a person detained under section 4 of the Criminal Justice Act 1984 while not qualified to do so, by reason of there not being a practising certificate in respect of him in force, 5) Practised as a solicitor/provided legal services while there was not a practising certificate for the practice year 2017 in respect of him in force, contrary to section 55 of the principal act and/or section 56(1) and/or (2) of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act 1994, 6) Held himself out as a person entitled to practise/provide legal services during the practice year 2017 while there was not a practising certificate in respect of him in force, 7) Attended at Birr Garda Station on 3 and/or 4 March 2017 and provided legal services and/or held himself out as a person entitled to provide legal services in respect of a person detained for alleged offence(s) of sexual assault while not qualified to do so, by reason of there not being a practising certificate in respect of him in force, 8) On or around 4 March 2017, misrepresented to a garda sergeant that he was a solicitor entitled to practise and to represent a detainee in custody, 9) Caused, permitted, or allowed fees to be paid in respect of his attendance(s), while an unqualified person, at Birr Garda Station on 3 and 4 March 2017, 10) By his actions in practising and/or providing legal services and/or holding himself out as a person entitled to provide legal services, while unqualified by reason of not holding a valid practising certificate, acted with reckless disregard for the interests of clients/prospective clients and/or for the administration of justice, thereby tending to bring the profession into disrepute. The tribunal ordered that the matter should go forward to the High Court and, on 20 May 2019, the High Court ordered that: 1) The name of the respondent be struck from the Roll of Solicitors, 2) The respondent pay a sum of costs, measured by the tribunal, to the applicant, 3) The respondent pay the applicant its costs of the High Court application, with taxation in default of agreement. Details for Alan Lloyd
Name
Address
Date of Order
Decision