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 listDetails for Damien Cassidy
Name
Damien Cassidy
Address
Walker & Co, Solicitors, 22 Sandymount Road, Dublin 4
Date of Order
11/01/2019
Decision
 
In the matter of Damien Cassidy, a solicitor practising as Walker  & Co, Solicitors, 22 Sandymount Road, Dublin 4, 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 [2466/DT111/14;  High Court 2016/58 SA; Court of Appeal 2016/563 CA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Damien Cassidy (respondent solicitor)
On 20 January 2016, the Solicitors  Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in  his practice as a solicitor in that he:
1)   Failed to comply  expeditiously, within a reasonable time, or at all with an undertaking given by  him in respect of his named client over property at Co Dublin to the governor of  the company of Bank of Ireland, by undertaking dated 12 February 2004,
2)   Failed to reply  adequately or at all to the Society’s correspondence in respect of an  undertaking given by him on behalf of the same named client over property at Co  Dublin and, in particular letters dated 11 October 2013, 6 November 2013, and  14 February 2014 respectively,
3)   Failed to attend a  meeting of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee on 25 March 2014 in  respect of the complaint concerning his same named client over property at Co  Dublin, despite being required to do so,
4)   Failed to reply  adequately or at all to the Society’s correspondence in respect of an  undertaking given by him on behalf of his named clients over property at Co  Dublin and, in particular, letters dated 11 October 2013, 6 November 2013, and  14 February 2014 respectively,
5)   Failed to attend a  meeting of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee on 25 March 2014 in  respect of the complaint concerning his named clients over property at Co  Dublin, despite being required to do so,
6)   Failed to reply  expeditiously, within a reasonable time, or at all with an undertaking given by  him to Bank of Ireland Mortgage Bank on behalf of his named clients over  property at  Dublin 4, dated 14 October  2008,
7)   Failed to reply  adequately or at all to the Society’s correspondence in respect of an  undertaking given by him on behalf of his clients named clients over property  at  Dublin 4 and, in particular, letters  dated 11 October 2013, 6 November 2013, and 14 February 2014 respectively,
8)   Failed to attend a  meeting of the Complaints and Client Relations Committee on 25 March 2014 in  respect of the complaint concerning his named clients over property at Dublin 4,  despite being required to do so. 
The tribunal ordered that the matter  should go forward to the High Court and, on 21 November 2016, the High Court  ordered that: 
1)  The name of the respondent solicitor shall  be struck from the Roll of Solicitors,
2)  The respondent solicitor pay to the  applicant the costs of the proceedings before the Solicitors Disciplinary  Tribunal,
3)  The respondent solicitor deliver up all  files to the Society pursuant to provisions of section 19(1) of the Solicitors  (Amendment)         Act 1960, as amended, by  substitution, by section 27 of the Solicitors ( Amendment) Act 1994.
The respondent solicitor appealed the order  and, on 11 January 2019, the Court of Appeal ordered that, unless the books of  appeal were lodged by 21 January 2019, the said appeal should stand struck out  with liberty to apply or re-enter the appeal, with costs of the appeal to the applicant  as against the respondent, to be taxed in default of agreement