Solicitor Disciplinary Tribunal Decisions

Details for Neil Corbett

Name

Neil Corbett

Address

Neil Corbett Solicitors, Davis Building, Lower Main Street, Mallow, Co Cork

Date of Order

22/10/2018

Decision

In the matter of Neil Corbett, a solicitor formerly practising as principal of Neil Corbett Solicitors, Davis Building, Lower Main Street, Mallow, Co Cork, 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 [3429/DT62/15; 3429/DT63/15; High Court record 2018/105 SA]

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)

Neil Corbett (respondent solicitor)

On 31 August 2018, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:

3429/DT62/15

Up to the date of expiry of the stay of referral of this matter to the tribunal, the respondent solicitor had:

1)   Failed to comply with part or all of the undertaking dated 15 April 2005 to the complainant in a timely manner or at all, and/or

2)   Failed to comply with the directions of the committee dated 11 December 2012 when required to do so, and/or

3)   Failed to attend at a meeting of the committee on 11 December 2012 when required to do so, and/or

4)   Failed to attend at a meeting of the committee on 19 February 2013 when required to do so, and/or

5)   Failed to attend at a meeting of the committee on 16 July 2013 when required to do so, and/or

6)   Failed to respond adequately or at all to letters dated 24 February 2012, 12 March 2012, 10 April 2012 and 30 May 2012 sent to him by the complainant, and/or

7)   Failed to respond adequately or at all to letters dated 24 July 2012, 29 August 2012 and 10 May 2013 sent to him by the Society.

3429/DT63/15

Up to the date of expiry of the stay of referral of this matter to the tribunal, the respondent solicitor had

1)   Failed to comply with one or more of the following undertakings in a timely manner or at all:

      a)   Undertakings dated 27 October 2005 and 24 April 2006 in respect of his named clients in respect of a named property,              and/or

      b)   Undertaking dated 26 January 2004 in respect of his named clients in respect of a named property, and/or

      c)   Undertaking dated 26 September 2007 in respect of his named clients in respect of a named property, and/or

      d)   Undertaking dated 26 January 2004 in respect of his named clients in respect of a named property, and/or

      e)   Undertakings dated 10 December 2008 and 5 January 2009 in respect his named clients in respect of named properties,            and/or 

      f)   Undertaking dated 20 January 2004 in respect of his named clients in respect of a named property, and/or

      g)  Undertaking dated 16 November 2006 in respect of his named clients in respect of named properties,

2)   Failed to respond adequately or at all to some or all of the correspondence sent to him by the complainant: 

      a) In respect of the first undertaking, particularly letters dated 22 November 2006, 27 April 2007, 23 May 2007, 26 October            2007, 21 November 2007, 12 December 2007, 25 April 2008, 16 May 2008, 4 January 2010, 26 April 2010, 2 July 2010, 29        November 2010, and 8 March 2011, and/or

      b) In respect of the second undertaking, particularly letters dated 11 February 2005, 12 August 2005, 10 February 2006, 3            March 2006, and 5 February 2009, and/or

      c) In respect of the third undertaking, particularly letters dated 8 March 2011, 30 March 2011, and 1 June 2011, and/or

      d) In respect of the fourth undertaking, particularly letters dated 11 February 2005, 12 August 2005, 10 February 2006, 3              March 2006, and 28 January 2009, and/or 

      e) In respect of the sixth undertaking, particularly letters dated 11 February 2005, 12 August 2005, 10 February 2006, and 3          March 2006, 

3)   Failed to respond adequately or at all to some or all of the correspondence sent to him by the Society:

      a) In respect of the first undertaking, particularly letters dated 5 August 2011, 6 September 2011, 27 September 2011, 22              November 2011, and 9 January 2012, and/or

      b) In respect of the second undertaking, particularly letters dated 8 December 2011 and 10 January 2012, and/or

      c) In respect of the third undertaking, particularly letters dated 25 October 2011 and 9 January 2012, and/or

      d) In respect of the fifth undertaking, particularly letters dated 19 October 2011, 4 November 2011, and 10 January 2012,              and/or

      e) In respect of the sixth undertaking, particularly a letter dated 28 September 2011, and/or

      f) In respect of the seventh undertaking, particularly letters dated 19 October 2011 and 9 January 2012, and/or

      g) In respect of all undertakings, particularly letters dated 9 May 2012, 22 June 2012, 17 July 2012, 9 November 2012, and 1        March 2013,

4) Failed to attend at meetings of the committee on 4 September 2012, 11 December 2012, 14 May 2013 and 16 July 2013 when required to do so.

The tribunal ordered that the Law Society of Ireland bring its findings and reports in both matters before the High Court. On 22 October 2018, the High Court, in proceedings entitled 2018 no105 SA, ordered that:

1)   The respondent solicitor not be permitted to practise as a sole practitioner or in partnership, and that he be permitted only to practise as an assistant solicitor in the employment and under the direct control and supervision of another solicitor of at least ten years’ standing, to be approved in advance by the Law Society of Ireland,

2)   The respondent solicitor pay a sum of €5,000 to the compensation fund of the Law Society of Ireland,

3)   The respondent solicitor pay the Law Society €22,734.43 costs (including VAT and outlay) of the proceedings before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal,

4)   The respondent solicitor pay the Law Society €2,075 costs (including VAT and outlay) of the High Court proceedings.