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 John A Tobin

Name

John A Tobin

Address

John A Tobin Solicitors, Level 3 Cornmarket, Robert Street, Limerick

Date of Order

08/09/2017

Decision

In the matter of John A Tobin, solicitor, practising as John A Tobin Solicitors, Level 3 Cornmarket, Robert Street, Limerick, and in the matter of an application by the Law Society of Ireland to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal [4679/DT42/12; 4679/DT50/12; 4679/DT43/12; 4679/DT44/12; 4679/DT45/12; 4679/DT46/12; 4679/DT47/12; 4679/DT48/12; 4679/DT49/12, and High Court record 2013 no 104 SA]

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)

John A Tobin (respondent solicitor)

On 18 June 2013, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:

4679/DT42/12

1)   Failed to comply with part or all of his undertaking dated 8 December 2003,

2)   Failed to respond, either at all or in a timely manner, to correspondence from the complainant,

3)   Failed to respond, either at all or in a timely manner, to correspondence from the Society,

4)   Misrepresented to the bank, under cover letter dated 21 October 2008, the position regarding the registration of its security.

4679/DT50/12

1)   Failed to comply with his undertaking dated 5 March 2004,

2)   Failed to respond to correspondence from the complainant,

3)   Failed to respond to correspondence from the Society,

4)   Failed to comply with directions made by the committee.

4679/DT43/12

1)   Failed to comply with part or all of his undertaking dated 7 June 2005,

2)   Failed to respond, either at all or in a timely manner, to correspondence from the Society,

3)   Failed to comply with part or all of the committee’s directions.

4679/DT44/12

1)   Failed to comply with part or all of his undertaking dated 12 July 2000,

2)   Failed to respond, either at all or in a timely manner, to an order of the High Court,

3)   Failed to respond, either at all or in a timely manner, to correspondence from the Society,

4)   Failed to comply with part or all of the committee’s directions.

4679/DT45/12

1)   Failed to comply with part or all of his undertaking dated 7 June 2005,

2)   Failed to respond, either at all or in a timely manner, to correspondence from the Society,

3)   Failed to comply with part or all of the committee’s directions.

4679/DT46/12

1)   Failed to comply with part or all of his undertaking dated 7 June 2005,

2)   Failed to respond, either at all or in a timely manner, to correspondence from the complainant,

3)   Failed to respond, either at all or in a timely manner, to correspondence from the Society.

4679/DT47/12

1)   Failed to comply with part or all of his undertaking dated 7 June 2005,

2)   Failed to respond, either at all or in a timely manner, to correspondence from the complainant,

3)   Failed to respond, either at all or in a timely manner, to correspondence from the Society,

4)   Failed to comply with directions of the committee and/or the High Court.

4679/DT48/12

1)   Failed to comply with part or all of his undertaking dated 4 May 2007,

2)   Failed to respond, either at all or in a timely manner, to correspondence from the complainant,

3)   Failed to respond, either at all or in a timely manner, to correspondence from the Society.

4679/DT49/12

1)   Failed to comply with part or all of his undertaking dated 27 July 2005,

2)   Failed to respond, either at all or in a timely manner, to correspondence from the Society,

3)   Failed to comply with part or all of the committee’s directions.

The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal referred the matter forward to the High Court and, on 13 February 2015, in record 2013 no104 SA, the High Court made the following orders:

1)   That the respondent solicitor is not a fit person to be a member of the solicitors’ profession,

2)   That the name of the respondent solicitor shall be struck from the Roll of Solicitors,

3)   That the Law Society recover the costs of the proceedings, limited to a two-day hearing, and the costs of the proceedings before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, to include witness expenses as against the respondent when taxed or ascertained,

4)   That the respondent have leave to appeal the within order and to lodge such an appeal within such period as is provided for in order 58 or order 86A of the Rules of the Superior Courts (as the case may be) and, in the event of execution, be further stayed until the further determination of such appeal,

5)   That the costs order be stayed for a period of three months from the date of perfection of the order,

6)   That any further application for a stay be made to the Court of Appeal.

The respondent solicitor appealed to the Court of Appeal and, by order dated 21 July 2017, the court made the following orders:

1)   That the appeal be dismissed,

2)   That the Law Society recover the costs of the appeal, to be taxed in default of agreement,

3)   That execution on foot of the costs of the appeal be stayed for a period of 28 days from the date of perfection of the order and, in the event of an application to the Supreme Court for leave to appeal, to be further stayed pending the determination of such application and, in the event of leave to appeal being granted by the Supreme Court, to be further stayed pending the determination of that appeal.

Note: the order of the Court of Appeal was perfected on 8 September 2017. No notice of appeal was filed by the respondent solicitor.