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 Andrew G Morrow
Name
Andrew G Morrow
Address
Date of Order
24/05/2017
Decision
 
In the matter  of Andrew G Morrow, solicitor, formerly practising as David Wilson & Co, Solicitors,  Raphoe, Lifford, Co Donegal, 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 1954-2011 [4674/DT04/15  and High Court record 2017/45 SA]
Law Society  of Ireland (applicant)
Andrew Morrow  (respondent solicitor)
On 7 February 2017, the Solicitors Disciplinary  Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as  a solicitor in that he:
1)   Caused  or permitted a minimum deficit of around €177,657 on the client account as at  28 February 2014,
2)   Caused  or allowed around €291,000 of non-client account payments, of a personal  nature, to be expended from the client account, to include instances where the respondent  solicitor used clients’ moneys to pay for his own personal pension  contribution, family health insurance, his mother’s care costs and home bills,  plus health insurance and his own personal credit card bills, contrary to regulation  7(2)(b),
3)   Caused  or permitted a concealment of the client account deficit by recording around  three amounts totalling €155,132 as loans to the respondent solicitor, when  these were in fact client moneys,
4)   Failed  to credit client moneys promised during the administration of an estate in the  sum of €99,063, contrary to regulation 12, when same was recorded to the client  ledger named ‘MK Morrow’ and described as ‘loan to Andrew’ and purported as a  loan to the respondent solicitor,
5)   Failed  to credit client moneys promised to the estate of a deceased person of €44,029,  contrary to regulation 12, when same was recorded on the client ledger named ‘MK  Morrow’ and described as ‘loan from MK Morrow’ and purported as a loan from the  respondent solicitor,
6)   Failed  to maintain proper books of account so as to show at any given time the  financial state of practice and clients’ moneys, contrary to regulation 12.
The tribunal directed the Law Society to bring its report  and recommendation on sanction of a limited practising certificate to the High  Court, that the solicitor not be permitted to practise as a sole practitioner  or in partnership, but only as an assistant solicitor in the employment and  direct control and supervision of another solicitor of not less than ten years’  standing, to be approved in advance by the Law Society of Ireland, and to pay a  measured costs contribution of €5,000 to the Law Society of Ireland. 
On 24 May 2017, the High Court affirmed the findings  of misconduct made against the respondent solicitor by the Solicitors  Disciplinary Tribunal and ordered that:
1)   In lieu  of the recommendation of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, the court accepted  the formal undertaking made by the respondent solicitor through counsel never  to practise as a solicitor and not to hold himself out as a person entitled to  practise as a solicitor, in perpetuity,
2)   The respondent  solicitor pay the agreed measured costs of €5,000, inclusive of VAT, as a  contribution to the applicant’s costs for the proceedings before the Solicitors  Disciplinary Tribunal,
3)   The respondent  solicitor pay the agreed measured costs to the applicant for the within  application in the sum of €7,500, inclusive of VAT.
The court noted that the applicant be at liberty to  publish the making of this order in Iris Ofigúil and such other  publications/press at its discretion.