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.
Raymond St John O’Neill Raymond St J O’Neill & Co, 27/29 Washington Street, Cork 20/07/2015 In the matter of Raymond St John O’Neill, a solicitor practising under the style and title of Raymond St J O’Neill & Co, 27/29 Washington Street, Cork, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2011 [3138/DT143/11; 3138/DT58/14; High Court record 2015 no 61 SA] Law Society of Ireland (applicant) Raymond St John O’Neill (respondent solicitor) On 4 November 2014, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he: 1) Caused or allowed fees to be transferred to the office account in respect of named client matters other than as authorised by the regulations and, in particular, regulations 11 and 7(1)(a)(iii), 2) Caused or allowed the misapplication of stamp duty funds in the client matter of a named client in the amount of €11,800, including the transfer of in or about €2,965 to the office ledger, 3) Caused or allowed the transfer of €5,917 from the client ledger of a named client to clear a debit balance on the ledger account of a named client, in breach of regulation 9, 4) Caused or allowed the transfer of €3,400 from the client ledger of a named client to partially clear a debit balance on the ledger account of another named client, in breach of regulation 9, 5) In the course of acting for a named client in the purchase of a property, caused or allowed an underpayment to the Revenue Commissioners of stamp duty of in or about €11,800 and possible interest and penalty, 6) Caused or allowed the misapplication of stamp duty funds in the client matter of named clients in the amount of €24,750, 7) Caused or allowed the transfer of €8,247 from the client ledger of named clients to partially clear a debit balance on the ledger account of a named client, in breach of regulation 9, 8) In the course of acting for named clients in the purchase of property, caused or allowed an underpayment to the Revenue Commissioners of stamp duty of in or about €24,750 and possible interest and penalty, 9) Caused or allowed funds for wages to be transferred from the client ledger account of a named client to the office account, in breach of regulation 7, over a continued period of time from January 2010 to November 2010, 10) Caused or allowed debit balances to arise on the client’s ledger account of a named client, in breach of regulation 7(2)(a), 11) Caused or allowed the transfer of €6,001 from the client ledger of a named client to clear a debit balance on the ledger account of a named client, in breach of regulation 9, 12) Caused or allowed wages totalling in or about €2,712 to be discharged from the client account on 12 November 2010 and on 6 December 2010, in breach of regulation 7(2)(b), 13) Caused or allowed credit balances totalling €30,946 to arise on the office ledger as at 30 November 2010, in breach of regulation 10(5), 14) Caused or allowed a debit balance to arise on the ledger account of named clients, in breach of regulation 7(2)(a), which debit balance was cleared by a transfer of funds from other clients’ ledger accounts, in breach of regulation 9, 15) Caused or allowed a debit balance to arise on the ledger account of a named client, in breach of regulation 7(2)(a), which debit balance was cleared by a transfer of funds from other clients’ ledger accounts, in breach of regulation 9, 16) In the course of acting for a named client in the purchase of property, caused or allowed an updated deed to be submitted to the Revenue Commissioners for stamping, 17) On or about 25 October 2013, updated a deed and underpaid the stamp duty that would have been due correctly on the deed by €147,000. The tribunal ordered that the matter go forward to the High Court and, on 20 July 2015, the High Court ordered that: 1) The respondent solicitor not be permitted to practise as a sole practitioner or in partnership; that he be permitted only to practise as an assistant solicitor in the employment of and under the direct control and supervision of a solicitor of at least ten years’ standing, to be approved in advance by the Society, 2) The respondent solicitor pay the Society the costs of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal proceedings when taxed or ascertained, 3) The respondent solicitor pay the Society the costs of the High Court proceedings when taxed or ascertained.Details for Raymond St John O’Neill
Name
Address
Date of Order
Decision