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 James M Sweeney
Name
James M Sweeney
Address
14 New Cabra Road, Phibsborough, Dublin 7
Date of Order
19/01/2015
Decision
 
In the matter of James M Sweeney, a solicitor formerly  practising as James M Sweeney at 14 New Cabra Road, Phibsborough, Dublin 7, and  in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2011 [3572/DT110/13  and High Court record 2014 no 155SA]
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
James M Sweeney (respondent solicitor)
On 11 March 2014, the Solicitors  Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in  that he had:
1)   Misappropriated €180,000  of client moneys in relation to the purchase of a property at Dublin 1 on  behalf of a named client,
2)   Breached regulation 4(1)  of the regulations by not paying client moneys received by him into the client  account,
3)   Did not complete the  conveyancing transaction for his client,
4)   In addition to the  payment of €172,000 out of the Society’s compensation fund, caused a further  sum of €5,888 to be paid out of the fund in order to complete the transaction, and
5)   Failed to attend a  meeting of the Regulation of Practice Committee when required to do so.
The tribunal ordered that the Society  bring such findings of the tribunal in respect of the respondent solicitor  before the High Court and, on 19 January, the President of the High Court ordered:
1)   That the name of the respondent  solicitor should be struck off the Roll of Solicitors and
2)   The respondent  solicitor pay the whole of the costs of the Society, to be taxed by a taxing  master of the High Court in default of agreement.
The solicitor had previously been struck  off the Roll of Solicitors by order of the High Court on 21 May 2012.