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 David Walsh
Name
David Walsh
Address
David Walsh & Co, Solicitors, 12 Mount Street, Mullingar, Co Westmeath
Date of Order
12/01/2015
Decision
 
In  the matter of David Walsh, solicitor, formerly practising as David Walsh &  Co, Solicitors, at 12 Mount Street, Mullingar, Co Westmeath, and in the matter  of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2011 [4550/DT168/13 and High Court record 2014 no  139 SA]
Law  Society of Ireland (applicant)
David  Walsh (respondent solicitor)
On 16 July 2014, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent  solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he: 
1)   Failed  to comply expeditiously, within a reasonable time, or at all with an  undertaking in respect of named clients, over property in Co Westmeath, given  by him to the complainant, dated 5 January 2001 and 28 June 2004,
2)   Failed  to reply adequately or at all to the complainant’s correspondence in respect of  his undertakings dated 5 January 2001 and 20 July 2004, given on behalf of  named clients over property in Co Westmeath to the complainant and, in  particular, letters dated 8 July 2005, 6 January 2006, 7 July 2006, 28 July  2006, 2 March 2010, 7 March 2011 and 23 March 2011 respectively,
3)   Failed  to comply expeditiously, within a reasonable time, or at all with an  undertaking in respect of a named client over property in Co Westmeath, given  to the complainant on 17 August 2006,
4)   Failed  to reply adequately or at all to the complainant’s correspondence in respect of  his undertaking dated 17 August 2006, given on behalf of a named client over  property in Co Westmeath to the complainant and, in particular, letters dated  14 September 2009, 14 December 2009, 2 March 2010, 12 November 2010, 7 March  2011 and 23 March 2011 respectively,
5)   Failed  to comply expeditiously, within a reasonable time, or at all with an  undertaking in respect of named clients over property in Co Westmeath given by  him to the complainant, dated 22 August 2007,
6)   Failed  to reply adequately or at all to the complainant’s correspondence in respect of  an undertaking dated 22 August 2007 on behalf of named clients given to the complainant  over property in Co Westmeath and, in particular, letters dated 22 January  2010, 12 February 2010, 2 March 2010, 7 March 2011 and 23 March 2011  respectively,
7)   Failed  to comply expeditiously, within a reasonable time, or at all with an  undertaking in respect of a named client over property at Mullingar, Co  Westmeath, given to the complainant on 13 June 2006,
8)   Failed  to reply adequately or at all to the complainant’s correspondence in respect of  his undertaking dated 13 June 2006, given on behalf of a named client to the complainant  and, in particular, letters dated 2 March 2010, 27 October 2010 and 23 March  2011 respectively,
9)   Failed  to comply expeditiously, within a reasonable time, or at all with an  undertaking in respect of named clients over property at Co Westmeath given to  the complainant, dated 13 April 2006,
10) Failed  to reply adequately or at all to the complainant’s correspondence in respect of  his undertaking dated 13 April 2006 on behalf of named clients given to the complainant  and, in particular, letters dated 20 April 2006, 19 July 2006, 21 July 2008, 22  July 2008, 10 August 2009, 28 January 2010, 2 July 2010, 11 August 2010, 16  August 2010, 28 October 2010, 3 March 2011, 7 July 2011, 3 October 2011, 22 May  2012 and 25 May 2012 respectively,
11) Failed  to comply expeditiously, within a reasonable time, or at all to comply with an  undertaking in respect of a named client over property in Co Kilkenny given by  him to the complainant, dated 13 July 2009,
12) Failed  to reply adequately or at all to the correspondence of the complainant in  respect of his undertaking dated 13 July 2009 on behalf of a named client given  to the complainant and, in particular, letters dated 24 July 2009, 30 July  2009, 26 January 2010, 28 March 2011, 2 August 2011, 26 January 2012 and 25 May  2012 respectively,
13) Failed  to comply expeditiously, within a reasonable time, or at all with an  undertaking in respect of a named client over property in Co Carlow given by  him to the complainant, dated 25 August 2009,
14) Failed  to reply adequately or at all to the complainant’s correspondence in respect of  an undertaking dated 25 August 2009 on behalf of a named client given by him to  the complainant and, in particular, letters dated 31 August 2009, 28 March  2011, 4 July 2011, 12 August 2011, 17 November 2011, 28 March 2012 and 25 May  2012 respectively. 
The tribunal ordered that the matter go forward to the High Court and,  on 12 January 2015, the President of the High Court – noting the undertaking by  the respondent solicitor not to seek an extension of time to appeal any of the  strike-off orders previously made (the court having previously struck the name  of the respondent solicitor off the Roll of Solicitors on seven occasions on 27  May 2014) – ordered that:
1)   The  court does not make a strike-off order against the respondent solicitor,
2)   The  court makes no order as to costs.