Solicitor Disciplinary Tribunal Decisions

Details for David Walsh

Name

David Walsh

Address

David Walsh & Co, Solicitors, 12 Mount Street, Mullingar, Co Westmeath

Date of Order

27/05/2014

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/DT41/10 and 2014 no 37 SA]

Law Society of Ireland (applicant)

David Walsh (respondent solicitor)

On 30 July 2013, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:

1)  Caused or allowed a deficit of in or about €26,039 to arise on his client account as at 31 October 2006,

2)  Caused or allowed debit balances of €3,160, €2,500, €73, €100 and €650 to arise on five clients’ ledger accounts as at 31 October 2006,

3)  Caused or allowed debit balances to arise on a personal account of the respondent solicitor in the clients’ ledger in the amounts of €10,000 on 26 October 2006, €10,612.54 on 15 February 2006, and €142,000 on 29 October 2004,

4)  Failed to ensure the stamping of a deed of transfer to named clients with reasonable expedition, which deed (dated 4 July 2006) was not sent to the Revenue Commissioners prior to the investigation carried out in March/April 2007,

5)  Improperly caused or allowed €175 of clients’ money (made up of €125 received to pay for searches and €50 received to pay other specified outlay) to be drawn from the clients’ ledger account of named clients to the office account on or about 22 May 2006, and failed to ensure that the searches were carried out at closing in or about May 2006 or at any time prior to the investigation of his practice in March/April 2007, despite having informed his clients in a section 68(1) letter that searches would be carried out on the day of closing,

6)   Improperly caused or allowed clients’ money, which included €250 received to pay for searches in two purchases, plus €125 received to pay for searches in a remortgage, to be drawn from the clients’ ledger account of named clients to the office account in March and July 2006, and failed to ensure that the searches were carried out in the case of the two purchases and remortgage at closing in 2006 or at any time prior to the investigation carried out in March/April 2007, despite his clients being informed in section 68(1) letters on the files for the three matters that searches would be carried out on the day of closing,

7)  Improperly caused or allowed clients’ money of €380 to be drawn from the clients’ ledger account of named clients to the office account in 2003, out of a total sum of €755 that had been received to pay registration fees of €625, searches of €80, and other specified outlay of €50, and failed to ensure that the searches were carried out at closing in 2003 or at any time prior to the investigation carried out in March/April 2007, despite having informed his clients in a section 68(1) letter in March 2003 that searches would be carried out on the day of closing,

8)  Improperly caused or allowed clients’ money of €625, belonging to named clients that had been received to pay outlay, including searches of €75, to be incorrectly transferred from their clients’ ledger account as part of a larger amount to the clients’ ledger account of named clients on or about 16 December 2004, and failed to ensure that the searches were carried out at closing in 2004 or at any time prior to the investigation carried out in March/April 2007, despite having informed his clients in a section 68(1) letter in November 2004 that searches would be carried out on the day of closing,

9)  Improperly caused or allowed clients’ money of €500 to be drawn from the clients’ ledger account of named clients to the office account in April 2005, out of money received to pay outlay in May 2003 in the case of named clients and out of clients’ money received to pay outlay in the case of named clients that had been received into the client account in November 2004,

10) Improperly caused or allowed clients’ money of €385 to be drawn from the client’s ledger account of named clients to the office account in March/April 2003, out of a sum of €760 that had been received to pay outlay, including searches of €85, and failed to ensure that the searches were carried out at closing in 2003 or at any time prior to the investigation carried out in March/April 2007,

11) Failed to ensure the stamping of a deed of transfer to named clients with reasonable expedition, which deed (dated 27 May 2003) was not sent to the Revenue Commissioners prior to the investigation in March/April 2007,

12) Improperly caused or allowed client’s money of €380 to be drawn from a named clients’ ledger account to the office account in November 2003, out of the sum of €790 that had been received to pay outlay, including search fees of €80, and failed to ensure that the searches were carried out at closing in 2003 or at any time prior to the investigation carried out in March/April 2007,

13) Failed to ensure the stamping of a deed of transfer to a named client with reasonable expedition, which deed (dated 15 May 2005) was not sent to the Revenue Commissioners prior to the investigation carried out in March/April 2007,

14) Improperly caused or allowed clients’ money of €366.63, which had been received to pay outlay, to be drawn from the clients’ ledger account of named clients to the office account in April 2003,

15) Failed to ensure the stamping of a deed of transfer to named clients with reasonable expedition, which deed (dated 24 January 2001) was not sent to the Revenue Commissioners until 18 May 2007, causing penalties/interest of in or about €6,680 to arise,

16) Improperly caused or allowed clients’ money of €135, which had been received to pay outlay, including searches of €85, to be drawn to the office account from the clients’ ledger account of named clients in June 2006, and failed to ensure that the searches were carried out in or about June 2006 at the drawdown of the mortgage or at any time prior to the investigation carried out in March/April 2007, despite having informed his clients in a section 68(1) letter in May 2006 that searches would be carried out on the day of closing,

17) Improperly caused or allowed client’s money of €315 to be drawn from a named clients’ ledger account to the office account in October 2005 and May 2006, out of client’s money received to pay outlay, including searches of €80, and failed to ensure that the searches were carried out at closing in or about April 2006 or at any time prior to the investigation carried out in March/April 2007, despite having informed his client in a section 68(1) letter in June 2005 that he would carry out searches on the day of closing,

18) Improperly caused or allowed clients’ money of €300 to be drawn from the clients’ ledger account of a named client to the office account in July and September 2006, out of clients’ money received to pay outlay including searches of €125, and failed to ensure that a search against named borrowers was carried out at closing in or about August 2006 or at any time prior to the investigation carried out in March/April 2007,

19) Improperly caused or allowed clients’ money of €242 to be drawn from the clients’ ledger account of named clients to the office account in September 2006, out of clients’ money received to pay outlay including search fees of €85, and failed to ensure that the searches were carried out at closing/drawdown of the mortgage in or about May 2006 or at any time prior to the investigation carried out in March/April 2007, despite having informed his clients in a section 68(1) letter in March 2006 that searches would be carried out on the day of closing,

20) In the course of acting for named clients in a purchase of a house, caused or allowed a deed to be updated from in or about August 2005 to February 2006, thereby avoiding possible interest and penalties on the stamp duty,

21) Improperly caused or allowed €532.93 of clients’ money to be drawn from the clients’ ledger account of named clients to the office account in two tranches in March 2006 and September 2006, out of clients’ money received to pay searches and other outlay, and failed to ensure that a search against the clients/borrowers was carried out at closing of the purchase of a house in or about August 2005 or at any time prior to the investigation carried out in March/April 2007,

22) Failed to maintain the deed generated in the course of a purchase of a site by named clients in or about February 2005 on the relevant matter file when the deed had not been submitted to the Revenue or for registration, in breach of regulation 20(1)(h), and failed to locate and provide the deed for examination during the investigation carried out in March/April 2007,

23) Caused or allowed a total of €3,602.25, which included clients’ money of up to €1,575 received to pay outlay, to be drawn to the office account from the clients’ ledger account of named clients, and could only provide a bill of costs dated 4 February 2005 for a total of €1,633.50 during the investigation carried out in March/April 2007 in support of the €3,602.25, and also failed to carry out searches at closing of the purchase of a site in 2005 or at any time prior to the investigation carried out in March/April 2007 for these clients,

24) Failed to ensure that the deed arising in the purchase of a site by named clients in or about February 2005 was stamped prior to the investigation carried out in March/April 2007,

25) In the course of acting for named clients in a purchase of a house, caused or allowed a deed to be updated from in or about February 2005 to 11 May 2007, thereby avoiding possible interest and penalties on the stamp duty,

26) Improperly caused or allowed clients’ money of €590, out of a total of €1,125 received to pay registration fees of €950, search fees of €100, and other specified outlay of €75, to be drawn from the clients’ ledger account of named clients to the office account in two tranches during August/September 2005, and failed to ensure that searches were carried out in the case of named clients at closing in or about July 2005 or at any time prior to the investigation carried out in March/April 2007, despite his clients being informed in a section 68(1) letter in March 2005 that searches would be carried out on the day of closing,

27) Improperly caused or allowed clients’ money of €202.47, which had been received to pay outlay, to be drawn from the clients’ ledger account of a named client in September 2005 and failed to ensure that a search against the client/borrower was carried out at closing in or about September 2005 or at any time prior to the investigation carried out in March/April 2007,

28) Improperly caused or allowed clients’ money of €225, received to pay outlay, including search fees of €75, to be drawn to the office account in August 2006 from the clients’ ledger account of a named client in a remortgage matter, and failed to ensure that the searches were carried out at closing/drawdown of the mortgage in or about August 2006 or at any time prior to the investigation carried out in March/April 2007, despite his client being informed in a section 68(1) letter in June 2006 that searches would be carried out on the day of closing,

29) In the course of acting for a named client in a purchase and a mortgage in 2002/2003, improperly drew clients’ money in the net sum of €855.35, which included €85 received for searches, from client account to the office account, and failed to ensure that the searches were carried out in 2002/2003 or at any time prior to the investigation in March/April 2007,

30) Improperly caused or allowed clients’ money of €1,143.95 to be drawn from the clients’ ledger account of named clients to the office account in or about August/September 2006, out of money that had been partly received to pay for searches and failed to ensure that the searches were carried out at closing in or about September 2006 or at any time prior to the investigation carried out in March April 2007, despite his clients being informed in a section 68(1) letter in May 2006 that searches would be carried out on the day of closing,

31) Caused or allowed a purchase deed to be updated from on or about 29 September 2006 to 14 December 2006 in the course of acting for named clients, with the result that possible interest and penalty on the stamp duty of €24,600 was avoided,

32) Improperly caused or allowed clients’ money in the net sum of €100, which included €75 received to pay for searches, to be drawn from the clients’ ledger account of named clients to the office account during 2002/2003, and failed to ensure that searches were carried out at closing in or about June 2002 or at any time prior to the investigation carried out in March April 2007,

33) Improperly caused or allowed clients’ money of €150 to be drawn from the clients’ ledger account of a named client to the office account during 2005/2006, out of client’s money received to pay outlay, including €75 for searches, and failed to carry out the searches at closing in or about 2005 or at any time prior to the investigation carried out in March April 2007, despite his client being informed in a section 68(1) letter dated 2 November 2006 that searches would be carried out on the day of closing,

34) Caused or allowed title deeds to be furnished to lending institutions that had advanced mortgage loans to named clients without having carried out any or all required up to date searches,

35) Provided incorrect or inaccurate information to the Society during the investigation on 21 March 2007, when he stated that up-to-date searches were done prior to sending the title deeds to the relevant lending institution,

36) In the course of acting for named clients, caused or allowed the purchase deed to be updated from on or about 5 December 2005 to 10 April 2006, with the result that possible interest and penalty on the stamp duty was avoided,

37) Failed to ensure that searches were carried out in the case of named clients at closing in or about December 2005 or at any time prior to the investigation carried out in March/ April 2007,

38) Caused or allowed fees to be debited to the office ledger when costs were transferred from the client account to the office account instead of when bills of costs were issued, contrary to regulation 10(4),

39) Caused or allowed client account cheques to be made payable to banks that did not specify the name of the person into whose account each of the cheques were to be lodged or to whom drafts were to be made payable, contrary to regulation 8(3),

40) Failed to maintain proper books of account, in breach of regulation 12.

The tribunal ordered that the matter go forward to the High Court and, on 27 May 2014, the President of the High Court made the following orders:

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

2)   That the respondent do pay the Society the costs of the proceedings before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal only, to include witness expenses, to be taxed in default of agreement.