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.
Michael J Murphy MJ Murphy & Co, Solicitors, 25 Lower Salthill, Galway, Co Galway 14/06/2010 In the matter of Michael J Murphy, a solicitor formerly practising as MJ Murphy & Co, Solicitors, 25 Lower Salthill, Galway, Co Galway, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2008 [4803/DT119/08 and High Court record no 2009/95 SA] Michael J Murphy (respondent solicitor) Law Society of Ireland (applicant) On 1 September 2009, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he: 1) Deducted an improper solicitor client fee of €15,000 from a named client’s settlement of €30,000, which represents a solicitor client fee of 50%, when he also received party-and-party costs of €7,978.26, 2) Failed to record the receipt of the above amount of €7,978.26 in the books of account, 3) Failed to lodge the above amount of €7,978.26 to client account or to office account, 4) Failed to maintain a copy of the party-and-party bill of costs or the letter received enclosing the party-and-party costs cheque on the client’s file in the case of a named client, 5) Misapplied the above party-and-party costs of €7,978.26 by lodging same to an account in his own name in a named credit union, 6) Deducted an improper solicitor client fee of €9,500 from a named client’s settlement of €22,500, which represents a solicitor client fee of 42.2%, when he also received party-and-party costs of €3,500, 7) Failed to record the receipt of the above amount of €3,500 in the books of account, 8) Failed to lodge the above amount of €3,500 to client account or to office account, 9) Failed to maintain a copy of the party-and party-bill of costs or the letter received enclosing the party-and-party costs cheque on the client’s file in the case of a named client, 10) Deducted an improper solicitor client fee of €2,000 from a named client’s settlement of €5,000, which represents a solicitor client fee of 40%, when he also received party-and-party costs of €928.41, 11) Failed to record the receipt of the above amount of €928.41 in the books of account, 12) Failed to lodge the above amount of €928.41 to client account or to office account, 13) Failed to maintain a copy of the party-and-party bill of costs or the letter received enclosing the party-and-party costs cheque on the client’s file in the case of a named client, 14) Deducted an improper solicitor client fee of €8,515.44 from a named client’s settlement of €22,515.44, which represents a solicitor client fee of 37.8%, when he also received party-and-party costs of €3,000, 15) Failed to record the receipt of the above amount of €3,000 in the books of account, 16) Failed to lodge the above amount of €3,000 to client account or to office account, 17) Misapplied the above party-and-party costs of €3,000 by lodging same to an account in his own name in a named credit union, 18) Failed to maintain a copy of the party-and-party bill of costs or the letter received enclosing the party-and-party costs cheque on the client’s file in the case of a named client, 19) Deducted an improper solicitor client fee of €15,000 from a named client’s settlement of €40,000, which represents a solicitor client fee of 37.5%, when he also received party-and-party costs of €7,050, 20) Failed to record the receipt of the above amount of €7,050 in the books of account, 21) Failed to maintain a copy of the party-and-party bill of costs or the letter received enclosing the party-and-party costs cheque on the client’s file in the case of a named client, 22) Deducted an improper solicitor client fee of €7,500 from a named client’s settlement of €20,000, which represents a solicitor client fee of 37.5%, when he also received party-and-party costs of €6,335.50, 23) Failed to record the receipt of the above amount of €6,335.50 in the books of account, 24) Failed to lodge the above €6,335.50 to client account or to office account, 25) Misapplied the above party-and-party costs of €6,335.50 by lodging same to an account in his own name in a named credit union, 26) Deducted an improper solicitor client fee of €5,699.14 from a named client’s settlement of €15,769.14, which represents a solicitor client fee of 36.1%, when he also received party-and-party costs of €5,886.32, 27) Failed to record the above €5,886.32 in the books of account, 28) Failed to lodge the above €5,886.32 to client account or to office account, 29) Failed to maintain the letter received enclosing the party-and-party costs cheque on the client’s file in the case of a named client, 30) Misapplied the above party-and-party costs of €5,886.32 by lodging same to an account in his own name in a named credit union, 31) Deducted an improper solicitor client fee of IR£3,500 from a named client’s settlement of IR£13,500, which represents a solicitor client fee of 25.9%, when he also received party-and-party costs of €3,850, 32) Deducted an improper solicitor client fee of €2,500 from a named client’s settlement of €10,000, which represents a solicitor client fee of 25%, when he also received party-and-party costs of €3,377.40, 33) Failed to record the receipt of the above €3,377.40 in the books of account, 34) Failed to lodge the above €3,377.40 to client account or to office account, 35) Failed to maintain a copy of the party-and-party bill or the letter received enclosing the party-and-party cheque on the client’s file in the case of a named client, 36) Misapplied the above party-and-party costs of €3,377.40 by lodging same to an account in his own name in a named credit union, 37) Deducted an improper solicitor client fee of €5,000 from a named client’s settlement of €20,000, which represents a solicitor client fee of 25%, when he also received party-and-party costs of €4,755.52, 38) Deducted an improper solicitor client fee of €3,000 from a named client’s settlement of €13,301, which represents a solicitor client fee of 22.5%, when he also received party-and-party costs of €6,620.13, 39) Deducted an improper solicitor client fee of €3,500 from a named client’s settlement of €16,500, which represents a solicitor client fee of 21.2%, when he also received party-and-party costs of €3,907.41, 40) Deducted an improper solicitor client fee of €20,000 from a named client’s settlement of €110,000, which represents a solicitor client fee of 18.2%, when he also received party-and-party costs of €35,888.79 in two instalments of €25,000 and €10,888.79, 41) Failed to record the receipt of the above instalment of party-and-party costs of €25,000 in the books of account, 42) Failed to lodge the above instalment of party-and-party costs of €25,000 to client account or to office account, 43) Failed to maintain a copy of the party-and-party bill or the letters received enclosing the party-and-party cheques on the client’s file in the case of a named client, 44) Misapplied the above party-and-party costs instalment of €25,000 by lodging same to an account in his own name in a named credit union, 45) Deducted an improper solicitor client fee of €5,000 from a named client’s settlement of €30,000, which represents a solicitor client fee of 16.67%, when he also received party-and-party costs of €20,378.33, 46) Failed to record the receipt of the above €20,378.33 in the books of account, 47) Failed to lodge the above €20,378.33 to client account or to office account, 48) Misapplied the above party-and-party costs of €20,378.33 by lodging same to an account in his own name in a named credit union, 49) Failed to record in the books of account the receipt of party-and-party costs of €3,194.66 received in the case of a named client, 50) Failed to lodge the party-and-party costs of €3,194.66 received in the case of a named client to client account or to office account, 51) Failed to maintain the letter received enclosing the party-and-party costs cheque of €3,194.66 on the client’s file in the case of a named client, 52) Failed to record in the books of account the receipt of party-and-party costs of €5,717.26 received in the case of a named client, 53) Failed to lodge the party-and-party costs of €5,717.26 received in the case of a named client to client account or to office account, 54) Failed to maintain the letter received enclosing the party-and-party costs cheque of €5,717.26 on the client’s file in the case of a named client, 55) Misapplied the above party-and-party costs of €5,717.26 by lodging same to an account in his own name in a named credit union, 56) Left the sum of €2,541.00, received to pay counsel in the case of a named client, in office account between October 2003 and June 2004, 57) Failed to record in the books of account the receipt of party-and-party costs of €8,384.77 received in the case of a named client, 58) Failed to lodge the party-and-party costs of €8,384.77 received in the case of a named client to client account or to office account, 59) Failed to maintain the letter received enclosing the party-and-party costs cheque of €8,384.77 on the client’s file in the case of a named client, 60) Misapplied the above party-and-party costs of €8,384.77 by lodging same to an account in his own name in a named credit union, 61) Failed to record in the books of account the receipt of party-and-party costs of €3,957.93 received in the case of a named client, 62) Failed to lodge the party-and-party costs of €3,957.93 received in the case of a named client to client account or to office account, 63) Failed to maintain the letter received enclosing the party-and-party costs cheque of €3,957.93 on the client’s file in the case of a named client, 64) Failed to record in the books of account the receipt of party-and-party costs of €3,591.95 received in the case of a named client, 65) Failed to lodge the party-and-party costs of €3,591.95 received in the case of a named client to client account or to office account, 66) Failed to maintain the party-and-party bill of costs and the letter received enclosing the party-and-party costs cheque of €3,591.95 on the client’s file in the case of a named client, 67) Failed to record in the books of account the receipt of party-and-party costs of €17,872.80 received in the case of a named client, 68) Failed to lodge the party-and-party costs of €17,872.80 received in the case of a named client to client account or to office account, 69) Failed to maintain the letter received enclosing the party-and-party costs cheque of €17,872.80 on the client’s file in the case of a named client, 70) Misapplied the above party-and-party costs of €17,872.80 by lodging same to an account in his own name in a named credit union, 71) Delayed in paying €1,875 to counsel from June 2003 to February 2005 in the case of a named client, 72) Untruthfully stated during the investigation that the party-and-party costs cheques that had not been lodged to client or office accounts and had not been recorded in the books of account had all been cashed “across the counter” and that they were not lodged to any account, 73) Drew costs from client account by means of cheques payable to Bank of Ireland in the sums of €250 and €2,000, 74) Deducted €315.99 for an itemised list of ‘specials’ from a named client’s settlement and subsequently misapplied the €315.99 to office account, 75) Informed the barrister in a named client’s case that that the claim had been settled for €5,000 when it had actually been settled for €7,500, 76) Deducted €18,000 from a named client’s settlement of €100,000 and lodged same to office account after the client had been informed that €8,000 of the deduction was for ‘specials’, 77) Drew €6,112.50, being part of a solicitor client fee of €8,000 in the case of a named client, from client account by means of a cheque payable to Bank of Ireland, 78) Failed to record the receipt of the €6,112.50 as a fee in the books of account in the case of a named client, 79) Deducted an improper solicitor client fee of €8,000 from a named client’s settlement of €33,000, which represents a solicitor client fee of 24.24%, when he was also entitled to charge party-and-party costs, 80) Misused €417 of clients’ money when he drew €662 from client account and the clients’ ledger account of a named client by means of a cheque payable to Galway City Council for his (the respondent solicitor’s) domestic refuse charges, 81) Delayed in paying the stamp duty of €12,050 in the case of a named client, 82) Failed to fully comply with section 68(6) of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act 1994 in respect of 36 clients’ files examined, 83) Deducted improper solicitor client fees ranging from 14% to 47.21% and ranging from €2,000 to €63,608 of the client’s settlements in up to 16 other cases documented in work papers provided by the reporting accountant, 84) Misused clients’ money when he caused debit balances on clients’ ledger accounts in his own name, 85) Failed to provide documentation, prior to his referral to the disciplinary tribunal, to enable the following amounts credited to his own accounts in the clients’ ledger to be verified: €28,498.82 on 7 March 2002; €24,760 on 9 April 2002; €10,204.82 on 13 June 2002; €7,000 on 14 June 2002; €17,478.62 on 20 June 2002; €10,000 on 28 June 2002; €21,254.84 on 12 July 2002; €24,660 on 29 January 2003; and €25,000 on 1 December 2004, 86) Failed to identify or provide documentation, prior to his referral to the disciplinary tribunal, to enable the following amounts lodged to his account in a named credit union to be verified: 87) Misled the Revenue by excluding solicitor client fees of €459,000 from income in his voluntary disclosure and informing the Revenue, through his representatives, that solicitor client fees of €459,000 were obtained in breach of the regulations and would be paid back to the clients, and then failed to repay the full €459,000 to the clients prior to his referral to the disciplinary tribunal, 88) Preferred 12 former clients by refunding them solicitor client fees totalling €83,545.95 plus interest, as per a letter dated 22 July 2008 from his legal representative, without explaining why these 12 clients were preferred and did not explain why any of the remainder of the €459,000 was not refunded, 89) Failed to refund all of the solicitor client fees to the clients as directed by the Regulation of Practice Committee at its meeting on 6 April 2006 prior to his referral to the disciplinary tribunal, 90) Failed to provide or failed to ensure, prior to his referral to the disciplinary tribunal, that the explanation required by the Regulation of Practice Committee was provided concerning the circumstances of an undertaking to Bank of Ireland over the sale proceeds of a house in a named location, as requested at the May 2006 meeting of the Regulation of Practice Committee. The tribunal recommended that: a) The respondent solicitor was not a fit person to be a member of the solicitors’ profession and that the name of the respondent solicitor be struck off the Roll of Solicitors, b) The respondent solicitor pay the whole of the costs of the Society, including witness expenses, to be taxed by a taxing master of the High Court in default of agreement. On 14 June 2010, the President of the High Court ordered: 1) That the respondent solicitor is not a fit person to be a member of the solicitors’ profession and the name of the respondent solicitor be struck off the Roll of Solicitors, 2) That the respondent solicitor shall pay the whole of the costs of the Society, including witness expenses before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, to be taxed by a taxing master of the High Court in default of agreement; 3) An order for the costs of the proceedings in the High Court to be taxed by a taxing master of the High Court, in default of agreement. Subsequently, the respondent solicitor appealed to the Supreme Court against the decision of the President of the High Court.Details for Michael J Murphy
Name
Address
Date of Order
Decision