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.
John B McGlynn 11 Castle Street, Athlone, Co Westmeath 16/02/2009 In the matter of John B McGlynn, a solicitor formerly carrying on practice as John McGlynn & Company at 11 Castle Street, Athlone, Co Westmeath, and in the matter of the Details for John B McGlynn
Name
Address
Date of Order
Decision
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
John B McGlynn (respondent solicitor)
On 21 October 2008, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:
a) Failed to extract a grant of probate to the estate of a named client and did not gather in liquid assets of approximately IR£100,000,
b) Misappropriated clients’ money from three other clients’ ledger accounts, including IR£60,000 from one of the three ledger accounts, to pay the beneficiaries of the estate of a named client,
c) Misappropriated clients’ money of €4,000 from the ledger account of a named client and used the money to make a payment for another client,
d) Misappropriated two client account cheques for a total of either €3,000 or €5,000 for his own personal purposes and caused the cheques to be debited to the clients’ ledger account of a named client,
e) Misappropriated IR£50,000 for his own personal use out of IR£120,000 received for a named client,
f) Misappropriated €106,703.56 from the clients’ ledger account of a named client to discharge the mortgage of another named client, after having previously misappropriated the money that should have been used to discharge the mortgage,
g) Falsely entered on the cheque stub for the above cheque for €106,703.56 that the payment related to a named client, which caused the bookkeeper to make a false entry in the books of account,
h) Misappropriated €30,000, €3,723 and €5,500 from the clients’ ledger account of a named client,
i) Falsely entered on the cheque stubs for the above three cheques that the payments related to a named client, which caused the bookkeeper to make three false entries in the books of account,
j) Falsely entered on a client account lodgement stub that the sum of €65,000 was received for a named client, when it was actually received for another named client, which caused the bookkeeper to make a false entry in the books of account,
k) Caused a debit balance of €15,484.70 on the clients’ ledger account of a named client because he had previously misappropriated the named client’s money,
l) Failed to discharge the mortgage on a named client’s property because he was unable to do so, as he had previously misappropriated the named client’s money,
m) Misappropriated €5,000 or €6,000 from an estate and used the money to buy things for his new house,
n) Misappropriated the amounts of IR£20,000 and €1,200 received from clients to pay stamp duty,
o) Obtained €100,000 from a named client after telling him untruthfully that there was an investment opportunity that would earn 30% after six months; he then misappropriated €92,500 of the €100,000,
p) Untruthfully represented to his former solicitor partner in a named firm of solicitors and his reporting accountant that the €100,000 obtained from a named client was a loan to him (the respondent solicitor) from the named client; this caused his reporting accountant in his report dated 28 June 2005 to understate the deficit in client monies by €100,000,
q) Misappropriated €100,000 from the clients’ ledger account of a named client; he paid the €100,000 to his brother,
r) Obtained a total of €100,000 from a named client and another named client on the false pretence that the money would be invested in a building development for a return of 30% or 35%, and he then used the money to reimburse the clients’ ledger account of another named client,
s) Concealed his misappropriations of clients’ moneys through a system of systematic teeming and lading in the books of account of a named firm of solicitors and another named firm of solicitors,
t) Failed to keep books of account while in sole practice,
u) Left deficits totalling €166,278 on four files when he left a named firm of solicitors,
v) Left deficits totalling €484,533 on various files when he left another named firm of solicitors, €63,500 of which was carried forward from the practice of another named firm of solicitors,
w) Created a deficit of €147,051 in the client account of John McGlynn & Co, €128,655 of which was created when he paid that amount to clear part of the deficit in his previous practice,
x) Obtained a total of €185,000, to clear part of the deficit in a named firm of solicitors, from two relatives and a named client by stating to his relatives that he had “financial commitments on leaving the practice” of the same named firm of solicitors and he informed the same named client that he needed the money to set up in practice,
y) Gave a loan of €12,000 to a named client from a client account, which was a personal loan and was not authorised by the client whose ledger account was debited with the payment,
z) A number of times failed to make a full disclosure when given the opportunity to do so.
The tribunal recommended that:
a) The respondent solicitor is not a fit and proper person to be a member of the solicitors' profession, and
b) His name be struck off the Roll of Solicitors.
The tribunal directed that the matter be referred forward to the High Court and, on 16 February 2009, the President of the High Court ordered that:
1) The respondent solicitor is not a fit and proper person to be a member of the solicitors' profession,
2) The name of the respondent solicitor be struck from the Roll of Solicitors,
3) The Law Society do recover the costs of the proceedings herein and the costs of the proceedings before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal as against the respondent when taxed or ascertained.