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.
Sean Bourke Sean Bourke, 29 Upper Fitzwilliam Street, Dublin 2 11/07/2005 Record no 2005 no 36 SA Details for Sean Bourke
Name
Address
Date of Order
Decision
In the matter of Sean Bourke, a solicitor practising as Sean Bourke, 29 Upper Fitzwilliam Street, Dublin 2, and in the matter of the
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Sean Bourke (respondent solicitor)
On 11 July 2005, the president of the High Court ordered:
1) That the name of Sean Bourke, the respondent solicitor, be struck off the roll of solicitors;
2) That the respondent solicitor do pay to the applicant the costs of the proceedings before the Disciplinary Tribunal and also the costs of and incident to the society’s motion and order, to be taxed in default of agreement, and that execution on foot of said order be stayed for a period of six months from the date of the order;
3) That the respondent solicitor do pay to the complainants named in the application to the High Court the costs of rectifying their title to the premises named in the application – said costs to be taxed in default of agreement
4) Liberty to apply.
The president had before him the report of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal dated 4 May 2005. The tribunal had found that there had been misconduct on the part of the respondent solicitor in respect of the following complaints for the following reasons:
a) Failed to stamp and register the purchase document of his clients in a timely fashion;
b) Retained and did not submit to the Revenue a ‘particulars delivered’ form completed by the vendor’s solicitor and showing that the date of the conveyance was 6 October 2000;
c) Incorrectly dated the deed 16 October 2002 to avoid the imposition of interest and penalties by the Revenue Commissioners;
d) Misled the society in a letter dated 24 April 2003, in which he represented that the deed of conveyance had been “fully stamped” when it had not;
e) Failed to make full disclosure to his former clients in relation to his failure to properly stamp and register their title deed;
f) Engaged in correspondence with the society which was disingenuous and calculated to conceal his own default in relation to the stamping and registration of his clients’ deed;
g) Failed to take steps to remedy the situation up to the date of the swearing of the affidavit of the society, sworn the 7 October 2003.