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.
Damian P Moynihan Moynihan Mulvihill & Co, 6 Cornmarket Street, Cork 12/07/2004 In the matter of Damian P Moynihan and Sean A Mulvihill, solicitors, formerly carrying on practice under the style and title of Moynihan Mulvihill & Co at 6 Cornmarket Street, Cork, and in the matter of the Details for Damian P Moynihan
Name
Address
Date of Order
Decision
Law Society of Ireland (applicant)
Damian P Moynihan (first respondent solicitor)
Sean A Mulvihill (second respondent solicitor)
Reference to ‘regulation’ is a reference to the Solicitors’ Accounts Regulations (no 2) of 1984, statutory instrument no 304 of 1984.
On 12 July 2004, the president of the High Court made an order that the name of the first respondent solicitor, Damian P Moynihan, be struck off the roll of solicitors.
The president had before him the report of the Disciplinary Tribunal dated 18 May 2004 in which the tribunal found that the first-named respondent had been guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he had:
i) Failed to maintain proper books of account in breach of regulation 10 so that there was uncertainty as to the true position in respect of client funds
ii) Failed to enter full details, and in some cases failed to enter any details at all, on cheque stubs and lodgment stubs in breach of regulation 19(1)(c)
iii) Failed to enter virtually any information in the books of account as to the sources of money received and details of cheque payees in breach of regulation 19(1)(c)
iv) Created debit balances on the client account in breach of regulation 7
v) Allowed a deficit to arise in client monies which stood at £31,805 as at 8 October 2001 and which subsequently rose to £56,662 in breach of regulation 7
vi) Failed to disclose the misappropriation of client monies of £7,500
vii) Misled the reporting accountant by leading him to believe that a sum of £7,500 introduced into the client account in 2001 was to clear a deficit arising in the financial practice year end 31 December 2000 when in fact it related to the misappropriation of monies by Mr Moynihan in July 2001 to purchase a car
viii) Misled the Compensation Fund Committee on 6 December 2001, representing to the committee that the sum of £7,500 had been introduced into the client account to clear a deficit arising in the financial practice year end 31 December 2000 when in fact it related to the misappropriation of monies by Mr Moynihan in July 2001 to purchase a car
ix) Advanced approximately £10,000 of clients’ monies to a client when these monies did not stand to the credit of that client and therefore advanced to him other client monies in breach of regulation 7
x) Concealed from the society and the reporting accountant the misappropriation of £7,500 by Mr Moynihan
xi) Failed to file the accountant’s report covering the firm’s financial year ended 31 December 2000 within six months of the accounting date in breach of regulation 21(1).
The tribunal further found that there had been misconduct on the part of the first-named respondent solicitor, Damian P Moynihan, in that he:
a) Misappropriated £7,500, being stamp duty and outlay received from a client
b) Falsified the books of account to conceal his misappropriation of client monies
c) When questioned about the matter, untruthfully stated that the deed had been stamped
d) Falsely stated to the Compensation Fund Committee at its meeting on 4 October 2001 that £15,000 had been introduced into the client account to clear the deficit when no such monies, or any monies, had been paid into the client account
e) Untruthfully advised the society’s accountant that an army deafness case had been settled for £47,500 and that the settlement cheque was awaited when the case had not in fact been settled
f) Advanced £10,615 and £15,357, totalling £25,972, to the client, the claimant in the army deafness case referred to at (e), when there were no monies to the credit of the client and thereby advanced other clients’ monies to him
g) Forged his partner’s name on the cheque for £15,357 advanced to the client in the army deafness case referred to at (f) above
h) Falsely represented to the credit union of the client referred to at (e) and (f) above in a letter of undertaking that the client’s case had been settled for £47,500
i) Caused his client’s credit union to advance £20,000 on foot of the false representation referred to at (g) above
j) Allowed a further undertaking to be given to the said credit union by Mr Mulvihill causing the said credit union to advance a further £12,000
k) Falsely represented to the practice’s reporting accountant that a loan of £7,500 was lodged to the client account to clear a deficit identified by the reporting accountant for the practice year ended 31 December 2000
l) Falsely represented to the society that he had obtained a loan of £7,500 which was to be paid into the client account to rectify the deficit in this amount caused by his own misappropriation
m) Forged and uttered a document purporting to be an order of the District Court contrary to sections 3 and 6 of the Forgery Act 1913.
On 22 April 2004, the Disciplinary Tribunal found the second-named respondent solicitor, Sean A Mulvihill, guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that he:
a) Failed to maintain proper books of account in breach of regulation 10, so that there was uncertainty as to the true position in respect of client funds
b) Failed to enter full details, and in some cases failed to enter any details at all, on cheque stubs and lodgment stubs in breach of regulation 19(1)(c)
c) Failed to enter virtually any information in the books of account as to the sources of money received and details of cheque payees in breach of regulation 19(1)(c)
d) Created debit balances in breach of regulation 7
e) Allowed a deficit to arise in client monies which stood at £31,805 as at 8 October 2001 and which subsequently rose to £56,662 in breach of regulation 7
f) Failed to disclose the misappropriation of client monies by the first-named respondent solicitor of £7,500
g) Advanced approximately £10,000 of clients’ monies to a client when these monies did not stand to the credit of that client and therefore advanced to him other client monies in breach of regulation 7
h) Failed to file an accountant’s report covering the firm’s financial year ended 31 December 2000 within six months of the accounting date in breach of regulation 21(1).
The tribunal made an order in respect of the second-named solicitor as follows:
a) Censuring the respondent solicitor
b) Directing the respondent solicitor to pay a sum of €5,000 to the compensation fund
c) Pay the whole of the costs of the Law Society of Ireland as taxed by a taxing master.