Solicitor Disciplinary Tribunal Decisions

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.

Back to list

Details for Peter Fortune

Name

Peter Fortune

Address

Peter M Fortune & Co, Solicitors, at 38 Molesworth Street, Dublin 2

Date of Order

26/04/2004

Decision

Before the president the High Court: in the matter of Peter Fortune, solicitor, formerly practising under the style and title of Peter M Fortune & Co, Solicitors, at 38 Molesworth Street, Dublin 2, and in the matter of the

Solicitors Acts, 1954-2002 [2003 no 33 SA]

On 26 April 2004, the president of the High Court ordered:
1) That the name of Peter Fortune be struck off the roll of solicitors
2) That the said Peter Fortune do pay to the society its costs of the proceedings before the Disciplinary Tribunal and also the costs of and incident to the application to the High Court, to be taxed in default of agreement, and that execution on foot thereof be stayed for a period of four months from the date of the order
3) That the Law Society be at liberty to re-enter the matter in relation to the question of restitution by the said Peter Fortune.

The president had before him the report of the Disciplinary Tribunal to the High Court, dated 12 December 2002.

Reference to ‘society’ refers to the Law Society of Ireland. Reference to ‘regulations’ refers to the Solicitors’ Accounts Regulations No 2 of 1984 (SI no 304 of 1984).

The said report recorded the following findings of misconduct against the said Peter Fortune in his practice as a solicitor, in that he had:
a) Failed to disclose the existence of a judgment against him in his application for a practising certificate for the period 6 January 1993 to 5 January 1994
b) Breached regulation 21(1) in failing to file an accountant’s report covering his financial year ended 30 April 1992 within the period prescribed by the said regulation
c) Failed to keep proper books of account in breach of regulation 10
d) Misrepresented to the Compensation Fund Committee at its meeting on 17 June 1993 that there would be no shortfall in client funds when his books of account were written up
e) Failed to lodge clients’ funds to the client account, as evidenced by the qualifications attaching to his reporting accountant’s report dated 24 March 1993, in breach of regulation 3
f) Drew monies from the client account in excess of funds held for the time being in such account, causing the client bank account to go into overdraft as set out at paragraph 2.4 of the society’s investigation report, dated 7 May 1993, in breach of regulation 7
g) Failed to comply with a direction of the Compensation Fund Committee of 13 May 1993 that his books of account were to be written up to date within two weeks of the date of that meeting
h) Failed to reply to correspondence from the society’s investigating accountant and the registrar of solicitors in respect of the writing-up of his books of account
i) Breached the terms of a consent order of the High Court, made on 23 July 1993, in failing to discharge the amount of £39,890.88, necessitating the initiation of contempt proceedings against him by the society
j) By his own admission, utilised client monies to fund the day-to-day running of his solicitor’s practice
k) By his own admission, admitted the misappropriation of the monies of a client in the amount of £2,500
l) Breached a solicitor’s undertaking to the Bank of Ireland to discharge a sum of £2,500 to the bank on completion of a conveyancing transaction
m) Failed to account to the Bank of Ireland for the sum of £2,500 in respect of the said conveyancing transaction, causing the society to have to pay the sum of £2,500 to the bank out of its compensation fund
n) Understated in his books of account the amount received and held by him in respect of the said conveyancing transaction by the amount of £1,500
o) Failed to stamp and register a purchase deed in relation to the purchase of a property by a client, notwithstanding receipt of £3,990 for stamp duty and a further sum of £26 in respect of registration
p) Failed to account to the client in respect of the monies referred to at (o) above
q) Failed to account to the client referred to at (o) above or her estate for a further sum of £109.15
r) Caused the society, in respect of the transaction at (o) above, to have to pay out of its compensation fund the sum of £4,151.15 in respect of the estate of the client referred to at (o) above
s) Failed to account to two clients for the sum of £10,978 received on their behalf for the purpose of stamping and registration deeds of purchase and mortgage
t) Caused the society to have to pay out of its compensation fund to the clients referred to at (s) above the amount of £10,978
u) Failed to stamp and register a purchase deed and mortgage on behalf of a client, notwithstanding the receipt of a total of £11,002 in respect of such stamping and registration
v) Failed to account to his client for the sum of £11,094.05 received from them, causing the society to have to make a payment out of its compensation fund of £11,094.05.

In relation to the allegation that the respondent solicitor had caused a substantial deficit in client monies resulting in claims totalling £169,230 being admitted by the society on its compensation fund, the respondent solicitor was found guilty of professional misconduct in respect of the amount agreed at £39,890.88.