This appeal was brought before the court by Ms. Kathleen Doocey, Solicitor, of KM Doocey Solicitors, Belmullet, Co. Mayo.  Following a Law Society investigation, Ms. Doocey was the subject of a complaint to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal.  The Appellant made admissions to 24 allegations of professional misconduct relating to a deficit of €169,000 on her client account, financial irregularities, constituting a serious departure from the requirements of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations.

The Tribunal recommended that the appropriate sanction to be applied was that the Solicitor’s practising certificate would be subject to certain conditions. In accordance with its statutory obligation, the Law Society brought the Tribunal’s report to the High Court and also sought an order striking Ms. Doocey’s name from the Roll of Solicitors.   The President of the High Court made an order striking the solicitor’s name from the Roll of Solicitors, stating that the Solicitor’s conduct was a complete abuse of the trust and confidence which clients are entitled to expect from their Solicitor.

In her appeal, Ms Doocey argued that there was no finding of dishonesty by the Tribunal, with the effect that the President erred in finding the solicitor guilty of dishonesty in her imposition of sanction. As there was no express reference to “dishonesty” in the admitted allegations, the Court of Appeal observed that the real issue was whether the admitted findings of misconduct amounted to dishonesty on her part.

The Court of Appeal considered the case law on dishonesty and concluded that the appropriate test for dishonesty was objective in nature, in that the test for dishonesty was to be judged by the standards of ordinary reasonable persons and did not require proof that the solicitor knew or appreciated that their conduct was dishonest. Further, the Court of Appeal stated that dishonesty must not be judged on a standard that leaves it to the individual solicitor’s understanding of dishonesty.

The Court noted that this case involved deliberate and systematic actions carried out by the solicitor herself and that this conduct was not accidental. The Court was satisfied that she had actual knowledge of the factual situation. Considering all of the facts, the Court stated that there could be no other explanation other than that the behaviour of the solicitor amounted objectively to dishonesty.  The court dismissed the Solicitor’s appeal and upheld the decision of the President to strike her name from the Roll of Solicitors.

Guidance for Employers

This judgment will be of particular interest to statutory regulators and practitioners in the area and it will aid regulators in establishing whether the conduct of a particular registrant can be regarded as dishonest. In rejecting the solicitor’s arguments on dishonesty, the court confirmed that the test is an objective one i.e. the question of whether the act complained of is dishonest is to be judged by the standards of ordinary reasonable persons. There is a minor subjective element in the test in that it must be proved that the solicitor knew or intended to do the proposed acts. Once this is proved, it is not necessary to demonstrate that the solicitor knew that the conduct was dishonest.
https://www.courts.ie/view/judgments/dd781449-ab60-4378-b9c7-9daa569cbe2f/55097e07-19e1-4e12-941c-f767d2142b80/2022_IECA_2_Collins%20J.pdf/pdf