[ad_1]
A Co Mayo lawyer must be fired for professional misconduct by allowing a deficit of € 169,000 to accumulate in his client’s account and engaging in improper transactions involving “borrowing from Peter to pay Paul,” the Court has ruled Higher.
Kathleen Doocey’s misconduct was “extremely serious” and “at the highest end of the severity scale,” Superior Court Chief Justice Mary Irvine said Monday.
An annulment order was the “only appropriate sanction” to uphold the reputation of the legal profession, mark the court’s strong disapproval of such conduct, discourage others who might be tempted to emulate it, and protect the public, he said.
It is a “cardinal and basic” rule that attorneys should never touch clients’ money, but Ms. Doocey repeatedly violated that rule and dishonestly tried to cover her tracks until she was caught by her own professional body.
“Someone capable of such systematic dishonesty is clearly not someone his clients can trust to the ends of the earth.”
She was passing judgment on a request from Nessa Bird, to the Law Society, for suspension orders against Ms. Doocey, who practices as KM Doocey Solicitors at Belmullet.
Following an inspection by the society of the practice’s accounts, Ms Doocey admitted to the Disciplinary Bar Court in July 2019 regarding the allegations of misconduct, including the possibility that a deficit of € 169,000 into your client’s account at the end of 2017 and moving funds between client and company accounts and between client ledgers to hide deficits as they arose.
That loading and unloading process is commonly known as “borrowing from Peter to pay Paul,” Judge Irvine said.
In January 2020, the court heard evidence on the measures implemented in practice to ensure compliance with the Lawyer Accounts Regulation. They included two accountants and another attorney acting as a supervisor, and Ms. Doocey had no control over access to clients’ funds.
The court recommended, instead of an annulment order, that his practice certificate be subject to conditions. It was noted that his conduct had not resulted in any financial loss for clients and a cyber attack on a client’s account caused a loss of € 50,000 in his practice.
Sanction
Judge Irvine noted that the society urged the stricter sanction of the strike on the grounds that Doocey was not a suitable person to be on the list of attorneys due to the extent of financial irregularities in his accounts.
In opposing the strike, it was argued on behalf of Ms Doocey that no client was lost as a result of her actions, the deficit in the client’s account had been settled with the help of loans from her family members, and there was no dishonesty for his part.
Judge Irvine deemed an annulment order necessary to mark, in the strongest terms, the court’s disapproval of Ms. Doocey’s failure to meet the standards of honesty and integrity expected of attorneys.
This case involved a “systematic, extensive and deliberate” overflow and loading in order to disguise a deficit of € 169,152 in its client account as of December 31, 2017.
She did not accept that Ms. Doocey should not be portrayed as dishonest and should be viewed by the court as an attorney who has served her clients well, as none of them suffered financial loss as a result of her actions. If all of her clients had tried to go out of business with her at the same time, she would not have been in a position to pay them and could only practice as a lawyer “by continually borrowing from Peter to pay Paul,” she said. said.
It is not known how long Ms Doocey would have continued with this practice had it not been discovered, and how large the deficit might have been had it not been for the involvement of society, she said.
Conduct
Claims that Ms. Doocey was a relatively inexperienced attorney whose lack of training and ignorance were the causes of her conduct “ring hollow,” for reasons including her professional training and her prior commitment to the Disciplinary Bar Court, he said. His approach demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of his obligations to his clients, the profession and the administration of justice.
The “inescapable conclusion” was that she personally had won at the expense of her clients, regardless of whether the money was withdrawn by her as fees or used to cover the expenses of her practice. The deficit was only erased thanks to the family’s loans.
The court was also concerned that Ms. Doocey has never filed an income tax return and is in arrears with all VAT due for 2017, 2018 and 2019, it added.
Final orders will be placed in two weeks.
[ad_2]