High Court suspends two Dublin solicitors

Two solicitors in a well-known Dublin law firm who admitted operating secret accounts in a deliberate bid to evade tax were suspended…

Two solicitors in a well-known Dublin law firm who admitted operating secret accounts in a deliberate bid to evade tax were suspended yesterday by the High Court, writes Mary Carolan.

The secret accounts operated by Henry Colley and Colm Carroll included an Ulster Bank deposit account in which lodgements of at least €32 million were made in a three-year period, the court heard.

Much of those funds were fees paid to the solicitors by health boards who represented a large proportion of the clients of their firm, Roger Greene & Sons, Bridge Street, Dublin.

The two were the partners and joint principals in the firm when the Law Society investigated the matter. Mr Colley continues to practise with the firm.

READ MORE

Practice accounts were also forged in an effort to deliberately mislead the Law Society into thinking substantial fees had been paid to barristers when the money was actually lodged to the secret account, the court heard.

It was told both solicitors had withheld information from the society for some time after it began its investigation, including information about the account in Ulster Bank on O'Connell Street, in which some 46 per cent of monies paid to the firm were held and from which large cash withdrawals were made by both solicitors.

Mr Justice Liam McKechnie refused an application by the society to strike the two off the roll of solicitors, arising from their admissions of some 50 charges of misconduct. The judge instead upheld recommendations of the Solicitors' Disciplinary Tribunal that both solicitors be suspended for one year and then, for a further three years, be allowed practise on a restricted basis only as assistant solicitors under the supervision of a Law Society-approved solicitor.

Both must also pay €50,000 each to the Law Society compensation fund and each pay 50 per cent of the costs of the Law Society.

When James O'Driscoll SC, for Mr Carroll, sought the costs of yesterday's proceedings against the society on grounds the court had refused to strike off his client, the judge replied, "Not a chance", and awarded costs to the society.

The judge said the most critical factor in his decision not to strike off both men was the fact clients were not left with any liabilities and the solicitors were able to meet their liabilities. There was no worry the society's compensation fund would be called upon but if there had been any shortfall, he would have struck off both solicitors.

He said the men were guilty of multiple and extremely serious breaches of the solicitors' account regulations and, for much of the society's investigation, were not just unco-operative but "downright misleading". But the court also had to take into account the fact both solicitors eventually assisted the society to unravel the events and had also made a substantial settlement with the Revenue in October 2003.