A Law Society committee, consisting of three practising solicitors, has no authority to conduct an inquiry into complaints against a man who is seeking to be admitted to the Roll of Solicitors, the High Court ruled yesterday.
While stressing she was not suggesting the proposed members of the inquiry would give anything other than a fair hearing to Mr Eamon Carroll, Mrs Justice McGuinness said it was imperative that the inquiry include at least one lay person. The principle of lay participation in professional disciplinary bodies was accepted as a means so that justice was seen to be done.
She said there was a history of litigation between the society and Mr Carroll, and many of the allegations against him arose from his involvement with the Accident Claims Service (ACS), of Dorset Street, Dublin. "The public perception would be that solicitors in general are very hostile to this type of business, which might be seen to encroach on solicitors' handling of personal injury cases."
Her decision did not mean it would be impossible for the society to inquire into the allegations against Mr Carroll, who had indicated he was willing to co-operate with a properly constituted inquiry. The allegations include conduct equivalent to criminal offences, misleading the society and its compensation fund and exposing his Master to a VAT liability.
She was ruling on an action by Mr Carroll against the Law Society and the Attorney General following the refusal to admit him to the Roll of Solicitors.
Mrs Justice McGuinness said Mr Carroll was apprenticed in January 1991 to Mr Christopher Ryan, a solicitor, of North King Street, Dublin. Some years earlier Mr Carroll had been apprenticed to his brother, Mr Donal Carroll, who was struck off the Roll of Solicitors by the High Court in 1983. During the intervening years Mr Carroll had worked with his brothers in the ACS business. Where a solicitor was required, ACS instructed Mr Ryan.
Mr Carroll had stated he had ceased all connections with ACS before embarking on the completion of his qualification as a solicitor. The Law Society had contended he at all times maintained a close connection with his brothers and the ACS business.
The society had initially refused to grant its written consent to his apprenticeship, but proceedings taken by Mr Carroll were settled without admission of liability, and Mr Carroll served his apprenticeship and passed the necessary exams. She noted the society had also sued Mr Carroll and others for passing themselves off as solicitors and lost in the High and Supreme Courts.
In December 1995 Mr Carroll had applied to be admitted as a solicitor, and the society refused the application.
Mrs Justice McGuinness rejected Mr Carroll's claim that the education committee of the Law Society had no jurisdiction to inquire into disciplinary matters regarding apprentices where such matters had no direct bearing on educational matters. She also refused to issue specific directions to the committee on the conduct of the inquiry but said it must bear in mind the standards of constitutional justice.