A DUBLIN solicitor was struck off the Roll of Solicitors by the President of the High Court, Mr Justice Costello, yesterday.
The judge said the Law Society had brought a report of a High Court disciplinary committee before the court in relation to Mr David Fitzpatrick, who formerly carried on practice under the title of Fitzpatricks, solicitors, Main Street, Blackrock, Co Dublin.
In that report, said Mr Justice Costello, the committee bad found proven against the solicitor: the most serious allegations of, misconduct and recommended that the name of the solicitor be struck off. It was clear that the findings of the committee fully justified the view that the solicitor's misconduct justified him being struck off.
Mr Justice Costello said it was one of the worst cases he had had to consider of misconduct by a solicitor and he had no alternative but to strike his name off the Roll of Solicitors.
The Law Society, in a petition to the court, said the disciplinary committee held an inquiry in September, 1994, and found that there had been misconduct on Mr Fitzpatrick's part.
It was submitted at the inquiry that the solicitor was guilty of conduct tending to bring the solicitors' profession into disrepute by carrying on the practice of Arronsons, Eustace Street, Dublin, without disclosing its existence to the society.
It was also submitted that Mr Fitzpatrick had made a false declaration for a practising certificate for 1992/93 by concealing the existence of that practice from the society; procuring the typing of a false document in July, 1992, purporting to be a carbon of a letter dated May 31st, 1991, to the Registrar of Solicitors informing him of the setting up of Arronsons; and knowingly producing the false document through his counsel to the High Court for the purpose of misleading it.
It was also submitted to the inquiry that there had been a failure to maintain proper books of account in relation to Arronsons Solicitors in breach of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations.
It was submitted that false evidence had been given to the High Court in October, 1992, with the intention of misleading the court in relation to Mr Fitzpatrick's handling of his clients' monies and affairs, his non-compliance with Solicitors Accounts Regulations and his involvement with Arronsons.
Among other submissions to the inquiry were that Mr Fitzpatrick breached Solicitors Accounts Regulations by not keeping proper books of account to show all his dealings with clients' monies received, held or paid by him or lodgements made.
In an affidavit, Mr Fitzpatrick said he did not intend to deceive the society in relation to the practice of Arronsons. It was created specifically to deal with debt collection matters.
He was acting for a number of banks among others and he was dealing on a totally open basis with many firms of solicitors. It was never his intention to hide the existence of Arronsons.
Mr Fitzpatrick said he made his declaration for a practising certificate in 1992-93 having received advice from a senior counsel. He accepted that he should have referred to Arronsons in this certificate. His failure to do so was an oversight.
The letter dated May 31st was reconstructed from memory of the record of a letter which he believed he had sent to the society. He was mistaken in this and he now accepted that no such letter was sent.
He did not accept that he dealt with his client accounts in such a way that he was in breach of certain aspects of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations. He had to emphasise that no client suffered a loss as a result of the manner in which he handled their affairs. He certainly did not benefit or was dishonest in any of his dealings with his clients.
Mr Fitzpatrick said he had to admit to acting extremely foolishly in the manner in which he dealt with the case in the High Court in October, 1992. He felt, at the time, completely overwhelmed and unable to deal properly with the allegations against him.
Many of the allegations against him were to the effect that he had misappropriated client funds. This was not the case. He accepted that he had not dealt with his books of account and certain practices became a habit which were inappropriate. He did not carry out any activity with the aim of getting a personal benefit to the detriment of his clients.
In another affidavit, Mr Fitzpatrick said he was not present at the hearing in July, 1994, as he had travelled to the US in an attempt to rebuild his life.