A solicitor who admitted taking fees of more than €1 million from the estate of a dead woman when the fees due to him may be one third of that amount has had his accounts frozen by the High Court.
Mr Justice Peter Kelly was told the appropriate fees due to solicitor Padraig J. Butler for work related to the deceased’s estate were somewhere between €300,000 and €500,000 but Mr Butler had told the Law Society he took €1 million from the estate, which was valued at €4 million.
This left a deficit of a minimum €586,000 and perhaps of up to €850,000 in the client account, the court was told. A representative of Mr Butler had told the society Mr Butler does not have capacity to address that deficit, it was also stated.
On the application of the society today, Mr Justcie Kelly made orders suspending the practising certificate of Mr Butler, practising as Butler Solicitors, Lower Patrick Street, Kilkenny, and freezing Mr Butler’s accounts.
The society had made a prima facie case demonstrative of dishonesty by Mr Butler and the orders were in the interest of clients of Mr Butler and in the public interest, the judge said. He returned the case before the President of the High Court on Monday next.
Earlier, Paul Anthony McDermott, for the society, said the application arose from an emergency meeting yesterday morning of the Society’s Regulation of Practice Commitee related to a large deficit in a client account of Mr Butler’s. The society was of the view the solicitor was guilty of dishonesty and wished to secure any remaining assets, he said.
Counsel also asked that the matter be heard in public, saying there was no apparent factual dispute with Mr Butler who was aware the society intended to bring the application. Mr Justice Kelly said there was no reason for the case to be heard in private.
In evidence, Tim Bolger, an investigating accountant for the society, said he had received information on September 29th last, communicated by a solicitor acting for Mr Butler, to the effect Mr Butler had said he had deducted fees of some €1 million from the etsate of a named client in circumstances where Mr Butler estimated the fees dues were some €500,000.
Mr Bolger said he had attended at Mr Butler’s practice the following day and taken possession of his books of account. It initially appeared the amount of client liabilities equated with the amount of client funds but, on examination of the account of the deceased, he noted some €1,194,000 fees had been drawn from it. He discussed that with Mr Butler who said the appropriate fee was €500,000 which with VAT amounted to €586,000.
Mr Bolger said he himself had not calculated the appropriate fee at that stage but a note on the file indicated the residual legatees of the estate had agreed to fees of some €500,000. Mr Bolger said he had since been informed by Mr Butler’s representative the appropriate fee may be around €300,000, indicating an excess of between €500,000 and €850,000 had been deducted from the deceased’s account.
In previous and unrelated proceedings, Mr Justice Kelly last March ruled ACC Bank was entitled to summary judgment for €2.3 million against Mr Butler over his failure to honour undertakings aimed at ensuring the bank had security for the unpaid development loans in that sum made to Seamus McKenna, Farrenboley Park, Windy Arbour, Dundrum, Dublin, and Eugene McKenna, Dunbell Big, Madoxtown, Co Kilkenny.
The bank took summary judgment proceedings against the McKennas after Mr Butler’s insurers refused to indemnify him over his failure to honour the undertakings.
