Michael O'Sullivan v The Law Society of Ireland & Ors [2009] IEHC 632 (31 July 2009)

Michael O'Sullivan v The Law Society of Ireland & Ors [2009] IEHC 632 (31 July 2009)

The Law Society acted within its statutory powers in investigating the complaints against the applicant. The applicant failed to adequately respond to the Society's queries and did not provide sufficient breakdown or explanation of costs to the client, as required by section 68 of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act 1994. The Society's procedures and inquiries were lawful and appropriate.

Citation
[2009] IEHC 632
Parties
Applicant: Michael O'Sullivan; First Respondent: The Law Society of Ireland; Second Respondent: The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
31 July 2009
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Solicitors' Fees, Solicitors' Conduct, Statutory Compliance, Complaint Investigation, Bill of Costs, Solicitor Client Relationship
Professional Regulation Administrative Law Solicitors' Fees Solicitors' Conduct Statutory Compliance Complaint Investigation Bill of Costs Solicitor Client Relationship

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael O'Sullivan

Applicant

The Law Society of Ireland

First Respondent

The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Law Society acted ultra vires in investigating complaints against the applicant
  2. 2 Whether the applicant complied with statutory requirements regarding costs and client communication
  3. 3 Whether the applicant's conduct warranted disciplinary inquiry

Ratio Decidendi

The Law Society acted within its statutory powers in investigating the complaints against the applicant. The applicant failed to adequately respond to the Society's queries and did not provide sufficient breakdown or explanation of costs to the client, as required by section 68 of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act 1994. The Society's procedures and inquiries were lawful and appropriate.

Court Disposition

Application for judicial review refused

Orders

  • Leave for judicial review quashed
  • No prohibition against inquiry by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal