Law Society of Ireland -v- Malocco [2005] IESC 5 (15 February 2005)

Law Society of Ireland -v- Malocco [2005] IESC 5 (15 February 2005)

The freezing orders under s.20(1)(a) of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act, 1960 properly applied to both personal and future accounts of the solicitor, delay by the Law Society was excusable given the appellant's conduct and requests, double jeopardy principles do not apply to disciplinary proceedings, and the appellant failed to satisfy the conditions for extension of time to appeal misconduct findings.

Citation
[2005] IESC 5
Parties
Applicant/respondent: Law Society of Ireland; Respondent/appellant: Elio Malocco
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
15 February 2005
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Final Appellate Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Solicitor Misconduct, Freezing Orders, Delay in Proceedings, Double Jeopardy, Fair Hearing, Extension of Time, Judicial Review
Professional Discipline Administrative Law Constitutional Law Solicitor Misconduct Freezing Orders Delay in Proceedings Double Jeopardy Fair Hearing +2 more

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 5 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Law Society of Ireland

Applicant/respondent

Elio Malocco

Respondent/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Final Appellate Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether freezing orders under s.20(1)(a) of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act, 1960 apply to personal and future accounts
  2. 2 Whether delay by the Law Society in prosecuting disciplinary proceedings prejudiced the appellant
  3. 3 Whether double jeopardy principles apply to disciplinary proceedings following criminal conviction

Ratio Decidendi

The freezing orders under s.20(1)(a) of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act, 1960 properly applied to both personal and future accounts of the solicitor, delay by the Law Society was excusable given the appellant's conduct and requests, double jeopardy principles do not apply to disciplinary proceedings, and the appellant failed to satisfy the conditions for extension of time to appeal misconduct findings.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Refusal to discharge freezing orders of 30 September 1991, 7 October 1991, and 15 October 1991
  • Refusal to extend time to appeal Disciplinary Tribunal finding of misconduct