Jersey Judgment

AG v Harrigan [2022] JRC 064 (10 March 2022)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The respondent's fraudulent conversion and breach of fiduciary duty constitute an egregious violation of trust, justifying striking off to maintain public confidence in the legal profession.

Court disposition

application granted

Orders

  • Julie Ann Harrigan is struck from the roll of solicitors of this Court.

02

Material facts

Parties

Her Majesty's Attorney General

Representor

Julie Ann Harrigan

Respondent Counsel: Advocate R. C. L. Morley-Kirk

Amounts and remedies

  • Amount Fraudulently Converted: GBP 28,250

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Disciplinary Application / Final Judgment

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Whether Julie Ann Harrigan should be struck from the roll of solicitors due to fraudulent conversion and breach of fiduciary duty

Party arguments

Applicant
The Attorney General seeks an order striking Julie Ann Harrigan from the roll of solicitors due to her conviction for fraudulent conversion and egregious breach of fiduciary duty.
Respondent
Mitigation and explanation were advanced at sentencing, acknowledging difficult personal circumstances, but accepting that these do not excuse the offence or the disciplinary application.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Bolton v The Law Society [1994] 1WLR 518

    Maintaining public trust and reputation in the legal profession requires expulsion for serious lapses.

  2. 02

    Bolton v The Law Society [1994] 1WLR 518

    The collective reputation of the legal profession is its most valuable asset.

  3. 03

    AG v Michel [2012] (1) JLR 415

    Serious breaches of fiduciary duty warrant striking off.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The respondent's fraudulent conversion and breach of fiduciary duty constitute an egregious violation of trust, justifying striking off to maintain public confidence in the legal profession.

Obiter and limits

  • Personal circumstances, however difficult, do not excuse criminal conduct or professional misconduct.

Court disposition

application granted

  • Julie Ann Harrigan is struck from the roll of solicitors of this Court.

Source and reliance status

Official court record

This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

Court record

Judgment

[2022] JRC 064

[ Home ] [ Databases ] [ World Law ] [ Multidatabase Search ] [ Help ] [ Feedback ] [

DONATE ] Jersey Unreported Judgments You are here:

BAILII >> Databases >> Jersey Unreported Judgments >> AG v Harrigan [2022] JRC 064 (10 March 2022) URL: https://www.bailii.org/je/cases/UR/2022/2022_064.html Cite as: [2022] JRC 064, [2022] JRC 64 [ New search ] [ Help ] Fraudulent conversion - application by the Attorney General for an order that the Respondent is struck from the roll of solicitors of this Court. [2022]JRC064 Royal Court (Samedi) 10 March 2022 Before : T. J. Le Cocq , Esq. , Bailiff, and Jurats Ronge, Averty and Hughes. Between Her Majesty's Attorney General Representor And Julie Ann Harrigan Respondent REPRESENTATION OF HER MAJESTY'S

ATTORNEY GENERAL

IN THE MATTER OF JULIE ANN HARRIGAN Her Majesty's Attorney General - Representor Advocate R. C. L. Morley-Kirk for the Respondent. ex tempore judgment the bailiff: 1. This is an application by the Attorney General for an order that Julie Ann Harrigan is struck from the roll of solicitors of this Court. Miss Harrigan is serving a sentence of imprisonment having pleaded guilty on 15 th November 2021, to one count of fraudulent conversion. She appropriated the sum £28,250 for her own purposes from the account of a vulnerable lady who she was looking after as a client of the firm and in respect of whom she was curator. She tried to cover her action up, in part by transferring money from the account of a deceased client into the interdict's account, but that did not stop this matter coming to light.

2. It is difficult for the Court to identify a more egregious breach of fiduciary duty and trust than a breach not only of the oath of office of solicitor of this Court but of the oath of curator. Members of the public must be able to trust members of the legal profession totally to act with honesty and probity.

3. The Attorney General has drawn to our attention the case of AG v Michel [2012] (1) JLR 415 which adopts, in explaining its approach to striking off, the decision in the case of Bolton v The Law Society [1994] 1WLR at 518 in which Master of the Rolls, Lord Bingham, gave a full explanation as to the importance of trust in the legal profession. Amongst the section quoted he says this:- "The second purpose is the most fundamental of all: to maintain the reputation of the solicitors' profession as one in which every member, of whatever standing, may be trusted to the ends of the earth. To maintain this reputation and sustain public confidence in the integrity of the profession it is often necessary that those guilty of serious lapses are not only expelled but denied re-admission. If a member of the public sells his house, very often his largest asset, and entrusts the proceeds to his solicitor, pending reinvestment in another house, he is ordinarily entitled to expect that the solicitor will be a person whose trustworthiness is not, and never has been, seriously in question. Otherwise, the whole profession, and the public as a whole, is injured. A profession's most valuable asset is its collective reputation and the confidence which that inspires." 4. That quote and other parts of the Bolton judgment were approved expressly in the case of Michel and were echoed in the case of

the AG v Manning [2019] JRC171 and we, in this judgment, echo them as well. We are not deaf to the explanation and mitigation that was advanced before the Royal Court at sentencing and we know that Miss Harrigan was undergoing very difficult personal circumstances. It is accepted by her, as indeed as it must be accepted, that those circumstances cumulatively could provide no excuse either to the criminal offence or to the application made by the Attorney General today.

5. Accordingly, this Court accedes to the request of the Attorney General and strikes Julie Ann Harrigan from the roll of the solicitors of this Court. Authorities AG v Michel [2012] (1) JLR 415. Bolton v The Law Society [1994] 1WLR at 518. AG -v- Manning [2019] JRC 171 . Page Last Updated: 13 Apr 2022 BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII URL: https://www.bailii.org/je/cases/UR/2022/2022_064.html

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

AG v Michel [2012] (1) JLR 415

Case cited

Bolton v The Law Society [1994] 1WLR 518

Case cited

AG v Manning [2019] JRC 171

Case cited

Case-aware research

Ask AI about this case

The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.