High Court president, Mr Justice David Barniville, has stated that a barred lawyer’s explanations for client fund deficiencies have worsened his situation and left multiple questions unresolved. This week, Mr Justice Barniville allowed the Law Society to seize control of the client accounts, books, and records of Ronan O’Brien & Co Solicitors, situated on Church Street, Cavan.
The judge mentioned that Ronan O’Brien has admitted to grave charges, effectively acknowledging dishonesty and acquiescing to the verdicts of a Law Society committee against him. Mr Justice Barniville believed that a particularly troublesome aspect of the case was that Mr O’Brien implicated an entirely uninvolved third-party solicitor firm while providing the Law Society with explanations for the missing funds during their investigation.
The judge also expressed his dissatisfaction with the incomplete account of the O’Brien firm’s client funds and the origin of the funds used to offset the shortages. After learning from a Law Society committee last week that Mr O’Brien had practiced dishonesty as a solicitor and that there was a considerable gap in a client’s account, Mr Justice Barniville decided to suspend him.
The Law Society initiated the investigation in February of the previous year, following notification from the Legal Services Regulatory Authority of a complaint from a couple about €300,000 held by the firm as part of their property sale in Virginia, Co Cavan. The couple claimed that their sale proceeds had been stored with the firm since July 2021 and had not been forwarded to Start Mortgages, a finance company with a cross charge on another property they owned in Dublin, according to court information.
The Law Society’s investigation accountant, Stephanie Furey, said in an affidavit that the couple’s client account balance was €38,482 in January. According to Furey, a seemingly unauthorized payment of €239,500 from the €300,000 sale proceeds was shifted from the client account to another solicitor firm in November 2022.
Mr O’Brien confirmed a partial payment was made to Start Mortgages, yet failed to provide any evidentiary documents that certified the law firm was serving as a representative for the bank. Despite Start Mortgages providing their own banking details for a direct electronic transaction, the absence of proof prompted suspicion from Ms Furey.
As of 31st January 2024, she detected a clear deficit of €245,650 in client funds under the management of Mr O’Brien’s company. She also highlighted a €6,150 deficiency in a probate case, resulted from an apparent payment from a client account to a litigation client in the preceding September.
Moreover, during her inquiry, she discovered a significant misrepresentation of a €105,000 transfer from a client account to the firm’s office account, labelled inaccurately as a client payment on the ledger. The sum in question had been kept since December 2022 as part of a client’s property purchase on Connelly Street, Cavan, from a receiver, according to Ms Furey.
When probed about the status of the property purchase and the rationale behind the funds transfer to the office account, Mr O’Brien purportedly stated that the property purchase was yet to be finalised and the funds were being held in escrow on behalf of the client, as part of a larger deal with the receiver. However, Mr O’Brien failed to provide any corroborating documents to support his claims.
In a crucial meeting of the Law Society’s disciplinary committee, Mr O’Brien’s solicitor conceded that the transfer of €239,500 from a joint client account to another law firm was indeed a misstep. The representative of Mr O’Brien confirmed that this transfer related to the properties of another client.
Mr O’Brien is said to have compensated Start Mortgages with €239,500 the previous month using personal funds from the office account.
Recently, Mr Justice Barniville approved a request made by barrister Eoghan O’Sullivan, on behalf of the Law Society, for the regulatory body to assume control of the documents and accounts held by Mr O’Brien’s company.
Mr O’Sullivan stated that Mr O’Brien has expressed regret over certain issues and for the first time acknowledged the misappropriation of the couple’s funds. He also noted that his client has been given ‘limited information’ about how Mr O’Brien purports to have financed the deficit reduction.
He concluded, expressing the Law Society’s complete lack of trust in Mr O’Brien due to untruths that have been exposed.
Jonathan Kilfeather SC, representing Mr O’Brien, expressed that the lawyer had agreed to a suspension from his professional duties. He contested the need for the association to oversee the office financials and paperwork, claiming that they were now managed by impartial, regional legal practitioners who had made a commitment to flag any irregularities. However, the presiding magistrate was convinced that the Law Society needed to take responsibility of such affairs. His rationale was that such a measure was critical for the safeguarding of client funds.