Fergal T Kelly

Allegation / charges

In the matter of Fergal T Kelly, solicitor, of Harmony Hill, Sligo, Co Sligo, and in the matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954-2002 [9451/DT21/08 and High Court record no 2009 no 37 SA] Law Society of Ireland (applicant) Fergal T Kelly (respondent solicitor) On 13 January 2009, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondent solicitor guilty of misconduct in his practice as a solicitor in that: a) He caused a deficit in client account of €3,044 at 30 September 2006, b) He caused debit balances of €21,615.42 in the clients’ ledgers, c) In the course of acting for a named client in a purchase of property, interest and penalty on the stamp duty of €7,630 were avoided because he ‘updated’ the deed to a date close to when the deed was submitted to the Revenue, d) In the course of acting for a named client in a purchase of property, interest and penalty on the stamp duty of €86,850 were avoided because he ‘updated’ the deed to a date close to when the deed was submitted to the Revenue, e) In the course of acting for named clients in a purchase of property, interest and penalty on the stamp duty of €9,880 were avoided because he ‘updated’ the deed to a date close to when the deed was submitted to the Revenue, f) In the course of acting for the same named clients in a purchase of another property, interest and penalty on the stamp duty of €8,198.79 were avoided because he ‘updated’ the lease to a date close to when the lease was submitted to the Revenue, g) In the course of acting for named clients in a purchase of a property, interest and penalty on the stamp duty of €14,300 were avoided because he ‘updated’ the lease to a date close to when the lease was being submitted to the Revenue, h) In the course of acting for a named client (being the same client as referred to in paragraph (d)) in a purchase of another property, interest and penalty on the stamp duty of €72,000 were avoided because he ‘updated’ the deed to a date close to when the deed was submitted to the Revenue, i) In the course of acting for a named client in a purchase of a property, interest and penalty on stamp duty of €33,000 were avoided because he ‘updated’ the deed to a date close to when the deed was submitted to the Revenue, j) In the course of acting for the same named client in a purchase of another property, interest and penalty on the stamp duty of €5,100 were avoided because he ‘updated’ the deed to a date close to when the deed was submitted to the Revenue, k) In the course of acting for named clients in a purchase of a property, interest and penalty on the stamp duty of €4,350 were avoided because he ‘updated’ the deed to a date close to when the deed was submitted to the Revenue, l) In the course of acting for a named client (being the same client referred to in paragraphs (d) and (h)) in a purchase of another property, interest and penalty on the stamp duty of €18,000 were avoided because he ‘updated’ the deed to a date close to when the deed was submitted to the Revenue, m) In the course of acting for named clients in a purchase of a property, interest and penalty on the stamp duty of €2,760 were avoided because he ‘updated’ the deed to a date close to when the deed was submitted to the Revenue, n) In the course of acting for named clients in a purchase of a property, interest and penalty on the stamp duty of €5,555 were avoided because he ‘updated’ the deed to a date close to when the deed was submitted to the Revenue, o) He delayed in completing stamping and registration, p) He provided incorrect information to the Revenue in a letter dated 6 June 2006, while in the course of acting for a named client (being the same client referred to in paragraph (j)), when he stated that the deed of transfer was sent to the Revenue on 21 April 2006, q) He provided incorrect information to a named bank when he informed the bank that 12 contracts had been executed in relation to a development being carried out by a client who is a builder, r) During the investigation, he gave incorrect information to the investigating accountant when he stated that the transfer to his named clients was exempt from stamp duty because the clients were first-time buyers, and also when he stated that he had no unstamped deeds that should have been stamped, s) He failed to keep copies of some stamped deeds, t) Fees were debited to the office ledger when the costs were received instead of when the bills were issued. The tribunal recommended that the respondent solicitor: a) Not be permitted to practise as a sole practitioner; that he be permitted only to practise as a solicitor under the direct control and supervision of another solicitor of at least ten years’ standing, to be approved in advance by the Law Society, b) Pay the whole of the costs of the Law Society of Ireland, to be taxed by a taxing master of the High Court, in default of agreement. The tribunal directed that the matter be referred forward to the High Court and, on 27 April 2009 and 6 July 2009, the President of the High Court ordered that: 1) The respondent solicitor should not be permitted to practise as a sole practitioner; that he be permitted only to practise as a solicitor under the direct control and supervision of another solicitor of at least ten years’ standing, to be approved in advance by the Law Society of Ireland, 2) The Law Society do recover the costs of the proceedings herein and before the said tribunal as against the respondent when taxed or ascertained.

Duties engaged

• Not mislead third parties or opponents
• Handle inadvertently received material
• No improper use of client money
• Prompt accounting and return of money
• Safeguard documents and limit liens
• Diligence and timeliness
• Self-report to the regulator

Documents

No documents recorded.