THE “EXCUSES” of a former solicitor from Co Kerry during a long-running dispute over the enforcement of disciplinary measures against him would have surprised “three-card trick men at Puck Fair”, the president of the High Court said yesterday.
Mr Justice Richard Johnson made the remarks after ordering Colm Murphy, who formerly practised as Colm Murphy and Co, Market Street, Kenmare, and as Murphy’s Chapel Place, Killarney, to pay the costs of High Court applications by the Law Society aimed at forcing him to comply with orders relating to his professional conduct. The High Court heard that to get Mr Murphy to comply, the society was forced to bring proceedings which could have led to his jailing.
Mr Justice Johnson said he was surprised an application to attach and commit Mr Murphy had not been brought much earlier. He was referring to matters which arose from a complaint from one of Mr Murphy’s clients in July 1999 and were only resolved in November 2007 when Mr Murphy finally complied with his obligations.
The judge said he was quite satisfied nothing was done by Mr Murphy until the attachment and committal application was made.
“I was given excuses which would have amazed theologians of a medieval nature in their dexterity and which would even have surprised three-card trick men at Puck Fair in the manner they were applied,” Mr Justice Johnson said.
Mr Murphy objected to the society being awarded costs. He said the attachment and committal proceedings were not necessary as he was doing his best at all times to fulfil his commitments.
In May 2001, the Law Society found Mr Murphy had provided inadequate professional services arising out of two complaints made against him in 1999, Paul Anthony McDermott, for the society, told the court.
Mr Murphy was ordered to refund IR£4,000 in client fees and make a contribution of IR£1,000 to the society’s fees.
He neither made the payments nor appealed that finding and on October 21st, 2003 the Solicitors’ Disciplinary Tribunal made a finding of misconduct. The tribunal ordered that he pay another €4,000.
The High Court later rejected Mr Murphy’s application for an extension of time to appeal the original finding of the registrar’s committee. In 2006, the Law Society took proceedings to try to enforce that finding as well as findings in relation to the alleged wrongful retaining of client files, Mr McDermott said.
In the meantime, an application by Mr Murphy to renew his practising certificate in 2005 did not proceed after the society advised him they would refuse it because of the number of complaints against him.
The matter first came before the president of the High Court on January 31st, 2007, when Mr Murphy indicated he was willing to comply with the original findings against him.
However, he did not comply and the society then brought the application for attachment and committal.
It was not until November last, after the case had been before Mr Justice Johnson 10 times, that he finally complied, Mr McDermott said. This was not before he engaged in “gratuitous abuse” of the society’s officers, saying in an affidavit: “I confirm that I have nothing but disdain and contempt for certain officers of the Law Society.”
Michael Bowman, for Mr Murphy, said that while the solicitor had been unsuccessful “at every hand’s turn” in relation to other proceedings, there had been no reason for the Law Society to apply for attachment and committal which could have seen him jailed for breaching orders. The references to his contempt for officers of the Law Society were regrettable, Mr Bowman added.
Ordering Mr Murphy to pay the costs, Mr Justice Johnson said Mr Murphy had “no regard for the standards and requirements of the court or the Law Society”. He found it “bizarre” that Mr Murphy did not appear to understand the rules applying to members of the Law Society.