Solicitor denies 'acting more like a bank'

A SOLICITOR who has plugged a €1

A SOLICITOR who has plugged a €1.165 million deficit in his client account told the High Court it arose because there had been a large number of transactions for a single property developer client for whom he paid out cheques on a regular basis.

Charles O'Neill, who is still a solicitor but who has transferred the running of his practice of Cathal O'Neill and Co, Rathmines, Dublin, to another firm, disagreed he had been "acting more like a bank" than as a lawyer for this client.

Mr O'Neill was forced to take out €258,000 in loans on his own credit card to help plug the gap in the client account, which is now fully in order, the High Court heard. Mr O'Neill was named for the first time yesterday after a High Court order prohibiting publication of his name expired and details of evidence he gave under cross-examination by the Law Society could be published.

Mr O'Neill was first before the High Court on April 3rd last when the Law Society applied to freeze his accounts because of the €1.165m deficit. The case was heard in private and later adjourned a number of times to allow him make arrangements to deal with the deficit, which was discovered when a Law Society appointed accountant carried out an investigation of his practice.

READ MORE

Mr Justice Johnson allowed the media remain in court to hear Mr O'Neill being cross-examined by the Law Society and said the details could be published later.

During that cross-examination by Paul Anthony McDermott, for the society, Mr O'Neill said he had been in practice on his own since 1989.

He had one major client, a developer referred to only as Mr D, who made large lodgements to the client account in relation to property deals he was involved in, he said. Mr O'Neill said he would regularly issue his law firm's own cheques to pay various bills for the developer, including payments to building suppliers. He had acted for Mr D over many years and his account would have lodgements of up to €4 million on occasion, Mr O'Neill said. Mr O'Neill disagreed he was "acting more like a bank than a solicitor" for Mr D. He said all he was doing was giving a client their own money but accepted he allowed that client's account go into deficit to the tune of more than €1.1m.

While Mr O'Neill had undertaken not to run his own practice, he said he still hoped to work again as a solicitor. The Solicitors' Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT)is due to hear an application to have him struck off.

Mr Justice Johnson adjourned the society's application to freeze Mr O'Neill's accounts for a month and said he should not practise as a solicitor until the SDT deals with him.