A solicitor found guilty of misconduct over his threat to destroy files belonging to two clients because of disputed fees has lost another appeal over the matter.
In 2017, the High Court affirmed a Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) finding that Barry Sheehan, of Marlboro Street, Cork, was guilty of professional misconduct.
He appealed the High Court decision and nearly two years ago, a three-judge Court of Appeal (CoA) dismissed the appeal.
He then asked the Supreme Court to hear a further appeal and on Thursday, a five-judge Supreme Court also unanimously dismissed the appeal.
The case arose out of a dispute between Mr Sheehan and Co Louth couple, Bernard and Viola Bingham, who had sued the Mater Hospital for alleged misdiagnosis of their 16-year-old son, Mirek, who died in the Dublin hospital on December 31st, 1999. That case was eventually struck out on grounds of delay.
The Bingham's had retained a number of firms of solicitors to act for them in that case, parting company with each of them in turn.
Fees dispute
In 2006, Mr Sheehan took on the Bingham's case, but a dispute arose over payment of fees in their case against the Mater.
Mr Sheehan sued the couple for €37,725 fees and they brought a counter-claim against him for professional negligence and breach of contract. Both cases were dismissed.
In 2014, he wrote to the Bingham's and said he would shortly be arranging for their "voluminous files to be destroyed so as to free up much-needed storage space". He added he was prepared to "afford you one final opportunity to make an offer" over the bill of costs.
The Bingham's made a complaint to the Law Society, saying Mr Sheehan was abusing his position by threatening to destroy the entire file in their Mater case unless the couple settled his fees bill. They wanted the file so they could appeal the Mater case to the Supreme Court.
Following hearings before the SDT in 2015 and 2016, the tribunal found he had wrongly threatened them with the destruction of files in what was a deliberate act to force them to give him some money for the work he did on their behalf.
Professional misconduct
The SDT found him guilty of professional misconduct which was "morally culpable" or otherwise of a disgraceful kind.
A central contention of Mr Sheehan's appeals to the High Court and the CoA was whether the SDT had jurisdiction to even hear the complaint against him.
The High Court found Mr Sheehan had been alive to his claim the SDT was statutorily precluded from conducting the hearing as far back as 2014, but at no stage did he take any steps to bring judicial review proceedings to stop it.
Only when the SDT made adverse findings against him did he bring an appeal, the High Court also said.
The CoA agreed with the High Court that Mr Sheehan had acquiesced to the SDT conducting its inquiry and therefore waived his entitlement to challenge its jurisdiction subsequently.
In dismissing his latest appeal, Ms Justice Elizabeth Dunne, on behalf of the Supreme Court, said the professional relationship between Mr Sheehan and the Bingham's broke down irretrievably and led to a series of complaints initiated by the Bingham's over fees and the retention of files as well as separate Circuit Court proceedings taken by both parties.
The judge said the Bingham's complaint in relation to the 2014 threat to destroy the file, and for which he was found guilty of misconduct, could never have been regarded, as claimed by Mr Sheehan, as having been previously dealt with by a court.
The destruction threat was separate and distinct from anything that had occurred previously, she said.
The judge said she could not accept Mr Sheehan's argument that the hearing, together by the SDT of the complaints about the destruction threat and the retention of files meant the hearing, was “tainted”. Mr Sheehan presented no evidence that the SDT did not act impartially or fairly, she found.
In the circumstances, she dismissed the appeal.
