Consequences for solicitor if found guilty of theft and perverting the course?

Lumen

https://m.herald.ie/news/top-lawyer-to-face-charge-of-stealing-400-from-clients-bank-card-at-atm-39122977.html

Likely professional consequences if found guilty?

0lddog

Wow!

A rather innuocous reply has vanished

Perhaps the consequences are much more drastic than it suggested ?

Lumen

Perhaps people don't want to express a view on a case that's not yet run its course.

I guess I'm not really looking for any predictions for this case, since there is a dearth of facts and it's all very new.

I'm just curious about how the Law Society balances the right of someone to a livelihood with its need to protect confidence in the profession, and wondered whether people might know of similar cases for comparison.

Claw Hammer

Lumen wrote: »

https://m.herald.ie/news/top-lawyer-to-face-charge-of-stealing-400-from-clients-bank-card-at-atm-39122977.html

Likely professional consequences if found guilty?

Strike off in the event of being found guilty.
The first issue is whether it will be a jury trial or not.

Lumen

Claw Hammer wrote: »

Strike off in the event of being found guilty.
The first issue is whether it will be a jury trial or not.

As I understand it, attempting to pervert the course of justice is an indictable offence and so has to be before a jury (in the Circuit Court) unless it's in the SCC, which this wouldn't be.

No?

Victor

Lumen wrote: »

As I understand it, attempting to pervert the course of justice is an indictable offence and so has to be before a jury (in the Circuit Court) unless it's in the SCC, which this wouldn't be.

No?

AFAIK, defendants can opt to not have a jury.

bbbbb

the story doesn’t add up:
why would a lawyer risk so much for €400?
why did it take almost 4 years to be reported?
there’s something between the lines i’m missing

Peregrinus

Obviously there's more to this than in the report; there's going to be some kind of context to explain why a lawyer would risk so much for so little in such a stupid way. I've no idea what the explanation in this case is, but the behaviour looks typical of someone in the grip of an addiction. Just sayin'.

As to the point raised by the OP, from a professional point of view this is extremely serious. Conviction for an offence of dishonesty is not something the profession can or will overlook. The only shred of comfort for the solicitor in this case is that the amount involved is relatively trivial and - as I suggest above - the real issue here may not be greed or dishonesty, but some underlying problem.

In most cases, where a solicitor is convicted of an offence of dishonesty, it's for a much larger amount. A strike-off would be usual. In this instance, given that the amount is small and if the underlying problem is, e.g. an addiction which has been acknowledged and successfully treated in the years since the incident, something less drastic might be applied - e.g. a limitation on the practicing certificate so that the solicitor can only practice under the supervision of another lawyer, and may not handle client funds. But at the moment we're just guessing; there's too much about the incident that we don't know.

Claw Hammer

Peregrinus wrote: »

In most cases, where a solicitor is convicted of an offence of dishonesty, it's for a much larger amount. A strike-off would be usual. In this instance, given that the amount is small and if the underlying problem is, e.g. an addiction which has been acknowledged and successfully treated in the years since the incident, something less drastic might be applied - e.g. a limitation on the practicing certificate so that the solicitor can only practice under the supervision of another lawyer, and may not handle client funds. But at the moment we're just guessing; there's too much about the incident that we don't know.

The only way an addiction would be relevant in not striking off is if there was a guilty plea at a very early stage. All the rehab in the world won't help if there is a brazen defence put up. If there is a trial by jury and the prosecution is put on full proof and there is a conviction, at the minimum there would be a suspended sentence, and no way could a strike off be avoided.

Claw Hammer

Lumen wrote: »

As I understand it, attempting to pervert the course of justice is an indictable offence and so has to be before a jury (in the Circuit Court) unless it's in the SCC, which this wouldn't be.

No?

Perverting the course of justice is a common law offence and can be dealt with in the District Court.

Lumen

Claw Hammer wrote: »

Perverting the course of justice is a common law offence and can be dealt with in the District Court.

I've no reason to doubt you, but out of idle curiosity attempted but failed to confirm your statement.

As I understand it, PTCOJ carries a maximum sentence of 5 years in prison, and any offence which can carry a sentence of more than 12 months in prison cannot be prosecuted in the DC unless it is a specifically named "hybrid offence", but no list of the "hybrid offences" that I could find included perverting the course of justice.

I am further confused by a citizens information page which states:

"All common-law offences are indictable offences as the common law did not distinguish between indictable and non-indictable offences."

Source: https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/justice/criminal_law/criminal_offences/classification_of_crimes_in_criminal_cases.html

Don't feel any pressure to defend your assertion, I am extremely ignorant in such matters.

Claw Hammer

Lumen wrote: »

I've no reason to doubt you, but out of idle curiosity attempted but failed to confirm your statement.

As I understand it, PTCOJ carries a maximum sentence of 5 years in prison, and any offence which can carry a sentence of more than 12 months in prison cannot be prosecuted in the DC unless it is a specifically named "hybrid offence", but no list of the "hybrid offences" that I could find included perverting the course of justice.

I am further confused by a citizens information page which states:

"All common-law offences are indictable offences as the common law did not distinguish between indictable and non-indictable offences."

Source: https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/justice/criminal_law/criminal_offences/classification_of_crimes_in_criminal_cases.html

Don't feel any pressure to defend your assertion, I am extremely ignorant in such matters.

How can a common law offence cay a maximum sentence of 5 years? there is no doubt that it can be tried on indictment but can also be dealt with by the District Court.
I don't doubt you are extremely ignorant of such matters.
Anyone who gets their legal education from the Citizens advice usually is.

Lumen

bbbbb wrote: »

the story doesn’t add up:
why would a lawyer risk so much for €400?
why did it take almost 4 years to be reported?
there’s something between the lines i’m missing

I'm not going to speculate about this case, but it is a common misbelief that wealthy or privileged people don't commit crimes of theft or fraud, and the amount involved is also not much of a factor.

Higher social class predicts increased unethical behavior
https://www.pnas.org/content/109/11/4086

Central to our hypothesis, participants in the upper-class rank condition took more candy that would otherwise go to children (M = 1.17) than did those in the lower-rank condition (M = 0.60),

Also

Rich robbers: why do wealthy people shoplift?
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/nov/04/wealthy-people-shoplift-rob-steal-why

I'm not on some kind of class warrior crusade, I just think it's interesting, but I think that the misconception that "successful" people don't steal might be a factor in biased outcomes of justice systems generally.

Lumen

Claw Hammer wrote: »

How can a common law offence cay a maximum sentence of 5 years? there is no doubt that it can be tried on indictment but can also be dealt with by the District Court.
I don't doubt you are extremely ignorant of such matters.
Anyone who gets their legal education from the Citizens advice usually is.

I am a citizen in search of advice. It seemed a natural place to go.

You seem irritated by my enquiries, so I'll back away slowly...

Claw Hammer

Lumen wrote: »

I am a citizen in search of advice. It seemed a natural place to go.

You weren't looking for advice. you were lookig for authority to back up a point you were making in a legal debate.

Lumen wrote: »

You seem irritated by my enquiries, so I'll back away slowly...

I am not irritated by your enquiries. they were not enquiries, they were assertions.
'semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit'
He who asserts must prove.

Victor

Lumen wrote: »

Rich robbers: why do wealthy people shoplift?
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/nov/04/wealthy-people-shoplift-rob-steal-why

I'm not on some kind of class warrior crusade, I just think it's interesting, but I think that the misconception that "successful" people don't steal might be a factor in biased outcomes of justice systems generally.

Better-off people aren't better, they are simply better able to make the consequences go away.

Lumen

Claw Hammer wrote: »

You weren't looking for advice. you were looking for authority to back up a point you were making in a legal debate.

I think you've entirely gotten the wrong end of the stick. I'm not debating points with you, I am attempting to understand the law.

Claw Hammer wrote: »

'semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit'
He who asserts must prove.

It would help my understanding (and the thread) if you would meet your own standard by providing citations. Or not. Whatever pleases you!

The criteria for which offences are to be tried by jury, which are not, and which may be seems fairly impenetrable to this layperson.