Kean appeals over professional misconduct ruling

An appeal by celebrity solicitor Gerald Kean over a professional misconduct finding against him has opened before the High Court.

Last May, a Law Society Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal recommended that Mr Kean be fined €20,000 for misconduct following complaints by a former client over services rendered by the solicitor.

The tribunal found mis-conduct in relation to three allegations but not in relation to several others. The fine is subject to the approval of the High Court.

Mr Kean disputes all the findings against him and denies misconduct.

The appeal opened briefly before Mr Justice Nicholas Kearns yesterday and was adjourned until today. The judge said he was unhappy with the manner in which large volume of documents and papers concerning the case had been submitted to the court.

The documents as presented made it impossible for the court to hear the case. He said he was putting the case back to today to allow both sides put the paperwork in order.

Crane driver Christopher O’Neill, from Drumsna in Leitrim, complained to the tribunal that Mr Kean knowingly misled him into believing that the solicitor had put in a defence to a District Court debt case against Mr O’Neill by Ballycotton Marine Services Ltd in 2005.

That case arose because Mr O’Neill was unhappy with repairs carried out on a motor yacht he owned. As part of Mr O’Neill’s action against the party who did the repairs, he engaged the services of Ballycotton Marine Services (BMS)

An engineer with BMS was engaged to do an analysis on the repairs Mr O’Neill was unhappy with. That engineer subsequently declined to give evidence or allow their report be used as part of Mr O’Neill’s litigation.

Mr O’Neill, who was invoiced by Ballycotton, refused to pay. BMS brought proceedings in the District Court against him. Mr O’Neill said he hired Mr Kean to act for him in that case, which he lost. Mr O’Neill said he received a judgment in the post instructing him to pay €1,067.

The former client said Mr Kean knowingly misled him into believing a notice to defend the proceedings involving BMS had been submitted.

He also alleged the solicitor failed to lodge an appeal against the decree and misled him into believing such an appeal had been lodged.