Retired lorry driver settles action over application for compensation with Law Society

A 84-year-old retired lorry driver has today resolved his legal action over the Law Society's refusal to compensate him for more than €500,000 after his daughter, a solicitor, allegedly misappropriated money from the estate in which he was the main beneficiary.

Larry Quinn, with an address at Montrose Park, Perrystown Dublin was seeking orders from the High Court including one quashing the Law Society's Regulation of Practice Committee's decision not to grant him a payment from the Law Society's Compensation fund.

Today at the High Court the President of the High Court Mr Justice Nicholas Kearns was informed that the Law society's decision could be quashed and that the matter was to be reconsidered by the committee.

In his action Mr Quinn claimed that he and his son Larry Junior were appointed co-executors of the estate of the late Sarah Doody and that Mr Quinn was the main beneficiary. The will was made in 2003 and she died some time later.

Ms Doody's estate mainly consisted of the proceeds of the sale of a house at Wainsfort Road, Terenure which was sold in 2004 for more than €555,000 and the proceeds of a joint account between Mr Quinn Snr and Sarah Doody amounting to €117,000.

Mr Quinn's daughter, Joan Quinn, a solicitor who formerly carried out a practise under the title of Quinn and Company Village Green Tallagh Dublin 24 acted as the administrator of the estate.

However Mr Quinn discovered in 2009 that his daughter was involved in the misappropriation of monies in the amount of €529,000 from the estate of Ms Doody.

As a result Mr Quinn applied to the Law Society for compensation, however on October 21, 2009 that application was refused on the grounds including that Mr Quinn had been negligent and that Mr Quinn did not ensure that the estate was distributed to the beneficiaries expeditiously.

He applied to have the matter reconsidered by the Society. However last June the Society upheld its original decision to refuse Mr Quinn's application for compensation.

In August an independent review also upheld the Law Society's refusal to pay Mr Quinn compensation.

In his action, he claimed that he was not afforded the chance to engage with this review nor to make submissions and present evidence and that the Society's decision was made in breach of fair procedures and natural justice.

Mr Quinn claimed he was unable to realise the assets from the sale of Ms Doody's house, which were held by his solicitor and daughter, because of certain undertakings he had made.

He wished to give evidence of the undertakings to the committee but was unable to do so.

He further claimed that he committee had incorrectly assumed that that he waited inactively for more than three years before taking any action.

Counsel said that the Committee had no evidence before it to justify the conclusion that he has been negligent.