Menu
Ireland's political and cultural magazine
April 2016 1 7
T
he portentous Latin quoted Quis cus-
todiet ipsos custodes? “who is
watching the watchers?” jumps to
mind in any consideration of the con-
duct of the Law Society of Ireland in
its treatment of one-time member, solicitor
Colm Murphy since it appears to show that the
Law Society itself does not adhere to the stand-
ards that it imposes on its members.
Readers may remember serial articles that
appeared in this magazine before (see Village
February/March 2014, June/July 2014, October
2014, April 2015 and December 2015) detailing
how Kenmare-based Murphy was struck off
from the Roll of Solicitors in 2009 on the back
of complaints from another solicitor, Fergus
Appelbe. Murphy took a case against the Law
Society which failed to investigate Appelbe
until last year when he was finally restricted as
to how he can practise. Appelbe is a former
member of the Law Society Conveyancing Com-
mittee and was the subject of two ‘Today
Tonight’ investigations in 1997/8 into his con-
duct. He and his various companies are now
also in overwhelming debt – to a sum in excess
of €100m much of which will inevitably have to
be borne by the State.
The principal reason that Colm Murphy was
struck off was for breaching an undertaking
allegedly given to the High Court. The only evi-
dence against him was that of a Solicitor of the
Law Society, Linda Kirwan, who has subse-
quently admitted that she was not even in Court
on the day in question. It was only after Murphy
was struck off that she admitted, on affidavit
and in a letter to Murphy in 2010, that she was
not in fact in the court when the supposed
undertaking was made. No such undertaking is
recorded in the order from the court issued on
the day in question and the hapless Murphy had
denied its existence for ten years, but Kirwan
was believed.
Another contributing factor was that the Soci-
ety relied on a forged document presented by
Frank Fallon who subsequently got two seven
year jail terms for fraud and forgery. Colm
Murphy always believed that the Law Society
realised that the document was forged some
time after embarking on the proceedings
against him and simply failed to inform the
Courts of this. Documentation received under
the Data Protection Act and seen by Village
show that it was in fact much more sinister. On
the day Joan O’Neill of the Law Society was
maintaining in Court that Murphy had somehow
cheated Fallon she sent the documents in rela-
tion to the land Fallon was wrongfully claiming
to the rightful owner and thus she could not
have believed the position she was maintaining
before the Court.
O’Neill subsequently swore that she had got
the documents for Frank Fallon, had given them
to him, and that was the end of the matter. Of
course the documents seen prove that she had
not done this but rather had given the docu-
ments to the person who was entitled to them.
This action taken by Joan O’Neill and the Law
Society and their maintaining of the position in
relation to the forged document presented by
Fallon prompted scathing comments from the
then President of the High Court about Colm
Murphy based on the fact that Colm Murphy
had, we now know rightfully, stated that the
document was a forgery.
It seems that Colm Murphy sued the Society
for defamation and abuse of power in 2004.
Colm Murphy served the Summons on the Law
Society and it seems that on receipt of the doc-
ument Joan O’Neill wrote to John Elliot, Director
of the Law Society’s Regulation Department,
saying that “It is my view that Mr Murphy
should not be a Solicitor. Linda Kirwan shares
this”.
The Supreme Court has ordered that Colm
Murphy is entitled to a full trial on all the mat-
ters. O’Neill’s explanation of what has
happened was eagerly awaited but it seems
that the Law Society is now maintaining that
O’Neill is “not medically fit to participate in
these proceedings”.
Colm Murphy had maintained since 2011 that
the then High Court President had said he was
entitled to a plenary hearing (full hearing of all
matters). The Law Society went before Judge
Hanna and denied that this was intended or
indicated. It also maintained this position in it's
submission to the Supreme Court. A memo from
the Law Society’s external solicitor shows that
it was aware in June 2011 that “the President of
the High Court made it clear that these matters
should proceed to plenary hearing”. However,
the Law Society has managed to frustrate this
so far.
Whatever happened to its elusive one-time
motto “veritas vincet” ("Truth shall prevail")?
The Law Society seems to be trying to keep
the real story here from even its own Council
and has told its members not to contact Colm
Murphy. You can see why.
Our key witness
is unwell
Law Society Council apparently
unaware of seriousness of
Colm Murphy case
by Michael Smith
The Law Society seems
to be trying to keep the
real story here from even
its own Council and has
told its members not to
contact Colm Murphy
Vincet Veritas?
Old crest:
New crest:
