Naas Solicitors Censured Over Client Account and Fee Breaches

Two Kildare solicitors have been formally censured and ordered to pay financial contributions following multiple findings of professional misconduct by the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal. The sanctions were handed down against Andrew Coonan and Susanna Cawley, partners at Coonan Cawley solicitors based at Wolfe Tone House in Naas Town Centre. The disciplinary proceedings, initiated by the Law Society of Ireland, exposed a litany of regulatory breaches involving client accounting procedures, conflict of interest rules in property conveyancing, and unauthorized fee deductions from settlement monies.

Following a comprehensive hearing under Record Number 2024-LPDT09, the Tribunal confirmed joint findings of misconduct against both practitioners on 1 July 2025. While the official determination recorded the breaches collectively across the practice rather than delineating individual liability, both respondents were found to have fallen substantially short of standard professional duties. Consequently, the Tribunal imposed identical penalties on each solicitor under section 82 of the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015, reinforcing the strict statutory expectations governing the handling of client funds.

Systemic Breaches of Solicitors Accounts Regulations

A substantial portion of the Tribunal's findings centred on repeated breaches of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations 2014, statutory instruments designed to safeguard consumer funds from misappropriation or careless administration. The respondents were found guilty of withdrawing money from designated client accounts when there were insufficient funds standing to the credit of those specific accounts to permit such withdrawals. This improper practice directly generated unauthorized debit balances on client ledger accounts, violating both Regulation 7(1) and Regulation 7(2) of the financial code.

Furthermore, the Tribunal discovered that the practice improperly drew funds allocated for professional legal fees. In several instances, fees were extracted either when the practice was not in credit or, crucially, through the unauthorized use of stakeholder funds under Regulations 9(4) and 12(3). Stakeholder funds are legally ring-fenced monies held on behalf of multiple parties pending the fulfillment of contractual conditions, and their premature disbursement represents a serious regulatory departure. Investigators also established that the firm failed to keep adequate supporting documentation to properly vouch that cash disbursements had reached clients, breaching Regulation 13.

Conveyancing Conflicts and Below-Market Transactions

Beyond accounting mismanagement, the disciplinary panel adjudicated on critical ethical breaches regarding dual representation in property transactions. The Tribunal determined that the respondents acted for both sides in a property conveyance that was executed for less than market value, specifically identified under internal file reference ORA002002. Under the Solicitors (Professional Practice, Conduct and Discipline - Conveyancing Conflicts of Interest) Regulations 2012, dual representation is heavily restricted to prevent inherent conflicts and protect vulnerable parties.

Acting for both vendor and purchaser in an undervalue transaction represents a heightened risk within conveyancing law, as genuine arm's-length negotiation and independent legal counsel are completely undermined. The 2012 regulatory restrictions were enacted following years of systemic difficulties during the Irish property crash, where clients often faced severe prejudice from shared legal representation. By facilitating an undervalue transfer while purporting to advise opposing interests, the solicitors infringed fundamental professional ethics designed to maintain confidence in land registry and property transfers.

Settlement Deductions and Transparency Standards

In addition to property and ledger infractions, the disciplinary panel established a crucial breach impacting contentious legal matters and litigation compensation. The solicitors failed to obtain the requisite written client authorisation prior to deducting legal fees from a financial settlement, violating section 68(3) of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act 1994. While modern litigation cost transparency is now further regulated under section 150 of the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015, the foundational requirement remains immutable: a client must explicitly authorize deductions before a solicitor touches settlement funds.

For claimants recovering compensation in Irish courts or through alternative resolution mechanisms such as the Injuries Resolution Board, statutory transparency provisions ensure clients retain total oversight of their awards. Unilateral deductions for professional fees by practitioners without informed, signed consent erode public confidence and deprive clients of the ability to scrutinise the reasonableness of legal charges. The Tribunal's firm position reaffirms that settlements belong strictly to the client until fees are properly agreed upon and formally cleared for deduction.

Penalties and Regulatory Accountability

Concluding the proceedings under the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015, the Tribunal ordered that both Mr Coonan and Ms Cawley be censured. Alongside the formal censure, each solicitor was directed to pay a sum of €10,000 into the Law Society Compensation Fund, an emergency safety net maintained to reimburse members of the public who suffer financial loss due to dishonest or irregular practices by solicitors. Additionally, each respondent must pay €5,000 toward the Law Society’s legal and investigative costs, bringing the combined financial penalty across the firm to €30,000.

While the published orders did not impose a specific deadline for the payment of the funds, the outcome serves as a stark warning to the wider legal profession across Ireland. As regulatory oversight through independent bodies and disciplinary tribunals continues to intensify, strict adherence to accounting transparency, client consent, and conflict management remains the bedrock of legal practice in the State.