A solicitor who has served a jail sentence for defrauding the Irish Press group of newspapers has brought a High Court challenge to a recommendation by the Law Society's disciplinary tribunal that he be struck off the Roll of Solicitors.
The action by Mr Elio Malocco, of Leopardstown Avenue, Carrickmines, Co Dublin, against the tribunal, with the Attorney General and Law Society as notice parties, opened yesterday and is expected to last until Friday.
An investigation into Mr Malocco's practice was undertaken by the Law Society in 1991 after a complaint by a client. This led to High Court orders suspending the practising certificates of the partners of Malocco and Killeen.
The report of the disciplinary tribunal was published on February 28th, 2000. It found Mr Malocco had committed criminal offences.The tribunal referred its report to the High Court, with the recommendation that Mr Malocco be struck off the Roll of Solicitors and pay £50,000 to the Law Society compensation fund.
Mr Malocco wants orders quashing the report's recommendations. He argues that the tribunal acted beyond its powers and failed to act in accordance with natural justice. He claims the tribunal was guilty of inexcusable or excessive delay in commencing the inquiry.
He also claims he was not provided with relevant documents in the possession of the Law Society and that the tribunal failed to provide him with adequate means to instruct lawyers.
Dr Michael Forde SC, with Mr Ben O Floinn, for Mr Malocco, said the case rested on the correct interpretation of Section 7 and 8 of the Solicitors Act 1960. While nurses and doctors who were found guilty of misconduct by their disciplinary tribunals had a full right of appeal to the High Court, he was contending the Solicitors Act did not appear to allow the High Court reject the recommendations of the Law Society's disciplinary tribunal. If that claim was correct, the relevant sections of the Solicitors' Act were unconstitutional.
The disciplinary tribunal and the Law Society both deny Mr Malocco's claims that the tribunal acted unfairly and was guilty of inexcusable and/or excessive delay. It is pleaded Mr Malocco is estopped from challenging the procedures of the tribunal because he had conducted a full defence before the tribunal.
