Posted by Solicitor denies being complicit in forgery of signatures
A solicitor has denied being complicit in the forgery of a former client’s signature on documents relating to the dealings of a company that went into liquidation after failing to pay taxes.
The former client, a retired schoolteacher, was a minority shareholder in the property and pub business, which was run by her ex-husband.
She claims her signature was forged 22 times across 18 documents relating to the company’s business dealings between 1997 and 2011 and that on three occasions the solicitor, or his junior colleague, swore an oath that they had witnessed documents being signed by her.
A Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal heard there had been significant fallout for the woman following the collapse of the company.
This included the appearance of the company on the Revenue tax defaulter’s list, her credit rating being ruined and having to face an application to be restricted from being a company director. The solicitor at the centre of the case is based in Co Cork but cannot be named at present.
The tribunal originally declined to investigate the woman’s complaints, but was directed to hold an inquiry by the High Court.
It is now examining allegations that the solicitor, personally and as principal of his firm, falsely witnessed the woman’s signature and falsely swore to have done so, and provided false or misleading information to a new solicitor instructed by the woman relating to letters he claimed to have sent her.
At a hearing yesterday, the solicitor accepted he had met the woman only once and had not seen her sign any of the documents.
He said he believed her signature must have been forged by her husband, but he had no reason to suspect that at the time. Documents were brought to him by the husband with the woman’s signature filled in, the solicitor said.
He claimed to have relied on the “indoor management rule” of the company in relation to the signing of documents.
This is a rule that implies he was entitled to assume the corporate acts provided for in the company’s documents were properly and duly performed.
“I certainly had no reason not to trust him [the husband]. I found him straightforward to deal with at all times,” the solicitor said.
Under cross-examination from the woman’s counsel, Maura McNally SC, the solicitor accepted he attested to witnessing the signing of the documents. “I absolutely assumed at all times that the signature was hers,” he said.
The woman’s husband was not present to give evidence.
The legal documents at the centre of the complaints included deeds for purchased properties and memorials, company borrowing documentation issued by financial institutions that advanced funds to the company to buy investment properties, lease documents for a pub and a lock-up unit and a claim for relief under landlord and tenant legislation to enable properties to be sold for sums totalling more than €4m.
The woman also alleged the solicitor intentionally misled a new solicitor for the company by saying he sent a letter and a statement of account listing various transactions in August 2008 to her and her husband when he had not.
She said she never received the letter, and this demonstrated an absolute disregard by the solicitor of the need to engage with both directors.
The solicitor insisted the letter was posted, but said the husband must not have shown it to her.
After the company failed, the husband was restricted as a director for five years. However, a judge decided not to restrict his wife, finding on the balance of probabilities that she acted honestly and responsibly.
The tribunal was adjourned to a date in April.
Who Watches the Watchers? 