Misconduct rap for lawyer who falsely claimed to have witnessed signatures

Shane Phelan  7th April 2022

A solicitor who falsely claimed to have witnessed the signing of company documents has been found guilty of professional misconduct.

John Moylan denied being complicit in the forgery of a former client’s signature on 18 documents relating to the operation of a company that later went into liquidation.

But a Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found him guilty of misconduct after he admitted signing his name as witness to documents purportedly signed by Deirdre O’Flynn when she was not in his presence.

The findings by the tribunal came after a complaint was made by Mrs O’Flynn (57), a retired schoolteacher who was a minority shareholder in Bod Investments (Irl) Limited, a property and pub firm run by her ex-husband Billy O’Flynn (60) in Mallow, Co Cork.

Mrs O’Flynn complained her signature was forged on various company documents between 1997 and 2011 and that on three occasions Mr Moylan, or a junior colleague at Richard Moylan and Company Solicitors in Mallow, falsely swore an oath that they had witnessed documents being signed by her.

Tribunal chairman Stephen Maher said that through his failure to correctly witness documents, Mr Moylan (68) left open the risk of forgery materialising.

The tribunal also found he signed his name to the jurat of memorial documents when, by his own admission, both directors were not present and did not sign the company seal in his presence, contrary to registration of deeds legislation.

It also found him guilty of misconduct for allowing a junior associate swear that she witnessed Mrs O’Flynn’s signature of a deed when it was forged and Mrs O’Flynn was not present.

During the tribunal hearing Mr Moylan claimed the documents were brought to him by Mr O’Flynn with what appeared to be Mrs O’Flynn’s signature already signed.

However, he now accepted the signatures were forgeries.

Mrs O’Flynn’s counsel Tadhg Dorgan said she had been vilified for eight years and came to the tribunal “to clear her name”. He said she was happy her honesty had been proven.

He said Mrs O’Flynn was not looking for “an eye for an eye” and did not want Mr Moylan’s employment to be impeded.

The tribunal censured Mr Moylan and ordered him to pay €15,000 to the Law Society Compensation Fund and €15,000 towards Mrs O’Flynn’s legal costs. Mr Maher said it took into account Mrs O’Flynn’s wishes, as well as admissions and an apology made by Mr Moylan.

The solicitor was cleared of a separate complaint that he intentionally misled a new solicitor for the company.

Mr Moylan’s counsel Patrick McCullough BL said his client was misled by Mr O’Flynn and had behaved naively and innocently. The barrister said while his client regretted what happened, he had not acted dishonestly or for personal gain.

Mr McCullough said the liquidation of the company was not a result of the transactions involving the forged signatures but was the result of the company not paying its taxes.

Mr O’Flynn did not give evidence or attend the hearing.

The tribunal previously heard there had been significant fall-out for Mrs O’Flynn following the collapse of the company. This included the appearance of the company on the Revenue tax defaulters’ list, her credit rating being ruined and an application for her to be restricted from being a company director.

The High Court refused to disqualify her, finding she acted honestly and responsibly. However, Mr O’Flynn was restricted as for five years.