Supreme Court appoints solicitor Karl O'Connor as Notary Public despite employer policy concerns regarding public office use.

THE SUPREME COURT

In the matter of Karl O’Connor, seeking to be appointed

a Notary Public

and

In the matter of the Courts (Supplemental Provisions) Act, 1961

Ruling delivered on the 27th day of January, 2017 by Denham C.J.

1. Karl O’Connor, the petitioner, and hereinafter referred to as “the petitioner”, brought forward a petition requesting to be appointed

a Notary Public for the City of Dublin and the administrative counties of Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown, Fingal and South County Dublin and

the counties of Kildare, Wicklow and Meath.

2. In his petition, dated the 24th November, 2016, the petitioner set out facts relating to his application. These facts included that

he was admitted as a solicitor of the Courts of Ireland in the Easter term of 2008. He set out his professional history, commencing

with his apprenticeship and then his continuous practice as follows:-

2008 – 2013: in-house solicitor with Sanmina Ireland, Rathealy Road, Fermoy, Co. Cork

2013 – 2015: in-house solicitor with Sanmina Corporation, 2700 North First Street, San Jose, California 95134, USA.

2015 – to date: in-house solicitor with Venizon Services Ireland Limited, Block T, Eastpoint Business Park, Dublin 3.

3. The petitioner explained that he has been awarded qualifications in law as follows:-

2003: Diploma in Legal Studies by the Dublin Institute for Technology, Aungier Street, Dublin.

2007: Diploma in Finance Law by the Law Society of Ireland.

2009: Diploma in Corporate Law and Governance by the Law Society of Ireland.

2009: Admitted to the Roll of Solicitors in England and Wales.

2011: Diploma in Information Technology and Intellectual Property Law by the Law Society of Ireland.

2011: Admitted to the Patents Office of Ireland as a Registered Trade Mark Agent.

2016: Diploma in Notarial Law and Practice by the Institute of Notarial Studies - a division of the Faculty of Notaries

Public in Ireland.

4. In his petition the petitioner drew careful attention to the fact that he has the express consent of his employer to seek to be

appointed a Notary Public. The petitioner also stated that he would be in a position to provide a significant degree of public service.

5. The petitioner explained also that it was against his employer’s policy for the employer’s property to be used as a public office by

its employees. The petitioner did indicate that he could carry out notarial business in his own office, in his own time. However, I was

concerned about the petitioner’s location and his availability to provide notarial service to the public.

6. A Notary Public is an important professional in and for the community.

7. At one time practising solicitors, in private offices, were the majority, if not all, of the petitioners. These petitioners offered the

notarial service to the public, in their offices, during business hours.

8. I am concerned that as our community grows and changes, it should remain a factor that a Notary Public would be available for

reasonable hours, in a public office.

9. This is an issue for consideration when a petitioner is an employee who may not practise from the office of his employer, which is

his dominant occupation, and when his hours of service to the public may be constrained.

10. I considered such issues in the Ruling on the application of Richard Hammond, delivered on the 27th September, 2016, where I

also reviewed previous applications. Perhaps the nearest precedent is the application of Jevon Alcock, the Ruling of which was

delivered on the 23rd January, 2015.

11. In the absence of any modern legislation, current practices, general rules and previous cases, fall to be considered. However, as

has been said by my predecessors, each case falls to be considered on its own circumstances.

12. With these concerns, as to the hours potentially being offered to practise as a notary public, by the petitioner, in a public office,

in his circumstances, and hence the degree of public service he would anticipate offering, I requested the petitioner to file a further

affidavit.

13. The Faculty has consented to this petition, and indeed it has been noted that the petition and supplemental affidavit are models

of concise candour.

14. There is no doubt of the personal fitness of the petitioner to be appointed a Notary Public.

15. The issues with which I had some concern related to the situation within which the petitioner would deliver the public service of a

Notary Public, given his circumstances.

16. I am grateful to the Faculty of Notaries Public in Ireland, which maintains extremely high standards in this State for the

profession. I appreciate the care taken by the Faculty for, as always, raising any matter which may be relevant to the consideration

of a petition.

17. The petitioner deposed a further affidavit on the 22nd December, 2016, which was received in the Office of the Supreme Court on

the 6th January, 2017.

18. I have considered this additional affidavit. As to my concern as to the petitioner’s ability to offer a public service at reasonable

times he has stated:-

“… I can and do avail of Venizon’s flexible work conditions, such as my employer’s authorisation, at my discretion, to work

from my home office … rather than at Venizon’s offices … which are located approximately two kilometres from my home.

Additionally, I avail of flexi-time work arrangements where, at my discretion, I can vary my daily working hours over the

course of a working day.”

18. The petitioner explained that many of the offices with whom he interacts are based across the United States – from East to

West. He deposed:-

“I work beyond and out of standard business hours in Ireland to accommodate my internal clients, colleagues and the

business needs of the company as a whole”.

19. Arising out of the said flexibility that he has as a professional with his employers, he deposed that:-

“…[ it] empowers me to provide a significant degree of public service, if appointed, by being generally available to accept

appointments from members of the public to conduct notarial services during Irish business hours and evenings on a

Monday to Friday basis”.

20. As to the location of such public services, the petitioner stated:-

“If appointed, I confirm that I have the ability and my employer’s approval arising from my flexible working conditions, to

practise daily as a Notary Public from my public office in Dublin 1, my home office in Dublin 3, or at an appearer’s premises

with dignity so that the required standards and competencies are maintained”.

21. It is clear that the petitioner would be in the position, if appointed, to provide a significant degree of public services as a Notary

Public on a day-to-day basis during business hours, evenings and weekends.

22. The supplemental affidavit of the petitioner has, very thoroughly and with great clarity, described his availability for public

service, and the potential locations for such service.

23. I am satisfied, in the circumstances which the petitioner has deposed, that the appointment should be made.

24. Consequently, I appoint the petitioner as Notary Public for the City of Dublin and the administrative areas of Dun Laoghaire-

Rathdown County Council, South Dublin County Council, Fingal County Council and the Counties of Kildare, Wicklow and Meath.