The Court of Appeal has affirmed its decision in the Law Society of Ireland’s disciplinary case against solicitor Daniel Coleman after considering supplemental submissions that arrived after the court had delivered its principal judgment.
In a supplemental judgment delivered on 7 December 2022, Mr Justice Binchy said the court had invited submissions on the possible effect of a separate Court of Appeal decision, Law Society of Ireland v Doocey, on issues raised in Coleman’s appeal. The Law Society filed submissions by the deadline. Coleman’s submissions were sent electronically on 5 July, a day late, but were delayed during a Courts Service software change and did not reach the court office until 19 July. The principal judgment had been delivered on 11 July.
The court said it would have considered Coleman’s submissions had they arrived before the principal judgment and decided to assess them and reconsider that decision. It ultimately rejected his arguments and affirmed the decision delivered on 11 July 2022.
Coleman argued that the High Court had treated dishonesty as strict liability, had not assessed his understanding of the facts, and that dishonesty had not been clearly alleged. He also argued that Doocey should not be applied retrospectively. The Law Society submitted that Doocey supported the High Court’s approach and that Coleman’s admitted conduct should be assessed objectively.
The supplemental judgment said the principal judgment had already rejected Coleman’s claim that his admissions to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal were procedurally unfair and unsafe. The court had upheld the High Court’s conclusion that the Tribunal could rely on those admissions.
The court also noted that, in the High Court, Coleman’s counsel accepted that two allegations used language connoting dishonesty. Those allegations concerned the unauthorised use of another solicitor’s name on contracts and the creation of a fictitious contract to mislead a bank. The judgment said Doocey endorsed the view that the terms “fictitious contract” and “misleading” gave Coleman notice that dishonesty was alleged.
On the test for dishonesty, the court said Coleman’s admissions established his knowledge of the relevant facts, while whether the conduct was dishonest was assessed objectively. It rejected the contention that the High Court had imposed strict liability, noting that the judge’s general observation about written authority could be regarded as obiter and that the dishonesty conclusion rested on the specific facts and admissions.
The court also rejected the retrospective-application argument, saying Doocey clarified the approach to dishonesty but did not create a new rule. It noted that Coleman did not give evidence to the Tribunal to support or explain a claimed honest belief that he had authority to sign the other solicitor’s name. Whelan and Faherty JJ. concurred. The supplemental judgment did not set out a new order on sanction; it affirmed the principal judgment.