The High Court has ordered solicitor Daniel Coleman to be struck off the Roll of Solicitors, finding that he dishonestly used fictitious property contracts to mislead a bank into advancing funds to a development company. The court also set aside misconduct findings in a separate credit union matter and dismissed the Law Society’s application in that case.
In a judgment delivered on 7 September 2020, Mr Justice Garrett Simons considered the Law Society’s remitted application under section 8 of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act 1960. The application followed the Supreme Court’s 2019 decision to overturn an earlier strike-off order and send the matter back to the High Court. Coleman’s separate application for more time to appeal the disciplinary findings had been refused in April 2020.
The first disciplinary case concerned a 2004 conveyancing transaction involving Fairview Construction Ltd and 13 planned houses in Tuam. The tribunal found that Coleman had put another solicitor’s name on contracts without authority, created a fictitious contract intended to mislead ACC Bank about presales, destroyed a file without instructions and acted for both the developer and purchasers in a possible conflict of interest.
Justice Simons said Coleman had admitted the relevant facts at the tribunal hearing, with legal representation, and the tribunal was entitled to rely on those admissions. The court concluded that the misconduct findings in the Fairview matter had a sustainable basis. It found that the contracts were not enforceable against the purported purchaser and that there were no unconditional and irrevocable contracts in place when the bank was told the development had been sold.
The court said the conduct was dishonest and that maintaining confidence in solicitors’ integrity in conveyancing required a strike-off order. It considered mitigating factors, including that no loss to the bank had been alleged and that Coleman had initially cooperated, but concluded that suspension or practice restrictions would not be proportionate. The order applies to the first set of proceedings, 2010 No. 65 S.A.
The second case concerned an undertaking to hold title deeds to the order of Tuam Credit Union. The court found that relevant correspondence and payments from 2005, as well as the withdrawal of an earlier complaint, had not been put before the disciplinary tribunal. It held that the evidence did not establish beyond reasonable doubt that Coleman had breached the undertaking, and that findings about his failure to respond to correspondence were also unsustainable. The Law Society’s application in the second set of proceedings, 2010 No. 66 S.A., was dismissed.
The judgment did not resolve costs or the final wording of the orders. It asked the parties to correspond on those issues and set deadlines for written submissions if they could not agree.