Judgment: 2026-01-23 · Court archive

High Court censures former Roscommon solicitor after conflict-of-interest finding upheld

High Court · [2026] IEHC 275

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Declan O’Callaghan
  • Nirvanna Property Holdings
  • Mr Justice Micheál O’Higgins
  • Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal
What

High Court censures former Roscommon solicitor after conflict-of-interest finding upheld

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • Ballaghaderreen
  • High Court
When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal had found four misconduct allegations proved and had recommended that O’Callaghan be struck off. On appeal, however, the High Court upheld only the finding that he had acted as solicitor in a land transaction despite a clear conflict of interest.

The High Court has imposed a censure on former Ballaghaderreen solicitor Declan O’Callaghan after his appeal reduced four findings of professional misconduct to one involving a conflict of interest.

Mr Justice Micheál O’Higgins delivered the sanction and costs ruling on January 23, 2026. O’Callaghan had formerly practised as principal of Kilrane O’Callaghan & Co Solicitors in Ballaghaderreen, Co Roscommon.

The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal had found four misconduct allegations proved and had recommended that O’Callaghan be struck off. On appeal, however, the High Court upheld only the finding that he had acted as solicitor in a land transaction despite a clear conflict of interest.

Three other findings were dismissed. They concerned allegations that he failed to ensure consideration passed to Nirvanna Property Holdings Ltd before title transferred, provided inadequate professional services and breached his duty of care, and continued acting for the purchaser during later proceedings. The court noted that the dismissed allegations included serious claims involving dishonesty and the handling of client money.

Because the tribunal's strike-off recommendation had been based on all four findings, the judge said that proposed sanction could no longer stand. The Law Society indicated that, following the appeal outcome, it considered a censure appropriate.

The court agreed, taking account of the remaining conflict-of-interest finding, the regulatory need to protect the public, the passage of time and O’Callaghan's previous disciplinary history.

On costs, the judge found competing considerations. Nirvanna had succeeded in establishing one important misconduct finding, while O’Callaghan had successfully overturned three others, including the more serious dishonesty allegations.

The court therefore made no order for costs in respect of either the tribunal proceedings or the High Court appeal. The Law Society had separately indicated that it would not seek its costs of the confirmation application.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review