The Court of Appeal has dismissed Daniel Coleman’s appeal against a High Court order striking him from the Roll of Solicitors over misconduct arising from a property development transaction in Tuam, Co Galway.
In a judgment delivered on 11 July 2022, Mr Justice Binchy, with whom Ms Justice Whelan and Mr Justice Faherty agreed, found that the Solicitors’ Disciplinary Tribunal was entitled to rely on admissions Coleman made at its 2010 hearing. The court rejected his claim that the Tribunal’s handling of witnesses had made the proceedings unfair.
The Law Society’s complaint arose from contracts dated 19 May 2004 concerning the proposed sale of units in a Fairview Construction development. Coleman admitted before the Tribunal that he caused or allowed another solicitor’s name to be placed on the contracts without authority, and that fictitious contracts were created to mislead ACC Bank into advancing funds. He also admitted responsibility for destruction of paperwork relating to the contracts and acting for both vendor and purchaser contrary to professional regulations. The Society withdrew two other allegations, while the Tribunal dismissed an allegation concerning an undertaking to Tuam Hardware.
Coleman argued on appeal that the Society should have called Hilary O’Connor and Mark Devaney, whose affidavits had been submitted during his earlier responses to the complaint. O’Connor’s affidavit said she destroyed the contracts on instructions from Fairview’s directors; they denied giving that instruction. The Court of Appeal said the Society had not relied on those affidavits as evidence for its case and had no obligation to call the witnesses. Coleman could have sought an adjournment or called O’Connor himself, but did neither. Her affidavit remained available to him at the Tribunal hearing.
The court also rejected arguments that the Tribunal’s findings lacked a sustainable basis or that the High Court had imposed strict liability. The Tribunal had found misconduct, but had not itself made a finding of dishonesty. The Court of Appeal said the High Court’s conclusion that the fictitious contracts were created to mislead a financial institution was relevant to the sanction, and that the allegations had made the nature of the conduct clear.
The High Court had ordered Coleman’s name struck off under section 8 of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act 1960, as amended. The Court of Appeal said the sanction was not open to reconsideration unless it was clearly incorrect as a matter of law; no such argument had been made. It dismissed the appeal and indicated that Coleman should pay the Society’s costs, subject to a 14-day opportunity to seek a short hearing on costs.