The Supreme Court has sent the Law Society of Ireland’s applications against solicitor Daniel Coleman back to the High Court for fresh adjudication, finding that the 2010 hearing lacked essential features of fairness.
In a judgment delivered by Mr Justice William M. McKechnie on 21 December 2018, the court allowed Mr Coleman’s appeals against the High Court orders made on 26 July 2010. Those orders struck him from the Roll of Solicitors, directed him to pay €320,000 in restitution to St Jarlath’s Credit Union and required him to pay costs.
The Supreme Court found that Mr Coleman was entitled to sufficient notice and an opportunity to consider the applications, seek advice and representation, and make submissions. The Credit Union application sought restitution of €320,000, a substantial order that had not previously been flagged. The court said the High Court should have granted an adjournment, even if only for a short period, given the consequences of striking a solicitor off and the absence of any stated urgency.
The court also found that the High Court’s brief ruling did not show independent consideration of the appropriate sanction or explain why striking Mr Coleman off was justified. It said the ruling did not adequately address the adjournment request or the restitution order.
The underlying disciplinary findings arose from two complaints. In the Credit Union matter, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found that Mr Coleman failed to comply with an undertaking concerning title deeds, respond adequately to the complainant and reply adequately to the Law Society. The Tribunal found four charges established in the separate Fairview Construction matter, concerning contracts, destruction of a file and acting for both a vendor and purchasers in a development. Mr Coleman had not appealed either Tribunal decision. The Supreme Court did not determine those findings on their merits in these appeals.
The Supreme Court refused Mr Coleman’s 2015 motions to introduce new evidence and enlarge his appeal grounds. It held that the tests for admitting new evidence had not been met and that the proposed amendments would radically change the nature of the appeals.
The matter will return to the High Court to decide the Law Society’s applications afresh. The Supreme Court said Mr Coleman should have an opportunity to respond, subject to any order the High Court makes, and left the further procedure to that court. It did not decide what sanction, if any, should ultimately be imposed.