The Court of Appeal has upheld the High Court’s decision to strike solicitor Daniel Coleman from the Roll of Solicitors, after hearing further submissions focused exclusively on the appropriate sanction.
In a supplemental judgment delivered on 4 May 2023, Mr Justice Binchy said the period Mr Coleman had spent without a practising certificate—more than 10 years by the time of the High Court ruling—was a “very significant factor” in considering sanction. The court nevertheless concluded that the High Court was entitled in law to order a strike-off, given the findings of dishonesty and Mr Coleman’s response to them.
The appeal concerned a High Court decision made in September 2020 on an application by the Law Society of Ireland. The High Court had held that Mr Coleman was bound by factual admissions he made before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal in 2010, that the admitted conduct amounted to professional misconduct involving dishonesty, and that striking him off was the appropriate sanction. The Court of Appeal had upheld those conclusions in earlier judgments. This supplemental judgment addressed further arguments about sanction after a misunderstanding about the opportunity to make submissions on that issue.
The admitted conduct included allowing another solicitor’s name to be put on a 2004 contract without his authority, and allowing a fictitious contract to be created to mislead ACC Bank into advancing money to a client company. The judgment said the arrangement was intended to get around a loan condition. Mr Coleman had also admitted destroying a file of contracts without the parties’ instructions and acting for both a builder and purchasers in transactions involving a possible conflict of interest. He admitted the facts at the tribunal but did not admit misconduct or dishonesty.
Mr Coleman argued that the Law Society’s 2017 consent to his acting as a personal insolvency practitioner indicated there would be no recurrence of the conduct. The court rejected that argument as a basis for finding error by the High Court: he had not relied on that consent as mitigation at the hearing, so the Society had not had an opportunity to address its significance.
He also argued that his long exclusion from practice was a proportionate sanction. Binchy J. accepted that the lengthy period was significant, but noted that Mr Coleman had later sought to withdraw his tribunal admissions and had not accepted that the admitted conduct was misconduct. The judgment said the High Court could lawfully conclude that strike-off was required to protect confidence in the solicitors’ profession, particularly in conveyancing.
The court’s provisional view was that the Law Society was entitled to its costs. Mr Coleman had 14 days to seek a short further hearing on costs. The judgment did not state a final costs order.