The High Court has refused solicitor Daniel Coleman an extension of time to appeal professional misconduct findings made against him in 2010. The application concerned only permission to bring the statutory appeal late; the court did not determine the Law Society’s still-pending application for a sanction, including whether Coleman should be struck off.
Mr Justice Garrett Simons said Coleman had not formed an intention to appeal within the 21-day time limit and had identified no mistake or proper explanation for failing to appeal in 2010. The extension motions were issued on 17 May 2019, more than nine years after the tribunal’s decisions. The judge said the delay would prejudice a full rehearing, with witnesses’ memories of events in 2004 and 2005 diminished.
The findings arose from two disciplinary complaints. In the first, former clients complained about conveyancing transactions. The tribunal found, among other matters, that Coleman had caused another solicitor’s name to be put on contracts without authority, created a fictitious contract intended to mislead a bank, destroyed a client file without instructions, and acted for both a builder and purchasers in circumstances involving a possible conflict of interest. The judge noted that Coleman had admitted facts at the 2010 hearing with legal representation and had relied on his cooperation in seeking leniency. The tribunal recommended that he be struck off.
The second complaint concerned an undertaking to Tuam Credit Union to hold title deeds to its order. The tribunal found failures to comply with the undertaking and to respond adequately to correspondence. Coleman argued that the breach was technical, that loans had been repaid, and that he should have been released from the undertaking. The judge found no arguable appeal ground sufficient to justify an extension, noting that the undertaking was unqualified and there was no evidence that the credit union had released him.
The court also considered the earlier Supreme Court appeal, which had resulted in the 2010 strike-off order being vacated and the Law Society’s sanctions application being remitted for rehearing. Simons J said the Supreme Court had been left with the impression that the misconduct findings were not being appealed. The outstanding sanctions application would still allow the High Court to assess whether the findings had a sustainable basis and independently determine any sanction, but that process would not provide the full rehearing sought through a statutory appeal.
The application for an extension of time was refused. Costs were reserved pending the outcome of the Law Society’s section 8 application. That hearing had not been completed, and the court invited the parties to address how and when it should resume.