The Court of Appeal has set aside a 10-year suspension order against solicitor Patrick E. Callanan, finding that the order went beyond the sanctions available under the Solicitors Acts. It remitted the matter to the current President of the High Court to reconsider a proportionate sanction within the statutory options.
The appeal concerned an order made by the High Court President in April 2015 after the Law Society of Ireland sought to have Callanan struck off. Callanan had admitted five findings of professional misconduct before the Solicitors’ Disciplinary Tribunal.
The misconduct included providing three financial institutions with a false earnings certificate for his sister and falsely confirming to two that she worked at his firm, to assist her in obtaining a house-purchase loan. She had never worked there. He also gave his partner undertakings in 2005, 2006 and 2007 connected to further loans secured against a property Callanan had bought in 2004. The loans funded the purchase of two investment properties in Shanghai. The partner signed without knowing the undertakings’ purpose.
The Shanghai properties were later sold with Callanan’s cooperation. The judgment said no lender or his former partner suffered financial loss from the undertakings, and no loss arose from the loan assisted by the false employment documents. The Tribunal recommended restrictions on practice, a €5,000 payment to the Compensation Fund and contributions to costs. The Society argued that the misconduct’s seriousness and its concerns about public confidence and protection justified a strike-off.
The High Court President instead prohibited Callanan from practising for 10 years and required him to apply to the court after that period if he wished to resume practice. The order also imposed conditions, including supervised employment and no client-account cheque-signing rights.
The Court of Appeal held that the 10-year prohibition had to be treated as a suspension. It identified three problems: the length was exceptional compared with suspensions of no more than two years reported to the court; the law made no provision for the required application after the suspension had expired; and the order prevented Callanan from applying during the suspension to have it lifted.
The court concluded there was no jurisdiction to make the order as framed, allowed the appeal and vacated the President’s orders. It did not decide what sanction should replace them. That question was remitted for reconsideration under the statutory menu of sanctions. The judgment also said that when departing so radically from the Tribunal’s recommendation, the President should explain the reasons, as a matter of fair procedures.