The Court of Appeal dismissed solicitor Michael O’Sullivan’s appeal against sanctions imposed after a Law Society disciplinary inquiry found him guilty of professional misconduct. It extended the time for lodging the appeal, which had been filed late, before dismissing it.
The sanctions were ordered by the High Court in April 2016 on the Society’s application. O’Sullivan was barred from practising as a sole practitioner or in partnership and could practise only as an assistant solicitor under the direct control and supervision of a solicitor with at least ten years’ standing, approved in advance by the Society. He was also ordered to pay €10,000 to the Compensation Fund, €6,774.51 in restitution to former client James Nolan, and costs.
The disciplinary findings arose from Nolan’s complaints. The Tribunal found professional misconduct and recommended sanctions. O’Sullivan did not appeal those findings to the High Court under the statutory process. The Court of Appeal said they were therefore final and could not be challenged on their merits during the later hearing about sanctions. He had withdrawn from the Tribunal inquiry before Nolan’s evidence was cross-examined.
O’Sullivan argued that the High Court should have delayed the sanctions hearing until separate proceedings challenging the constitutionality of the disciplinary regime were decided. The Court of Appeal agreed with the High Court’s refusal to adjourn, noting those proceedings had been started only three days before the sanctions hearing. It also rejected his complaint that the High Court should have reheard evidence and allowed cross-examination as part of the sanctions application, distinguishing that stage from an appeal against the Tribunal’s findings.
He further argued that the sanctions were disproportionate, including the €10,000 payment to the Compensation Fund, which he said had not been used to compensate Nolan. The appeal court recognised the sanctions’ serious effect on his career but found no obvious error or manifest injustice in the High Court’s exercise of discretion. It said the High Court had considered the proposed sanctions and the public interest in maintaining professional standards.
The court also rejected a bias complaint concerning Tribunal chairman Michael Tyrrell’s professional connections with the Society, including committee work and lectures. It said the complaint lacked supporting evidence and had not been raised in the notice of appeal or through an application to amend it. The court did not disturb the High Court’s orders.