A solicitor who was struck off for professional misconduct over a land sale has lost an appeal against the decision.
Daniel J Coleman, of Coleman & Company Solicitors, Main Street, Ballinrobe, Co Mayo, was found by a solicitors’ disciplinary tribunal (SDT) to have caused or allowed a “fictitious” contract regarding a 2004 land sale in Tuam, Co Galway, to come into existence to mislead a bank into advancing money to a development firm.
The High Court in 2020 ruled that he should be struck off the solicitors’ register. It followed a lengthy legal history of the case brought by the Law Society over the 2004 misconduct.
The SDT heard that Mr Coleman had admitted some of the conduct alleged but it was pleaded on his behalf that the only person who had suffered a loss in the offending transactions was him. He appealed for leniency based on the impact that an order for strike-off would have on him and his family. He asked the SDT to take account of his co-operation in the three-year investigation into the complaints by the Law Society.
In 2010, the SDT found him guilty of misconduct and applied to then-High Court president Mr Justice Nicholas Kearns to strike him off. Mr Justice Kearns refused Mr Coleman’s request to adjourn the strike-off application so he could get legal representation.
He appealed to the Supreme Court and due to the backlog of cases before it at the time, and because the civil Court of Appeal (CoA) was not in existence, it was not until 2018 that his appeal was heard. The Supreme Court found the High Court was wrong not to have granted him an adjournment and sent the case back to the High Court for rehearing.
It came before Mr Justice Garret Simons and the court ruled in September 2020 that the Law Society was entitled to an order striking him off. Mr Coleman appealed that decision to the CoA, which upheld the judgment.
In his appeal to the CoA it was argued, among other things, that the High Court judge had erred in failing to give sufficient weight to the unfairness of procedures at the SDT in 2010. He also submitted that the High Court had erred in failing to engage his submission that the SDT findings were unsustainable by reason of its failure to identify or apply a test for dishonesty.
He further argued the High Court had erred in finding that dishonesty had been adequately pleaded and in treating admissions of fact as equivalent to admissions of guilt or misconduct. The Law Society opposed the appeal.
Mr Justice Donald Binchy, on behalf of the three-judge CoA, ruled the strike-off sanction by the High Court was “inevitable in this case and there cannot be any doubt that the trial judge was correct in doing so”.
The CoA described as “unimpeachable” the analysis and conclusions of the trial judge, who said a strike-off was required because Mr Coleman’s conduct would “undermine trust in the profession were a solicitor who has been found guilty of dishonesty in a conveyancing transaction to be allowed to continue in practice”.