A solicitor who was struck off for professional misconduct over a land sale has lost an appeal over 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, come into existence to mislead a bank into advancing monies to a development firm.
In 2020, the High Court ruled he should be struck off the solicitors' register.
It followed a lengthy legal history to the case brought by the Law Society over the 2004 misconduct.
The SDT heard Mr Coleman admitted some of the conduct alleged, but it was pleaded on his behalf that the only person who suffered a loss in the offending transactions was him.
Appeal for leniency
He appealed for leniency based on the catastrophic effect that an order for strike off would have on him and his family and asked the SDT to take account of his co-operation in the three-year investigation by the Law Society of the complaints.
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, and struck him off.
He appealed to the Supreme Court. As there was such a backlog of cases before the Supreme Court at the time, and because the civil Court of Appeal was not in existence, it was not until 2018 that his appeal was heard.
Adjournment request
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 in 2020 in the High Court which ruled in September 2020 that the Law Society was entitled to an order striking him off.
Mr Coleman appealed that decision to the Court of Appeal (CoA) which upheld the High Court judgment.
In his appeal to the CoA, it was argued, among other things, the High Court judge erred in failing to give sufficient weight to the unfairness of procedures at the SDT in 2010. He also argued the High Court 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 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 "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.”
