Struck off solicitor did not get fair hearing, Supreme Court rules

A solicitor who was struck off the roll of solicitors eight years ago over findings of professional misconduct was not given a fair hearing of the strike off application, the Supreme Court has ruled.

The July 2010 hearing of the application relating to Daniel J Coleman before the then president of the High Court, Mr Justice Nicholas Kearns "lacked the essential features of fair procedures", the three-judge Supreme Court said.

On that basis, it granted the appeal by Mr Coleman, who was admitted to the roll of solicitors in 1998 and practised as principal in the firm of Coleman & Company Solicitors, Main Street, Ballinrobe, Mayo, and remitted the matter for a fresh hearing before the current president of the High Court, Mr Justice Peter Kelly.

The Law Society had sought strike off arising from findings of the Solicitors' Disciplinary Tribunal in 2010 of professional misconduct concerning separate complaints by two former clients of the solicitor.

At the July 2010 hearing, the society said one of the cases heard by the tribunal related to sale of part of a housing site in Tuam, Co Galway.

The tribunal found Mr Coleman had forged the signature of another solicitor on the contract and also acted for both the seller and the purchaser in contravention of solicitor’s regulations.

Celtic Tiger

The only explanation offered by counsel on behalf of Mr Coleman at the tribunal was to “blame the Celtic Tiger for the lack of attention to detail” and the lowering of standards generally, counsel for the society said.

The tribunal also found misconduct in that Mr Coleman failed to comply with an undertaking relating to holding title deeds for another property which led to a €320,000 loss for St Jarlath’s Credit Union, Tuam. He was ordered to pay restitution to the credit union in that sum.

Mr Justice Kearns refused Mr Coleman’s request to adjourn the application so he could get legal representation and made the strike off order after saying he was satisfied Mr Coleman was “well aware” of all the developments which led to the tribunal’s findings.

Giving the Supreme Court judgment on Friday, Mr Justice William McKechnie noted the solicitor was suspended in late 2009 and, following a decision of a committee of the society, had been denied insurance cover which Mr Coleman said had contributed to his difficulty in getting legal representation for the High Court hearing.

Mr Coleman argued, inter alia, he was not given a reasonable opportunity to properly prepare for the strike off hearing and his case was not heard.

Mr Justice McKechnie noted Mr Coleman had not appealed against the findings of the tribunal.

Mr Coleman had, however, in 2014, initiated various proceedings, including over the findings of the tribunal, which were stayed pending this Supreme Court appeal. A settlement of those various proceedings had been reached subject to the High Court agreeing to re-enter the matter but the High Court president in 2016 refused to do so.

Mr Justice McKechnie said Mr Coleman was not specifically told in 2010 the Society would, as well as a strike off order, also be seeking an order for restitution of €320,000 to the credit union.

Given the serious consequences of a strike off order, it was incumbent on the court to allow Mr Coleman, who was suspended at the time of the strike off hearing and thus no risk to the public, an adjournment of the July 26th application, he held. The failure to do so breached fair procedures, he ruled.

There was also a lack of fairness in an absence of consideration in the High Court’s strike off ruling of the factors leading to its decision to strike off, he held.