Declan O’Callaghan, a suspended solicitor, has been recommended for professional expulsion by a tribunal due to professional misconduct. While the Solicitors’ Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) cannot directly expel a solicitor, it has directed the Law Society to present its report and recommendations on Mr O’Callaghan’s case to the president of the High Court, who has the final say in these matters.
The report includes the tribunal’s views on whether Mr O’Callaghan is fit to continue as a member of the legal profession, with the suggestion that he should not be, as stated by tribunal chairman Justin McKenna. The tribunal, consisting of three members, rendered its judgement after studying the penalties due for Mr O’Callaghan, who was found culpable of four counts of professional misconduct for mishandling a land sale in Co Mayo in 2007. Mr McKenna further shared that the tribunal’s recommendations were influenced by previous misconduct findings against Mr O’Callaghan.
Censure or a monetary fine, which are usually considered lesser punishments, were deemed inappropriate in this case by the tribunal. Mr O’Callaghan, formerly from Kilrane O’Callaghan & Co in Ballaghderreen, Co Roscommon, has been in legal limbo since 2018 following a Law Society investigation into his professional dealings. This investigation was triggered by concerns stemming from an independent solicitor’s report, which includes accusations that Mr O’Callaghan extracted substantial fees from a child’s estate following a bereavement.
A pause was put on his practice until a hearing was held on the society’s request for an inquiry into issues discovered in its investigation. This hearing is still to take place. Last month, a complaint from 2010 was upheld by the tribunal, lodged by Nirvana Property Holdings Ltd, a firm owned by Tom Fleming, against Mr O’Callaghan regarding the 2007 land deal. Mr Fleming stated that Nirvana was owed €250,000 for the land at Aughadiffin, Kilkelly, by businessman Fred Preston, now deceased. However, no income was ever accepted by Nirvana, though the land was transferred in April 2007. Mr O’Callaghan opposed this claim, denying that Nirvana was owed any money and questioning the “sale” aspect of the transaction.
The panel identified four instances where misconduct was demonstrated in the handling of land transfers by Mr O‘Callaghan. The failures included the portrayal of himself being both the seller and buyer in a transaction where conflict of interest was apparent, inadequate professional conduct, and violation of his responsibility to his firm.
The panel also heard about Mr O’Callaghan’s prior indiscretions. In 1990, he was found culpable of misconduct pertaining to 26 allegations, resulting in the High Court mandating that his professional activities must be supervised by a seasoned solicitor of more than 10 years’ experience for a span of three years.
Another matter related to a 2019 ruling by the panel which found Mr O’Callaghan at fault for detention of client money that was meant to be paid to another law firm for litigation charges and estate-related expenditures. As a consequence, recommendations were made that he should face a reprimand, contribute €10,000 to the Law Society compensation fund, and €7,500 towards society costs. However, there was no indication that compensation payment had been made, according to the panel information.
Ruadhán Ó Ciaráin, a barrister representing Nirvana, suggested in sanction submissions on Tuesday that the matter should be taken to the High Court with the intention of disqualifying Mr O’Callaghan. The barrister stated that previous issues involving Mr O’Callaghan taken up by the panel were deemed of great magnitude. It was shown in 1990 that Mr O’Callaghan used money from clients for his own ends, as well as put fraudulent letters in client files with an aim to deceive a society’s investigating accountant.
Considering these activities, alongside the vulnerability of the clients involved like Mr Fleming, a dyslexic individual who dropped out of school at 13, the barrister demanded that the panel should forward the issue to the High Court. The barrister argued, this was necessary due to the considerable risk posed to the general public.
In defence of Mr O’Callaghan, his legal representative, Michael Mullooly, conveyed that even though his client honours the judgement of the tribunal on Nirvana’s grievance, he maintains his entitlement to contest it. He stressed that Mr O’Callaghan has been compliant with the tribunal, adding that he has endured these issues since 2010. Additionally, he asserted that the media’s heightened coverage of these issues had burdened Mr O’Callaghan with extraordinary stress.
Mullooly submitted that while professional misconduct is grave for solicitors, the quartet of allegations against Mr O’Callaghan could be equated to professional negligence. This assertion was made in light of Mr Fleming, who had resolved professional negligence disputes and received recompense for them.
Regarding previous issues brought before the tribunal, Mullooly argued that no losses were incurred by the clients or law firm implicated, therefore providing no compulsion for the tribunal to escalate the issue to the High Court.
Detailing the current status of Mr O’Callaghan’s finances, the lawyer stated that his client’s accounts have been inactive since 2018. The society now possesses paperwork from his practice and is in the process of collecting outstanding payments. Once resolved, payment is guaranteed, he concluded.