The High Court is currently overseeing a dispute involving the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) and suspended solicitor Declan O’Callaghan, based in Co Roscommon. O’Callaghan, who has been recommended for striking off due to professional misconduct, has challenged the SDT’s process. His legal team requested more time to review the tribunal’s objections, which conveys that his case, asserting the tribunal violated his right to a just hearing, was improperly composed. SDT’s counselor, Shelley Horan confirmed she had no opposition to a month’s postponement of the case.
Previously, during two summer hearings, the tribunal, consisting of three members, found Mr. O’Callaghan guilty on four instances of professional misconduct regarding his management of a land sale in Co Mayo in 2007. This verdict was in response to a complaint lodged in 2010 by a company called Nirvanna Property Holdings Limited, owned by businessman Tom Fleming.
Fleming alleged that Nirvanna was not paid the €250,000 it was entitled to after selling the land to a businessman who is now deceased. O’Callaghan refuted this claim, stating that the money was not owed and that the land was not sold.
The tribunal upheld the complaint on the grounds that O’Callaghan had infringed on his duty of care to the company, provided inadequate professional services, and appeared to serve both the buyer and vendor in a clear conflict of interest scenario.
The striking off recommendation by the SDT took into account other misconduct findings previously lodged against O’Callaghan. The solicitor has been suspended since 2018 following a separate investigation by the Law Society into his now non-existent practice, Kilrane O’Callaghan & Co, situated in Ballaghderreen, Co Roscommon. Concerns surfaced in an independent solicitor’s report that he had extracted substantial fees from a bereaved child’s estate.
A suspension has been put in place while awaiting a tribunal hearing concerning the society’s request for an inquiry, resulting from their investigation. This request is yet to be proceeded with.
Of late, Mr O’Callaghan’s has once again appealed to the court, requesting the rescission of the tribunal’s order and a report on the Nirvanna complaint. This marks yet another of his attempts to abandon the issue.
Previously, Mr O’Callaghan made two unsuccessful attempts to persuade the High Court and Court of Appeal to prevent the tribunal’s hearing of his complaint. The tribunal also denied Mr O’Callaghan’s two applications to dismiss the issue.
In his new case, Mr O’Callaghan accuses that he was denied a fair hearing, and should have been provided the opportunity to counterquestion Mr Fleming. He further alleges that the SDT demonstrated prejudice and predetermined the outcomes, contravening the principle of presumptive innocence.
He further asserts multiple violations of his rights, as stipulated in the Constitution, the European Convention on Human Rights and the European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights.
The tribunal does not have the power to implement its recommended sanction. Such a decision must ultimately be made by the High Court.