Tribunal hears litany of theft and lying by Ballaghaderreen solicitor Declan O’Callaghan
Disciplinary tribunal reveals damning list of reasons solicitor came under scrutiny
In the austere, somewhat characterless hearing room of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal in Dublin, barrister Neasa Bird sat at a table and leant forward, occasionally resting her head in her hand as she read a list that seemed to be without end.
Behind her to her left sat the Ballaghaderreen solicitor Declan O’Callaghan who, after years of obfuscation and prevarication, had finally admitted to professional misconduct.
If O’Callaghan was troubled by the implosion of what was left of his reputation, he did not show it. Looking dapper, well-groomed and relaxed, he spent much time examining the room’s upper walls and ceiling which, like his expression, were blank.
A bare few days before last week’s hearing of a complaint against him, levelled first by another Roscommon solicitor and then taken up by the Law Society, O’Callaghan had finally admitted to professional misconduct. Simply put, he held on to money that was not his, apparently dipping into it for uses that were not revealed.
For most of the past two years, O’Callaghan denied the import of all allegations against him: he had done nothing wrong, he maintained. There had been delays settling client accounts yes, misunderstandings perhaps, quibbles over costs and expenses, of course . . . but nothing actually wrong.
Now, however, that was all gone: since 2014, persistently and illegally as his barrister, Michael Mullooly, acknowledged, O’Callaghan had held on to €17,250 that did not belong to him, money he was professionally and morally obliged to give to another solicitor. Further, he had not reimbursed the other solicitor the €7,125 that solicitor had been forced to spend chasing O’Callaghan for the money.
Since a storm of allegations broke over O’Callaghan’s head in early 2018, he has been shown to have had a tried and tested modus operandi – he simply took clients’ money without their knowledge or permission, spent it as he saw fit, while also grossly inflating his fees and simultaneously lying about it.
His victims were often the elderly, the estates of the deceased, or people left bequests who were unfamiliar with the law – rural folk uncomfortable at drawing undue attention to themselves and unwilling to ask probing questions of a pillar of their community.
In 1990, the High Court had curtailed O’Callaghan’s legal career, directing that for three years he could practice only under the supervision of a more experienced solicitor
At Tuesday’s hearing what shocked was not the case before the tribunal, or others of more recent vintage reported in The Irish Times or recounted to the High Court. What shocked was the detailing of O’Callaghan’s more distant past, what Ms Bird, representing the Law Society, told the tribunal was his “previous disciplinary history”.
- Solicitor Declan O’Callaghan admits ‘unlawfully’ retaining client funds
- Suspended solicitor urged woman to stay quiet about money he owed her
- O’Callaghan took money from accounts of dead clients to shore up firm
In 1990, the High Court had curtailed O’Callaghan’s legal career, directing that for three years he could practise only under the supervision of a more experienced solicitor.
At that early stage of his career, the Law Society (the solicitors’ professional and representative body) had discovered there were irregularities in how O’Callaghan had been operating his client account. This is the repository of money belonging to clients that all solicitors hold on trust for them, while carrying out their instructions. Typically, such funds may be related to a will or a property sale.
Catalogue of behaviour
At Tuesday’s hearing, Ms Bird laid out plainly, enumerating through the alphabet, a relentless litany of theft, fraud, forgery and lying – the conduct that led to O’Callaghan’s professional curtailment. It was a catalogue of behaviour that might have been expected to be of interest to gardaí, had they known.
The findings of the previous inquiry were, said Ms Bird, that O’Callaghan (a) created a deficit in a client’s account in the sum of £8,712 on April 13th, 1989; (b) improperly and knowingly applied client’s money for personal benefit, namely in respect of (i) the purchase of a private dwelling residence, (ii) the making of repayments to a building society, (iii) purchase of a motor car; (c) created debit balances on a client account in his practice; (d) failed to lodge client’s money; (e) made false entries in the ledger account of a client, John Garr, indicating that Mr Garr had been given £6,000; (f) prepared two false acknowledgment receipts for £3,000 in respect of Mr Garr and placed them on the account with the intention to mislead; (g) prepared a false letter, dated January 11th, 1988, and placed it on the same file of Mr Garr with the intention to mislead; (h) made a false entry in Mr Garr’s ledger account, forged two receipts with the intention of misleading the Law Society’s investigating accountant of the society; (i) made false representations to mislead the accountant . . .
Leaning in, Ms Bird didn’t relent.
The inquiry found further that O’Callaghan had (j) made false representations about the affairs of another of his clients, a Ms O’Neill, by (k) concocting notes of fake phone negotiations with the Hibernian Insurance Company; and (l) making fake attendance notes at meetings, with the intention of misrepresenting the true state of Ms O’Neill’s affairs; (m) made a false entry in Ms O’Neill’s account that £2,500 had come from Hibernian; (n) failed to tell Ms O’Neill the true state of her legal affairs; and (o) failed to tell her the correct amount of her settlement and all deductions there from.
O’Callaghan had (p) made false representations to another client, a Miss H Gill, that her case was settled for £5,000 included general damages and special damages and costs, when the settlement figure of £5,000 did not include costs, thereby (q) misleading Ms Gill as to the true position of costs in her action; had (r) made false statements in writing about the legal affairs of another client, a Damian O’Reilly, to his doctor and hospital; (s) made false statements in writing to the consultant with the intention of deceiving him of the true state of affairs.
Ms Bird said that O’Callaghan had (t) acted in a manner contrary to his undertaking given to AIB given in respect of his private residence; (u) allowed charges to be debited to his client; (v) failed to advise clients of their entitlement to taxation in respect of solicitor client charges; failed to designate a client’s deposit accounts as a client account; and beginning to run out of letters of the alphabet, Ms Bird concluded the list with the letter (x) saying the 1990 inquiry found that only the year before, O’Callaghan had “not retained intact” a client’s deposit until the closing of a sale.
There were three members of the 1990 committee of inquiry but, despite what they discovered, only one of them felt O’Callaghan’s behaviour made him unfit to be a solicitor and that he should be barred from the profession permanently.
The other two recommended, and the High Court accepted, that he be allowed continue in practice, watched over for three years, after which, he could resume – which he did.
O’Callaghan’s more recent victims have yet to have their day at a tribunal
Asked this week who sat in judgment on O’Callaghan 30 years ago, the Law Society declined to say, asserting the matter was sub judice. Citing the same reason, the society also declined to furnish The Irish Times with a copy of the report that led to the 1990 High Court decision or to say whether it had, at that time, referred O’Callaghan’s conduct to the Garda.
O’Callaghan’s more recent victims have yet to have their day at a tribunal.
They include the Colleran family of Ballaghaderreen whose now wheelchair-bound son is short some €400,000 which O’Callaghan retained from his court-determined accident compensation and Tom Fleming, who recently accepted a settlement of €100,000 in place of the €250,000 he was supposed to get from a land sale handled by O’Callaghan.
He hopes the Law Society compensation fund, into which O’Callaghan must pay €10,000 within a year as part of the sentence of censure the tribunal handed down on him, will make up the difference.
Like the law firm involved in this week’s tribunal which finally got what was rightfully theirs, O’Callaghan’s other aggrieved clients would like their day.
‘I want justice for my mother before she dies’ OAP is client of disgraced solicitor Declan O’Callaghan
A 77-year-old mother, no longer able to run her affairs, is among those allegedly overcharged and owed money by disgraced solicitor Declan O’Callaghan, who was shut down by the Law Society.
The pensioner’s daughter, Stella Hughes, has told Extra.ie, how her vulnerable mother, who suffered a devastating brain injury three years ago, had allegedly been wronged over a substantial sum by the Ballaghaderreenbased solicitor.
It’s claimed that Mr O’Callaghan withdrew €126,405 from funds inherited by the pensioner and other relatives, while telling the family that €258,485.29 was not transferred from England to Ireland.
Ms Hughes explained: ‘My mother is on the Fair Deal scheme in a nursing home and even with that it costs an average of €1,500 a month. My mother needs that money.’
The mother of eight, who cannot be named for legal reasons, can no longer talk and is so severely brain damaged that she requires round-the-clock specialist medical care in a nursing home.
‘She is depending on this money so that she can be looked after and we want her to get the money now while she is still alive,’ said Ms Hughes. ‘She had an aneurysm while we were all on a break in Galway after my father finished chemotherapy. That was in 2010 and my father died a broken man two years later, from seeing what happened my mother.
‘The way she has been left, sometimes I wish she had died that day, instead of going through what she has gone through since. I have made a complaint to the gardai and I am waiting for them to come back to me so that I can make a statement. I want to make a statement. The local gardai are going to refer my complaint to the fraud squad.
‘I very much want to pursue this,’ she told Extra.ie.
Solicitors acting on behalf of Ms Hughes and her family have made a complaint to the Law Society, one of dozens that are now lodged against Mr O’Callaghan. The complaint alleges that Mr O’Callaghan withdrew €126,405 from funds inherited by her mother and other relatives, while at the same time telling the family a €258,485.29 lump sum had not been transferred from England to Ireland.
This money was from the estate of a relative of the pensioner, Mary Philomena Crawley. The relative, a retired nurse, was known to her relatives as Philomena and she left Ireland as a young girl, never to return home.
‘Philomena was a girl when she went to England and she never came back. My mother and her were close when they were children and she would get a card at Christmas from Philomena,’ recalls Ms Hughes.
‘That was the only correspondence she ever got from the time Philomena went to England.’
She died in July 2016 without leaving a will and, in addition to the €258,485.29 held in English bank accounts, Ms Crawley also left a further €118,588.67 on deposit in an Irish financial institution.
However, Ms Hughes’s mother is still awaiting her share of the money from the English bank accounts, and lawyers for the family also claim her mother was significantly overcharged.
The €126,405 has been withdrawn by Mr O’Callaghan in allegedly unauthorised payments and, despite giving assurances that inheritance tax was paid to the Revenue Commissioners, it has also emerged that this money was not given to the tax officials and, as a result, a penalty was imposed.
Mr O’Callaghan was suspended from practising as a solicitor by the Law Society last summer, and, just before Christmas, his firm Kilrane O’Callaghan was closed down by the society. It is believed that there may be a €1million-plus shortfall in the firm’s accounts and, as a result, the courts have imposed a freezing order on Mr O’Callaghan’s assets.
This week, the 60-year-old solicitor denied any wrongdoing with the estate of Mary Philomena Crawley. But Ms Hughes points out that, on fees alone, there are serious questions to be asked.
‘When Philomena died we were told by a solicitor in Declan O’Callaghan’s office that the fees for dealing with the case could be about €8,000. My mother, her brother and sister, got their share of what was in the Irish bank account.
‘They only got this after my uncle hounded Declan O’Callaghan… he rang and called to the office almost every day. The English end of things is a mess. There was a search for other relatives, and relatives were found in America.
‘They are all dead but their children are entitled to a share and, because they did not get any money from the Irish account, they will have to get more from what is in the English accounts.’
It is believed that as many as 35 former clients have made complaints about Mr O’Callaghan. However, Ms Hughes believes that there may be more, as she is convinced some people have already died without realising they could have been overcharged by the solicitor.
In a statement released to Extra.ie, Mr O’Callaghan insisted he is unaware of any Garda probe into how he conducted his business affairs. It reads: ‘I have no knowledge of the complaints to which you refer, but certainly there is no basis for any such complaints. As already indicated to you, the Office acted in the Estate to which you refer on the instructions of the duly appointed Legal Personal Representative.
‘The Irish-based beneficiaries in the Estate have already received interim payments in respect of their inheritances, and they will receive the full balance due to them when their entitlements and those of the foreign-based beneficiaries have been established, based on the advice of Counsel, which is awaited.
‘No beneficiary in this Estate will be at any loss, notwithstanding what may have been suggested to you by the source of this story, who is determined to undermine my character, for reasons which are unknown to me.
‘I also wish to make it clear that no client of Kilrane O’Callaghan & Co will be at any loss, a commitment I have already given to and which has been noted by the High Court. In the interests of fairness and balance, you might make this clear in whatever article you are preparing.’
He also stated that he had hoped for a ‘respite from the almost incessant media coverage’ over Christmas adding: ‘I would have thought a respite from the almost incessant media coverage of myself would not be too much to expect.
‘Obviously, I am wrong in that. You refer to a case of Mary Crawley, and allegations about excessive fees and clients not being paid in a timely fashion. In the matter of that deceased lady, the Office acted on the instructions of her Legal Personal Representative. Part-payments to certain beneficiaries have already required that the Opinion of Counsel, both in the UK and in this country, be obtained.
‘When those legal issues are clarified, distribution of the estate will be finalised in the normal way.
‘Prior to closure, the Office had arranged with the Legal Personal Representative that the final fees in the case would be agreed with him, with the input of all the other beneficiaries, before the Estate is finalised. That process was designed to ensure that each beneficiary would receive his/her full entitlement once the final figures, including fees, were agreed. No beneficiary will be at any loss in relation to this matter, and each will receive his/her full legal entitlement in the estate.’