Worsley J
1
IN THE GRAND COURT OF THE CAYMAN ISLANDS
2
CIVIL DIVISION
3
4
Cause No：LPDC 1 of 2017
5
6
IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 7 OF THE LEGAL PRACTITIONERS LAW (2015
7
REVISION)
8
AND IN THE MATTER OF MR. A, ATTORNEY AT LAW
9
10
11
Appearances：
12
Ms. Claire Allen of the Attorney General's
13
Chambers
14
15
Mr. A in Person
16
Before：
17
The Hon. Justice Paul Worsley (Actg.)
18
Heard：
19
22nd and 24th-26th February 2021
20
Verdict Judgment：
21
8th March 2021
22
23
HEADNOTE
24
Civil Division-Section 7 of the Legal Practitioners Act-Disciplinary
25
Proceedings.
26
27
JUDGMENT
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
Order of the Court following the Finding of Misconduct In the Matter of s.7 of the Legal Practitioners Act (2015 Revision) And In the Matter of Mr. A, Attorney At Law Coram：Worsley J (Actg.) Date：12th March 2021 Page 1 of 7
1.
Following my written Decision finding unprofessional conduct proved against Mr. A
in his capacity as an attorney at law I have invited submissions in writing from both
parties as to the appropriate sanction and also on the question of costs. The Attorney
General's Chambers (the AG) advises that this is the first contested disciplinary
hearing to be held in the Cayman Islands. Thus there are no local precedents.
2.
Counsel on behalf of the AG has supplied a comprehensive and careful submission in
7
writing. I have also considered The Bar Tribunals & Adjudication Service (BTAS)
8
Sanction Guidance (2019) (92 pages) and the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal
Guidance Note on Sanctions (2020) (24 pages), both of which have persuasive
authority for a decision maker in the Cayman Islands. Any Sanction imposed should
be designed to protect the public, maintain high professional standards and promote
confidence in the disciplinary process. The totality of the breaches should be
considered.
3.
I have taken into account considerations of culpability, harm, aggravating and
mitigating factors as they apply in this case.
4.
Mr. A has indicated in writing his concerns about the conduct of the case. Those he
may pursue elsewhere. At the 11th hour he has provided a letter setting out matters of
mitigation but no submissions on principle, penalty or costs, save to submit that a
Formal Warning would suffice as Sanction.
It is sattorney of Ned experience
5ad to see an Mr. A's undully. He is a v
ubvell-
21
ished practit
22
practice m
g up to
$450 per hour for his services. He is of nitherto good character. He has family
commitments, undertakes charitable work and tells me these proceedings have weighed
Order of the Court following the Finding of Misconduct In the Matter of s.7 of the Legal Practitioners Act (2015 Revision) And In the
Matter of Mr. A, Attorney At Law Coram: Worsley J (Actg.) Date: 12th March 2021
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
heavily upon him. There are no similar findings against him. I bear in mind that these
findings do not establish dishonesty. There is no suggestion of undue enrichment.
6.
The charge of unprofessional conduct has been proved under five different heads of
evidence. The gravamen of this charge is that this was not an isolated lapse. These
5
were lapses perpetuated over several years.
6
7.
The Plaintiffs’ claim for damages should have been brought to trial by 2007. The trial
7
did not take place until 2011.
8
8.
All monies received by Mr. A should have been promptly paid and accurately
9
accounted for. They were not.
10
9.
From February 2012 there were repeated requests for payment of $30，000.00 owing to
11
the Plaintiffs. Mr. A paid that money into the Plaintiffs’ account. They had changed
12
their account. When he received repeated requests thereafter for the money he should
13
have checked with his bank so see if the funds had been returned. They had.
14
It was not until almost 4 years later, in November 2015, that he finally resolved the matter by
15
transferring the $30，000.00 to the new account. I note that I accept Mr. A’s
16
submission that there was no late payment of the sum of $822，000.00. That sum was
17
paid to the Plaintiffs in late 2011.
18
10.
Mr. A failed to ensure that adequate steps were taken to preserve his case files.
19
Without them, he could not track the conduct of the case and payment of all monies
rec
21
Fee Note and
inal Accc ha
Plaintiffs
eived.
11.
A d accurate F
ve been rthe
22
Final Accounts should have been the
should have been the
by 2012. They are still incomplete in 2021.
Order of the Court following the Finding of Misconduct In the Matter of s.7 of the Legal Practitioners Act (2015 Revision) And In the
Matter of Mr. A, Attorney At Law Coram: Worsley J (Actg.) Date: 12th March 2021
1
12.
Mr. A should have responded promptly in 2012 to the Honourable Chief Justice's concerns over his handling of the Plaintiffs' case. He did not. He has claimed that he spoke with the Chief Justice in about 2013 and believed that he needed to respond no further. It was clear from the further requests thereafter that the matter had not been resolved to the satisfaction of the Chief Justice. It was some 3 years before Mr. A saw it fit to respond in any detail, and then not satisfactorily.
7
13.
The Plaintiff was vulnerable. He was cognitively damaged as a result of the injuries he had sustained. From being a computer analyst he was reduced to carrying out only menial duties.
10
14.
The Plaintiff was not a resident of the Cayman Islands or familiar with its legal system. He was totally dependent on the integrity of his Attorney. He was badly let down. Mr. A does not have the mitigation that he was a newly qualified practitioner unused to the pressures of litigation or the demands of clients.
14
15.
The Plaintiff has lost out as a result of having to wait for the balance of his damages to be paid. He still does not know the final bill. In an early email to Mr. A the Plaintiff said he was left ‘suicidal’ as a result of waiting for his case to be finally concluded. Mr. A was unmoved by that plea.
18
16.
Mr. A has said that the Plaintiff contributed to the delay himself by ‘a gross misrepresentation’ to Dr. Godsall, his Neuropsychologist, over academic qualifications
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779</
It was always open to Mr. A to sever his professional retainer in writing, draw up a Final Account, submit his Fee Note, hand over the balance of monies due and apply to come off the record. He did none of these. I do not accept that in 2012 Mr. A told the Plaintiffs that he no longer acted for them. After being retained for 10 years it is inconceivable that this should nowhere be formally recorded.
The fact that this hearing has taken place in 2021 is in part down to busy court schedules and to the Covid-19 lockdown. Nonetheless Mr. A has dragged his feet by seeking adjournment after adjournment and yet further time to meet these allegations. He has had four years since he was charged in March 2017 to prepare his case and rectify any omissions.
There is still no Final Statement of Account. There is still no Fee Note. On the face of Mr. A’s documents the sum of $70,000.00 appears to be still outstanding. He suggests that he is entitled to retain such monies as part of his fees. A Fee Note justifying such a claim has yet to be produced, let alone scrutinised and approved by the Plaintiffs.
In my judgment the power to strike off an Attorney should be reserved for the most serious cases of dishonesty or worse. This is not such a case. But this unprofessional conduct cannot be overlooked with a reprimand.
Sir Thomas Bingham in the case of Bolton v The Law Society1 clearly set out the approach of the Courts to cases such as this, where there is no dishonesty [p.518A]:
"It is required that practitioners should discharge their professional duties with integrity and competence. They should not act in a manner which is calculated to bring the profession into disrepute."
Order of the Court following the Finding of Misconduct In the Matter of s.7 of the Legal Practitioners Act (2015 Revision) And In the Matter of Mr. A, Attorney At Law Coram: Worsley J (Actg.) Date: 12th March 2021
1 [1994] 1 WLR 512
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
\section{Introduction}
A solicitor is not shown to have acted dishonestly, but is shown to have fallen below the required standards of integrity, probity and trustworthiness. His lapse is less serious but it remains very serious indeed in a member of a profession whose reputation depends upon trust. Only in a very unusual and venial case of this kind would the Tribunal be likely to regard as appropriate any order less severe than one of suspension. The second purpose is the most fundamental of all: to maintain the reputation of the solicitors' profession as one in which every member, of whatever standing, may be trusted to the ends of the earth.
\section{Reputation and Business}
Needless to say that includes lawyers here in the Cayman Islands where their reputation is of the highest importance for all who come to do business with them, be they international companies or unversed laymen. Should unprofessional conduct be treated with impunity it would undermine confidence not only in the profession but in the legal services offered in the Cayman Islands.
\section{Judgment and Conduct}
I accept that any period of suspension will cause hardship financially and professionally for Mr. A. But his conduct is a serious fall from grace under each of the five heads set out in my Judgment of the 8th March 2021.
The Attorney General invites me to consider separate penalties in respect of each of the 5 heads of misconduct. I do not agree. There is one charge against Mr. A, namely conduct unbecoming an Attorney, as evidenced under the 5 heads. I shall impose one penalty to meet the one charge.
I have considered with care the aggravating factors outlined above and that a signal needs to be sent to Mr. A and the profession generally that such conduct is unacceptable. In matters of mil of 11th M
\section{Order of the Court}
Order of the Court following the Finding of Misconduct In the Matter of s.7 of the Legal Practitioners Act (2015 Revision) And In the Matter of Mr. A, Attorney At Law Coram: Worsley J (Actg.) Date: 12th March 2021 Page 6 of 7
1
26.
The Order of the Court is that Mr. A be suspended from practising as an
2
Attorney at Law in the Cayman Islands for a period of 6 months with immediate
3
effect.
4
27.
I see no reason in principle why an order for costs should not follow. Mr. A brought
5
these proceedings on himself by his unprofessional conduct as an Attorney. He was
6
free to contest them as he has done. In such a case the Attorney General should not
7
have to meet all the costs of bringing this case. I order that Mr. A pay KY$17,100.00
8
by way of costs to the Attorney General.
9
28.
The Court has already lifted the ban on publication of the proceedings.
10
11
Dated this the 12th day of March 2021
12
13
14
15
The Honourable Mr. Justice Paul Worsley
Acting Judge of the Grand Court