In the Matter of Section 7 of the Legal Practitioners Law (2015 Revision) and In the Matter of Mr A, Attorney at Law - Judgment

¶ ```html IN THE GRAND COURT OF THE CAYMAN ISLANDS CIVIL DIVISION Cause No：LPDC 1 of 2017 IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 7 OF THE LEGAL PRACTITIONERS LAW (2015 REVISION) AND IN THE MATTER OF MR. A, ATTORNEY AT LAW Appearances： Ms. Claire Allen of the Attorney General's Chambers Mr. A in Person Before： The Hon. Justice Paul Worsley (Actg.) Heard： 22nd and 24th-26th February 2021 HEADNOTE Civil Division-Section 7 of the Legal Practitioners Act-Disciplinary Proceedings. JUDGMENT

¶ [1] As with professional bodies the world over, Codes of Conduct exist to regulate the professional activities of Attorneys at Law. That applies no less in the Cayman Islands where there is a high proportion of top-calibre lawyers. To maintain public confidence in the Rule of Law it is essential to ensure that all who practice in this field comply rigorously with the Code of Conduct (“the Code”) for their profession.

¶ [2] These proceedings concern allegations of a breach of the Code here in the Cayman Islands, where, thankfully, such proceedings are virtually unheard of. The parties to the proceedings are the Attorney General’s Chambers (the AG) and Mr. ‘A’ an Attorney at Law admitted into practice on 10th April 1995. This hearing relates to Mr. A’s handling of a running-down action. It turned out to be an unusual case. It was one where, according to Mr. A, he was justified in taking 10 years to get to judgment in a damages-only matter, he was paid only half his fees, he presented no Fee Note, he drew up no Final Account, his computer records crashed, there was no written termination of his Retainer and where the Chief Justice unjustifiably criticised him. ## AUTHORITY OF COURT

¶ [3] There is no dispute that I am duly authorised to sit as a Judge in this matter even though I have passed the usual retirement age of 70. I first heard applications and set timetables in this case in 2017, during the tenure of my appointment as an Acting Judge of the Grand Court before I reached 70 and as such was seized of the case. I sit with the specific authorisation of the Chief Justice to determine this matter and have been given a Government Contract to sit as a Judge in the Cayman Islands from 15th August 2020 until 1st March 2022. 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: 8th March 2021 Page 2 of 34

¶ [4] As the Attorney at the centre of these allegations is well known in the community it has been important that a Judge from out of the jurisdiction with no knowledge of him or his practice deals with every aspect of this matter. The nature of the complaints were communicated in writing to Mr. A on 30th March 2017 and he has throughout been aware of his right to call witnesses and make submissions to the Court. # CONDUCT OF THE PROCEEDINGS

¶ [5] There are no Cayman precedents for the procedural conduct of cases such as this. In March 2017 when I last sat as an Acting Judge of the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands the Solicitor General, on behalf of the Attorney General’s Chambers asked to see me in Chambers to discuss the institution of disciplinary proceedings and requested guidance on procedure in this unfamiliar territory. I directed that our meeting be tape recorded so it was available for all parties. A copy has been provided to Mr. A. He has submitted that at that meeting I appeared to act as Judge and prosecutor in advising the Attorney General’s Chambers as to the steps to take to initiate these proceedings. He has further contended that the withdrawal of the Plaintiffs from the proceedings (they having supplied statements to the AG in 2016) so they are not now available for cross examination, is fatal to the AG’s case. If that be right it would mean that witness unavailability would abort disciplinary proceedings however meritorious. That would be a very surprising position. He submitted that it would be an abuse of the process of the Court for this hearing to take place. The Court considered his arguments and found no merit in them. ``` This document is titled "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: 8th March 2021" and is Page 3 of 34.
The Court has considered whether a hearing conducted by Zoom with the parties in Cayman and Judge in the UK is appropriate. The Zoom link is secure. The case depends upon a mass of documentation. There was potential evidence by Zoom from witnesses outside the jurisdiction. The Chief Justice invited me to come to Cayman to hear this case in person. Mr. A submitted he would prefer to make submissions in person. These are all persuasive considerations. I have concluded, not without regret - as I sit in my study in Yorkshire looking out over a bleak and cold landscape - that the present Lockdown in the UK will prevent me travelling to the Cayman Islands for the foreseeable future. The original Directions Hearing was now almost four years ago. The case which is the backcloth to this hearing started life in 2001 with Mr. A being retained as the Plaintiffs’ Attorney early in 2002. It has taken almost twenty years to reach this stage. I see no good reason for further postponement. It now transpires that the witnesses who might have given evidence by Zoom from the USA will not now do so. That potential complication is therefore removed. Application was made in 2017 for all proceedings to be conducted in private with no reporting of the charge or evidence. There are no precedents. I have applied the general common law approach. Is it necessary in the interests of justice? Is there prejudice to either side? I have heard submissions from both sides. The lawyer concerned is a well-known attorney.
```markdown and financial hardship follow. I am satisfied that I have the power to direct that these proceedings be conducted in private and have so directed. ## THE CHARGE

¶ [10] The Charge against Mr. A is set out in the AG’s Statement of Disciplinary Charge dated 30th March 2017. It states: "Mr. A engaged in conduct which is unbecoming of an Attorney at Law and Officer of the Court and that the totality of the material before the Grand Court discloses that there has been professional misconduct on the part of the Attorney."

¶ [11] The Legal Practitioners Act (2015 Revision), by s.2 defines ‘a Judge’ as a person appointed under the Cayman Islands Constitution Order 2009 to act in the capacity of Judge in the Cayman Islands. By s.7(1) such Judge shall have power, “for reasonable cause shown”, to suspend any Attorney from practising as such during any specific period or to be struck off the Court Roll. By s.7(2) before a Judge takes such action as is laid down in s.7(1) he shall communicate or cause to be communicated in writing to the attorney-at-law concerned, the nature of the complaint against him and such attorney-at-law shall be entitled to call witnesses and to be heard. Section 8 provides for a right of appeal to the (Cayman Islands) Court of Appeal (CICA).

¶ [12] There is helpful guidance to be gleaned from the authorities as to what amounts to ‘conduct unbecoming’. ``` ```html 10. The Charge against Mr. A is set out in the AG’s Statement of Disciplinary Charge dated 30th March 2017. It states: 11. The Legal Practitioners Act (2015 Revision), by s.2 defines ‘a Judge’ as a person appointed under the Cayman Islands Constitution Order 2009 to act in the capacity of Judge in the Cayman Islands. By s.7(1) such Judge shall have power, “for reasonable cause shown”, to suspend any Attorney from practising as such during any specific period or to be struck off the Court Roll. By s.7(2) before a Judge takes such action as is laid down in s.7(1) he shall communicate or cause to be communicated in writing to the attorney-at-law concerned, the nature of the complaint against him and such attorney-at-law shall be entitled to call witnesses and to be heard. Section 8 provides for a right of appeal to the (Cayman Islands) Court of Appeal (CICA). 12. There is helpful guidance to be gleaned from the authorities as to what amounts to ‘conduct unbecoming’. ``` ```latex \begin{equation} \text{10. The Charge against Mr. A is set out in the AG's Statement of Disciplinary Charge dated 30th March 2017. It states:} \end{equation} \begin{equation} \text{11. The Legal Practitioners Act (2015 Revision), by s.2 defines 'a Judge' as a person appointed under the Cayman Islands Constitution Order 2009 to act in the capacity of Judge in the Cayman Islands. By s.7(1) such Judge shall have power, "for reasonable cause shown", to suspend any Attorney from practising as such during any specific period or to be struck off the Court Roll. By s.7(2) before a Judge takes such action as is laid down in s.7(1) he shall communicate or cause to be communicated in writing to the attorney-at-law concerned, the nature of the complaint against him and such attorney-at-law shall be entitled to call witnesses and to be heard. Section 8 provides for a right of appeal to the (Cayman Islands) Court of Appeal (CICA).} \end{equation} \begin{equation} \text{12. There is helpful guidance to be gleaned from the authorities as to what amounts to 'conduct unbecoming'.} \end{equation} ``` ```latex \documentclass{article} \usepackage{amsmath} \section*{THE CHARGE} \begin{enumerate} \item[10.] The Charge against Mr. A is set out in the AG's Statement of Disciplinary Charge dated 30th March 2017. It states: \begin{quote} "Mr. A engaged in conduct which is unbecoming of an Attorney at Law and Officer of the Court and that the totality of the material before the Grand Court discloses that there has been professional misconduct on the part of the Attorney". \end{quote} \item[11.] The Legal Practitioners Act (2015 Revision), by s.2 defines ‘a Judge’ as a person appointed under the Cayman Islands Constitution Order 2009 to act in the capacity of Judge in the Cayman Islands. By s.7(1) such Judge shall have power, “for reasonable cause shown”, to suspend any Attorney from practising as such during any specific period or to be struck off the Court Roll. By s.7(2) before a Judge takes such action as is laid down in s.7(1) he shall communicate or cause to be communicated in writing to the attorney-at-law concerned, the nature of the complaint against him and such attorney-at-law shall be entitled to call witnesses and to be heard. Section 8 provides for a right of appeal to the (Cayman Islands) Court of Appeal (CICA). \item[12.] There is helpful guidance to be gleaned from the authorities as to what amounts to ‘conduct unbecoming’. \end{enumerate} ```
```html 1 13. In Myers v Elman' Lord Wright said: 2 14. In the Cayman case of AG v Carbonneau & Hartog' Sanderson J said: 15. In the context of medical misconduct it was said in Roylance v GMC No 2' 16. In re H A Grey' Lord Esher said: 17. Guidance is also to be found in the Code of Conduct for Cayman Attorneys: 1 [194318] 2 [2003] CILR 129 3 [2000] 1AC 311 4 [1892] 2QB 440 1 AC 282 at 2 194318 3 [2000] 1AC 311 4 [1892] 2QB 440 1 AC 282 at 2 194318 3 [2000] 1AC 311 4 [1892] 2QB 440 1 AC 282 at 2 194318 3 [2000] 1AC 311 4 [1892] 2QB 440 1 AC 282 at 2 194318 3 [2000] 1AC 311 4 [1892] 2QB 440 1 AC 282 at 2 194318 3 [2000] 1AC 311 4 [1892] 2QB 440 1 AC 282 at 2 194318 3 [2000] 1AC 311 4 [1892] 2QB 440 1 AC 282 at 2 194318 3 [2000] 1AC 311 4 [1892] 2QB 440 1 AC 282 at 2 194318 3 [2000] 1AC 311 4 [1892] 2QB 440 1 AC 282 at 2 194318 3 [2000] 1AC 311 4 [1892] 2QB 440 1 AC 282 at 2 194318 3 [2000] 1AC 311 4 [1892] 2QB 440 1 AC 282 at 2 194318 3 [2000] 1AC 311 4 [1892] 2QB 440 1 AC 282 at 2 194318 3 [2000] 1AC 311 4 [1892] 2QB 440 1 AC 282 at 2 194318 3 [2000] 1AC 311 4 [1892] 2QB 440 1 AC 282 at 2 194318 3 [2000] 1AC 311 4 [1892] 2QB 440 1 AC 282 at 2 194318 3 [2000] 1AC 311 4 [1892] 2QB 440 1 AC 282 at 2 194318 3 [2000] 1AC 311 4 [1892] 2QB 440 1 AC 282 at 2 194318 3 [2000] 1AC 311 4 [1892] 2QB 440 1 AC 282 at 2 194318 3 [2000] 1AC 311 4 [1892] 2QB 440 1 AC 282 at 2 194318 3 [2000] 1AC 311 4 [1892] 2QB 440 1 AC 282 at 2 194318 3 [2000] 1AC 311 4 [1892] 2QB 440 1 AC 282 at 2 194318 3 [2000] 1AC 311 4 [1892] 2QB 440 1 AC 282 at 2 194318 3 [2000] 1AC 311 4 [1892] 2QB 440 1 AC 282 at 2 194318 3 [2000] 1AC 311 4 [1892] 2QB 440 1 AC 282 at 2 194318 3 [2000] 1AC 311 4 [1892] 2QB 440 1 AC 282 at 2 194318 3 [2000] 1AC 311 4 [1892] 2QB 440 1 AC 282 at 2 194318 3 [2000] 1AC 311 4 [1892] 2QB 440 1 AC 282 at 2 194318 3 [2000] 1AC 311 4 [1892] 2QB 440 1 AC 282 at 2 194318 3 [2000] 1AC 311 4 [1892] 2QB 440 1 AC 282 at 2 194318 3 [2000] 1AC 311 4 [1892] 2QB 440 1 AC 282 at 2 194318 3 [2000] 1AC 311 4 [1892] 2QB 440 1 AC 282 at 2 194318 3 [2000] 1AC 311 4 [1892] 2QB 440 1 AC 282 at 2 194318 3 [2000] 1AC 311 4 [1892] 2QB 440 1 AC 282 at 2 194318 3 [2000] 1AC 311 4 [1892] 2QB 440 1 AC 282 at 2 194318 3 [2000] 1AC 311 4 [1892] 2QB 440 1 AC 282 at 2 194318 3 [2000] 1AC 311 4 [1892] 2QB 440 1 AC 282 at 2 194318 3 [2000] 1AC 311 4 [1892] 2QB 440 1 AC 282 at 2 194318 3 [2000] 1AC 311 4 [1892] 2QB 440 1 AC 282 at 2 194318 3 [2000] 1AC 311 4 [1892] 2QB 440 1 AC 282 at 2 194318 3 [2000] 1AC 311 4 [1892] 2QB 440 1 AC 282 at 2 194318 3 [2000] 1AC 311 4 [1892] 2QB 440 1 AC 282 at 2 194318 3 [2000] 1AC 311 4 [1892] 2QB 440 1 AC 282 at 2 194318 3 [2000] 1AC 311 4 [1892] 2QB 440 1 AC 282 at 2 194318 3 [2000] 1AC 311 4 [1892] 2QB 440 1 AC 282 at 2 194318 3 [2000] 1AC 311 4 [1892] 2QB 440 1 AC 282 at 2 194318 3 [2000] 1AC 311 4 [1892] 2QB 440 1 AC 282 at 2 194318 3 [2000] 1AC 311 4 [1892] 2QB 440 1 AC 282 at 2 194318 3 [2000] 1AC 311 4 [1892] 2QB 440 1 AC 282 at 2 194318 3 [2000] 1AC 311 4 [1892] 2QB 440 1 AC 282 at 2 194318 3 [2000] 1AC 311 4 [1892] 2QB 440 1 AC 282 at 2 194318 3 [2000] 1AC 311 4 [1892] 2QB 440 1 AC 282 at 2 194318 3 [2000] 1AC 311 4 [1892] 2QB 440 1 AC 282 at 2 194318 3 [2000] 1AC 311 4 [1892] 2QB 440 1 AC 282 at 2 194318 3 [2000] 1AC 311 4 [1892] 2QB 440 1 AC 282 at 2 194318 3 [2000] 1AC 311 4 [1892] 2QB 440 1 AC 282 at 2 194318 3 [2000] 1AC 311 4 [1892] 2QB 440 1 AC 282 at 2 194318 3 [2000] 1AC 311 4 [1892] 2QB 440 1 AC 282 at 2 194318 3 [2000] 1AC 311 4 [1892] 2QB 440 1 AC 282 at 2 194318 3 [2000] 1AC 311 4 [1892] 2QB 440 1 AC 282 at 2 194318 3 [2000] 1AC 311 4 [1892] 2QB 440 1 AC 282 at 2 194318 3 [2000] 1AC 311 4 [1892] 2QB 440 1 AC 282 at 2 194318 3 [2000] 1AC 311 4 [1892] 2QB 440 1 AC 282 at 2 194318 3 [2000] 1AC 311 4 [1892] 2QB 440 1 AC 282 at 2 194318 3 [2000] 1AC 311 4 [1892] 2QB 440 1 AC 282 at 2 194318 3 [2000] 1AC 311 4 [1892] 2QB 440 1 AC 282 at 2 194318 3 [2000] 1AC 311 4 [1892] 2QB 440 1 AC 282 at 2 194318 3 [2000] 1AC 311 4 [1892] 2QB 440 1 AC 282 at 2 194318 3 [2000] 1AC 311 4 [1892] 2QB 440 1 AC 282 at 2 194318 3 [2000] 1AC 311 4 [1892] 2QB 440 1 AC 282 at 2 194318 3 [2000] 1AC 311 4 [1892] 2QB 440 1 AC 282 at 2 194318 3 [2000] 1AC 311 4 [1892] 2QB 440 1 AC 282 at 2 194318 3 [2000] 1AC 311 4 [1892] 2QB 440 1 AC 282 at 2 194318 3 [2000] 1AC 311 4 [1892] 2QB 440 1 AC 282 at 2 194318 3 [2000] 1AC 311 4 [1892] 2QB 440 1 AC 282 at 2 194318 3 [2000] 1AC 311 4 [1892] 2QB 440 1 AC 282 at 2 194318 3 [2000] 1AC 311 4 [1892] 2QB 440 1 AC 282 at 2 194318 3 [2000] 1AC 311 4 [1892] 2QB 440 1 AC 282 at 2 194318 3 [2000] 1AC 311 4 [1892] 2QB 440 1 AC 282 at 2 194318 3 [2000] 1AC 311 4 [1892] 2QB 440 1 AC 282 at 2 194318 3 [2000] 1AC 311 4 [1892] 2QB 440 1 AC 282 at 2 194318 3 [2000] 1AC 311 4 [1892] 2QB 440 1 AC 282 at 2 194318 3 [2000] 1AC 311 4 [1892] 2QB 440 1 AC 282 at 2 194318 3 [2000] 1AC 311 4 [1892] 2QB 440 1 AC 282 at 2 194318 3 [2000] 1AC 311 4 [1892] 2QB 440 1 AC 282 at 2 194318 3 [2000] 1AC 311 4 [1892] 2QB 440 1 AC 282 at 2 194318 3 [2000] 1AC 311 4 [1892] 2QB 440 1 AC 282 at 2 194318 3 [2000] 1AC 311 4 [1892] 2QB 440 1 AC 282 at 2 194318 3 [2000] 1AC 311 4 [1892] 2QB 440 1 AC 282 at 2 194318 3 [2000] 1AC 311 4 [1892] 2QB 440 1 AC 282 at 2 194318 3 [2000] 1AC 311 4 [1892] 2QB 440 1 AC 282 at 2 194318 3 [2000] 1AC 311 4 [1892] 2QB 440 1 AC 282 at 2 194318 3 [2000] 1AC 311 4 [1892] 2QB 440 1 AC 282 at 2 194318 3 [2000] 1AC 311 4 [1892] 2QB 440 1 AC 282 at 2 194318 3 [2000] 1AC 311 4 [1892] 2QB 440 1 AC 282 at 2 194318 3 [2000] 1AC 311 4 [1892] 2QB 440 1 AC 282 at 2 194318 3 [2000] 1AC 311 4 [1892] 2QB 440 1 AC 282 at 2 194318 3 [2000] 1AC 311 4 [1892] 2QB 440 1 AC 282 at 2 194318 3 [2000] 1AC 311 4 [1892] 2QB 440 1 AC 282 at 2 194318 3 [2000] 1AC 311 4 [1892] 2QB 440 1 AC 282 at 2 194318 3 [2000] 1AC 311 4 [1892] 2QB 440 1 AC 282 at 2 194318 3 [2000] 1AC 311 4 [1892] 2QB 440 1 AC 282 at 2 194318 3 [2000] 1AC 311 4 [1892] 2QB 440 1 AC 282 at 2 194318 3 [2000] 1AC 311 4 [1892] 2QB 440 1 AC 282 at 2 194318 3 [2000] 1AC 311 4 [1892] 2QB 440 1 AC 282 at 2 194318 3 [2000] 1AC 311 4 [1892] 2QB 440 1 AC 282 at 2 194318 3 [2000] 1AC 311 4 [1892] 2QB 440 1 AC 282 at 2 194318 3 [2000] 1AC 311 4 [1892] 2QB 440 1 AC 282 at 2 194318 3 [2000] 1AC 311 4 [1892] 2QB 440 1 AC 282 at 2 194318 3 [2000] 1AC 311 4 [1892] 2QB 440 1 AC 282 at 2 194318 3 [2000] 1AC 311 4 [1892] 2QB 440 1 AC 282 at 2 194318 3 [2000] 1AC 311 4 [1892] 2QB 440 1 AC 282 at 2 194318 3 [2000] 1AC 311 4 [1892] 2QB 440 1 AC 282 at 2 194318 3 [2000] 1AC 311 4 [1892] 2QB 440 1 AC 282 at 2 194318 3 [2000] 1AC 311 4 [1892] 2QB 440 1 AC 2
```html 1 (a) Rule 1.01.3 obliges an attorney to refrain from conducting himself in a manner 2 which is unbecoming to the profession or otherwise may be deemed 3 unprofessional. 4 (b) Rule 1.01.4 obliges an attorney not to conduct himself inconsistently with the 5 interests of his client. 6 (c) Rule 3.03 requires an attorney to keep accounts which clearly distinguish the 7 financial position between himself and his client. He must ensure that he is at all 8 times able to account, without delay, to clients for all money held or paid by him 9 on behalf of the client. Furthermore he is obliged to preserve, for at least 6 years 10 from the date of the last entry therein, all accounts, books, ledgers and records 11 maintained in relation to the client’s affairs. 12 18. The Code incorporates the IBA5 Principles on Conduct for the Legal Profession 13 namely ‘honesty, integrity and fairness’ 14 19. In Bolton v The Law Society6 the Master of the Rolls said: 15 “Any solicitor who is shown to have discharged his professional duties with 16 anything less than complete integrity, probity and trustworthiness must expect 17 severe sanctions to be imposed upon him by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal”. 18 19 20. Mr. A accepts that if the AG’s allegations are proved, the Court would be entitled to 20 conclude that he acted unprofessionally. 5 International Bar Association 6 [1994] 1 WLR 512 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: 8th March 2021 Page 7 of 34 ```
BURDEN AND STANDARD OF PROOF

¶ [21] There is no question that the burden of proving the allegation rests upon the AG who lays the charges. But what is the standard of proof?

¶ [22] There are, as I have observed, no precedents in this field. I have considered the UK BSB Consultation Paper of May 2017 which canvassed views on amending the regulatory arrangements to allow the civil standard of proof to be applied. This would be in line with many other professional regulators.

¶ [23] The standard used in disciplinary proceedings for professional misconduct brought against attorneys has long been the criminal standard. Following the Shipman Inquiry in 2009 in the UK all the medical professions have moved to the civil standard. That standard has also been adopted by non-medical regulators such as the Financial Conduct Authority. But the observations of Lord Lane LCJ in *Campbell v Howlett* 7 , an appeal by a Trinidadian lawyer, are particularly to the point where he said: > "That the criminal standard of proof is the correct standard to be applied in all disciplinary proceedings concerning the legal profession, their Lordships entertain no doubt."

¶ [24] I have heard representations from both sides in this case and it is agreed that it is the criminal burden and standard which should apply in disciplinary hearings in the Cayman Islands and, consequently, that is the burden and standard I shall apply in this case. 7 [2005] UKPC 19 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: 8 th March 2021 Page 8 of 34
```markdown # THE ORIGINAL ACTION

¶ [25] On 24th August 2001 Mr. Keith Wilson and Mrs Karlene Wilson were holidaying in the Cayman Islands when both were injured by a car which struck them as it overtook a line of cars. Mr. Wilson was a 41 year old computer hardware specialist. He sustained life changing brain injuries and thereafter could only work in a menial capacity. His wife suffered injury to her shoulder. Liability was never seriously in dispute. Mr. Wilson’s brother, Police Chief Gene Wilson, assumed the conduct of the case for his injured brother and on 13th January 2002 signed a Retainer with the law firm Woodward Terry & Co, retaining Mr. A to conduct the case on their behalf.

¶ [26] In an undated document Mr. A submitted a Schedule of Loss claiming damages for Mr. Wilson of $3,049,379.80 including $45,000 for Mrs Wilson’s injuries.

¶ [27] The Chief Justice gave Judgment on 14th June 2011 for damages in the sum of $1,551,224 for Keith and $37,500 for his wife, together with an order that the Defendants pay the Plaintiffs’ costs to be taxed if not agreed. Delay in payment of the full sum took so long that complaint was made by the Wilsons as well as by an American lawyer and doctor retained by the Wilsons who had not been paid their fees. The Chief Justice was made twice who wrote a letter to Mr. A seeking to get to his concerns at complaint the Chief Justice six times in an attempt to get a response. ``` This document appears to be a legal document detailing the original action involving Mr. Keith Wilson and Mrs Karlene Wilson, who were injured in a car accident in the Cayman Islands in 2001. The document outlines the legal proceedings, including the submission of a Schedule of Loss, the judgment given by the Chief Justice, and the subsequent complaints about delayed payment of the judgment.
THE ALLEGATIONS AGAINST MR A

¶ [28] The AG put the case of 'conduct unbecoming' under 6 distinct Heads: i. Failure to pursue an expeditious resolution of the Plaintiffs' case ii. Failure to respond satisfactorily to the Plaintiffs' requests for information iii. Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3 rd Parties working on their behalf iv. Failure properly to account to the Plaintiffs for all monies awarded to them v. Failure adequately to safeguard his records and information relating to the case vi. Repeated failure to respond to requests by the Chief Justice relating to the conduct of the case

¶ [29] When it became clear that the Wilsons were not prepared after this passage of time to play any further part in the proceedings the Court of its own motion decided that it would be unfair to proceed against Mr. A on Head 2 where the witnesses would not be available for questioning. Their account could not fairly be tested in their absence. The dismissal of this head has no bearing on the other allegations. 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: 8 th March 2021 Page 10 of 34
THE CHRONOLOGY

¶ [30] The Chronology of events is as follows: i. **24th August 2001**: The Plaintiffs' accident; ii. **13th January 2002**: Mr. A was retained as the Attorney by signed agreement. Thereafter a claim for $3m was filed against the Defendants. iii. **20th October 2004**: The Plaintiffs were granted Judgment with damages to be assessed: Over a period of time $707K from the Defendants was advanced by way of interim payments to the Plaintiffs. iv. **In 2004**: US Attorney Jakes was appointed to assist on explaining legal and tax implications to the Plaintiffs. v. **By November 2006**: A total of 15 medical reports on the Plaintiff had been obtained and made available to the Defendants. Dr Godsall, Neuropsychologist, completed his 1st report indicating that no further improvement in the Plaintiff's condition was likely and that *“maximal recovery had been reached.”* He notes that he had not had sight of college records. vi. **11th December 2006**: Medical Record Disclosure Authorisations were sent to the Defendants. Mr. A wrote “My client has reached a stage where his condition has stabilised.” vii. **20th April 2007**: The Plaintiffs threatened to withdraw the claim not resolved by 1/7/07. --- *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: 8th March 2021* Page 11 of 34
```html 1 viii. 2007: Application was made to set the case down for hearing. 2 ix. 19th March 2008: Mr. A went into practice on his own account. He took 3 the case with him from the original firm Woodward Terry & Co. 4 x. 25th July 2008: Mr. A produces to WT & Co with a detailed Fee Note with 5 incorrect hourly rates - at least $5,000 discrepancy. Thereafter in 6 accordance with that detailed fee note, the firm paid to Mr. A the $60K it 7 had received on behalf of the Plaintiffs. 8 xii. 21st March 2008: Dr Godsall produces his 2nd Report: "maximal 9 improvement" again recorded. 10 xiii. September 2008: Jakes produces the Plaintiffs college records. 11 xiv. 28th September 2009: Dr Godsall produces his 3rd report. 12 xv. 26th May 2011: The case came before the Chief Justice for assessment of 13 damages. 14 xvi. 14th June 2011: Judgment was delivered and $1,588K awarded to the 15 Plaintiffs. 16 xvii. 1st September 2011: The Plaintiffs ask for release of all funds. 17 xviii. 5th October 2011: Mr A indicated to the Plaintiffs that $822k was being 18 transferred to their bank account. No response was received. The Plaintiffs queried 19 the amount of $59K. That amount was received. 20 xix. 28th October 2011: The Order relating to the award was sealed. 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: 8th March 2021 Page 12 of 34 ```
```html 1 xix. 22nd November 2011: The Plaintiffs requested a Final Account of damages 2 Mr. A had received on their behalf. 3 xx. 28th November 2011: Mr. A responded that he was “doing the figures as 4 we speak as I want to get that matter concluded.” 5 xxi. 12th Jan 2012: Mr. A wrote to the Plaintiffs “the fees for our experts and 6 the advice in the States are being paid by the Defendant and so I will press 7 them for payment”. 8 xxii. 17th Feb 2012: Mr. A emailed the Plaintiffs to say he had transferred $30k 9 to their account. Mrs W immediately responded with the new account 10 number to which the funds should be transferred. Mr. A states “Invoicing 11 at my end is taking a little longer due simply to volume of work.” 12 xxiii. 19th June 2012: Mr. Jakes the US Attorney and Dr Godsall sent a letter to 13 the Chief Justice complaining they had not been paid. 14 xxiv. 11th July 2012: The Chief Justice required a response from Mr. A within 15 14 days. No response came. 16 xxv. 29th August 2012: The Plaintiffs again inquired of Mr A about the $30k 17 and again gave the account number. 18 xxvi. 1st Nov 2012 & 24th May 2013: Requests were repeated and account 20 number given a 19 nber given a 21 nungain 20 xxvii. 30th 4: The ma 20 Pla 20 urt seeks 20 4 20 4: The main 20 plaintiffs seek help in 20 recovering outstanding funds. 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: 8th March 2021 Page 13 of 34 ```
```html 1 xxviii. 5th May 2014: The Chief Justice demanded an immediate response [letter of Tabitha Philander]: no response. 3 xxix. 12th June 2014: Mr. A was given a deadline to respond by 17th June, failing 4 which the Chief Justice would be ‘obliged to consider this a disciplinary 5 matter’. No response; 6 xxx. 26th September 2014: A follow up email was sent; 7 xxxi. 28th October 2014: Mr. A emailed the Plaintiffs stating his hard drive had 8 crashed “I had to reconstitute my hard drive as it crashed and I lost a lot 9 of information. I am now completing the invoices. Kindly send me a list of 10 any expenses and any receipts”. 11 xxxii. 19th Nov 2014: The Court wrote to Mr. A seeking a response to complaints 12 that he had failed to account to the Plaintiffs and pay over all outstanding 13 monies. No response: 14 xxxiii. 14th July 2015; Chief Justice wrote to Mr. A giving 7 days to respond as to 15 why disciplinary proceedings should not be instituted against him. 16 xxxiv. 22nd July 2015: He said he was “too busy to respond.” 17 xxxv. 5th August 2015: To the Chief Justice “I have now almost completed the 18 Invoice. I should be finished by next week”. 19 xxxvi. 9th Oct 2015: The Chief Justice wrote noting no response. 20 xxxvii. 22nd October 2015: The Chief Justice wrote noting no response. 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: 8th March 2021 Page 14 of 34 ```
```html 1 xxxviii. 23rd October 2015: Mr. A said he would reply ‘shortly’. 2 xxxix. 2nd November 2015: Mr. A wrote back stating “I am now reconciling all of the accounts”. He said he was completing a provisional fee note by next week. He said further “At no time were any funds that I sent to Keith ever sent back to me”. He refers to his computer crashing and states: “I have now reviewed the files and the fee note is now being completed as I lost all of the information.” 3 4 5 6 7 8 xl. 20th Nov 2015: Mr. A wrote to Plaintiffs seeking any information held by them on outstanding fees and or expenses including medical expenses. “I wish to complete the invoice in this case.” 9 10 11 xli. 23rd November 2015: Plaintiffs responded and still queried the missing $30k. 12 13 xlii. 24th Nov 2015: Mr. A wrote that he would apply to recover the sums paid to the US Attorney and doctor. ‘From memory’ he had paid for flights and accommodation and transport and asked if the Plaintiffs had met any of the travel costs and said he was ‘not aware’ that the $30k had never arrived and would check with the bank. 14 15 16 17 18 xliii. 24th November 2015: Mr. A checked with the bank and sent the $30k to the correct account. There were repeated requests for a final Account to show distributed. 19 20 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: 8th March 2021 ```
```html xliv. 25th November 2015: The Plaintiffs sent details of expenses to Mr. A. No response. xlv. 30th March 2017: Disciplinary Hearing notice served on Mr. A & various Directions Hearings. xlvii. 6th April 2017: First Directions Hearing. xlvi. 22nd February 2021: The Hearing commenced. To date no Final Account has been produced nor Fee Note served. THE FIVE HEADS OF COMPLAINT Failure to pursue an expeditious resolution of the Plaintiffs’ case Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3rd Parties Failure to pay the entirety of the awarded monies to the Plaintiffs and 3
```html 1 (b) On 4th November 2011 the outstanding balance of $881，588.14 was paid to Mr. A, 2 who thereafter made a series of payments to the Plaintiffs which in all totalled 3 $1，270，131.53，thus leaving $318，592.47 outstanding. Mr. A claimed he had paid 4 out sums totalling $250，118.42 to medical expenses，to B Davenport PC and for 5 disbursements. 6 (c) That left $68，474.91 outstanding as at 30th March 2017. The figures differ slightly 7 depending on CI or US dollar rates. 8 33. Failure properly to account to the Plaintiffs for all monies awarded 9 (a) By email of 22nd November 2011 the Plaintiffs requested a Final Account of the 10 damages and costs awarded to them. Mr. A provided an Invoice to 25/7/2008 11 which set out incorrect hourly rates and produced an incorrect total. Mr. A 12 responded in 2012 and 2014 but to date has never provided a complete breakdown 13 of the monies paid to him to cover their medical expenses. 14 (b) The Plaintiffs have received no clear information as to what sums were received by 15 way of damages as distinct from costs. No breakdown of the medical bills has been 16 provided nor any indication as to whether payment for such is to come from 17 damages or from costs. Despite repeated requests the Plaintiffs have still not 18 received an Invoice accounting for Mr. A's fees and his disbursements or a Final 19 Account of all monies received by him. 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：8th March 2021 Page 17 of 34 ```
```html 1 34. Failure adequately to safeguard his records and information relating to the case 2 (a) Mr. A was required to maintain and preserve records relating to the Plaintiffs’ 3 Action so that costs incurred and time sheets justifying fees could be identified. 4 (b) To justify delays in responding to requests he said records had been ‘lost’ - not 5 rendered temporarily unavailable. Thus indicating that he failed to keep secure 6 records. 7 35. Repeated failure to respond to requests by the Chief Justice relating to the conduct 8 of the case 9 (a) He has failed， satisfactorily or promptly， to respond to repeated requests from the 10 Head of the Judiciary. 11 MR A’s RESPONSE 12 36. Below are summary points composing Mr. A’s response： 13 i. He has provided a 23-page document ‘Response to Charge’. 14 ii. Personal injury cases can typically take several years to resolve. The 15 Plaintiff prolonged that period by providing misleading information about 16 himself. 17 iii. American Counsel was additionally instructed in order to obtain records in 18 S who would Wilson award . ns on tax if the Ud also ad l of damagesiso e the win 19 the original Defendants delayed payment of damages. 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： 8th March 2021 Page 18 of 34 ```
```html 1 v. The Wilsons did not make repeated requests about the slow progress of the 2 case. 3 vi. On 20/10/05 Dr Godsall completed his first Neuropsychological Report. 4 vii. In January 2006 Mr. A secured an advance of CI$210,000 from the 5 Defendants for the Wilsons. 6 viii. In December 2006 medical records of the Wilsons were released to the 7 Defendants. 8 ix. In 2007 the Wilsons were threatening to terminate Mr. A’s retainer as 9 progress was too slow. 10 x. Mr. A listed the trial for April 2008. In January the Defendants promised 11 to provide funds. At that time Mr. A explained that his fees would increase 12 to $450 per hour to reflect his handling of the case. 13 xi. In an effort to settle matters the trial date was moved back to a date after 14 September 2008. The Defendants were not ready to proceed at this time. 15 There was a Directions Hearing to that effect before Foster J. on 7/4/08. 16 xii. In May 2008 it became clear that Mr. Wilson had misled parties about his 17 qualifications and on 22/5/08 Mr. A provided the correct information to Dr 18 Godsall. Mr. A reviewed his position as to whether he should withdraw 19 the case or set up a new case. He did not do so. Then in March 2008 and taken 20 he left Way & Co. 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: 8th March 2021 Page 19 of 34 ```
```markdown # Transcript of the Document

¶ [1] Dr. Godsall's Report of 21/3/08 indicated that Mr. Wilson had reached maximum medical recovery. His final Report was concluded on 28/9/09.

¶ [2] The Defendants' Experts Report of Dr. McCasland was dated 13/3/08.

¶ [3] On 30/10/09, consent to release Mr. Wilson's medical records was given to the Defendants.

¶ [4] In December 2009, there was a threat by the Wilsons to sack Mr. A if progress was not made in the conduct of the case. They did not carry out the threat.

¶ [5] On 2/2/10, Mr. A filed a Notice to Fix Trial Date.

¶ [6] In April 2010, the respective Plaintiff and Defence experts met. A Vocational Expert's Report was eventually obtained dated 4/5/11.

¶ [7] In 2011, there was concern over the stability of the marriage of the Wilsons. Mr. A met with the Wilsons. The trial came on in May 2011.

¶ [8] The trial was listed to be heard in February 2011 but was adjourned because of late disclosure by Mr. A of the Report of Emily Cade.

¶ [9] Judgment was signed on 4/10/11. Damages of $822,239.29 were sent to the Wilsons. They refused to pay the fees of Jakes and Godsall as they had agreed. That caused the unjustified letter of complaint to go to the Chief Justice.

¶ [10] In 2011, it was agreed that some of the legal fees would be retained to cover Mr. A's damage. ``` This is a faithful transcription of the provided text, using Markdown for headings and paragraph structure, HTML for tables, and LaTeX for math, as requested.
```markdown damages awarded he paid those amounts to the Wilsons. Funds were not received until October 2011. xxi. On 5/10/11 Mr. A sent funds received from the Defendants of $881,581.20 and wired $822,139.39 to the Wilsons indicating that $49,740.04 had been retained for remaining medical expenses. xxii. On 17/2/12 $30,000 was sent to the Wilsons’ last known account. The account had been changed and the $30,000 eventually reached the Wilsons in November 2015 when Mr. A was notified by his bank that the $30,000 had been returned to his account some time before as the recipient account was closed. xxiii. Apart from a portion of his legal fees Mr. A has withheld no part of the damages awarded.

¶ [37] It is to be noted that there was no reference to the existence of any Fee Note or production of a Final Account. THE HEARING: 22nd + 24th to 26th February 2021

¶ [38] The Hearing was conducted by Zoom with Judge in the UK and Parties in Cayman. Thanks to the efforts of Miss Suzanne Livingston it ran remarkably smoothly. Mr. A elected to represent himself. He was afforded every assistance in presenting his case. In 23-page the charge he gave evidence and made submissions over some 3 days. ``` ```latex \begin{table}[h] \centering \begin{tabular}{|c|c|} \hline \textbf{Date} & \textbf{Action} \\ \hline 5/10/11 & Sent funds received from the Defendants of $881,581.20 and wired $822,139.39 to the Wilsons indicating that $49,740.04 had been retained for remaining medical expenses. \\ \hline 17/2/12 & Sent $30,000 to the Wilsons’ last known account. The account had been changed and the $30,000 eventually reached the Wilsons in November 2015 when Mr. A was notified by his bank that the $30,000 had been returned to his account some time before as the recipient account was closed. \\ \hline \end{tabular} \caption{Funding Transactions} \end{table} ``` ```latex \begin{table}[h] \centering \begin{tabular}{|c|c|} \hline \textbf{Date} & \textbf{Action} \\ \hline 22nd + 24th to 26th February 2021 & The Hearing was conducted by Zoom with Judge in the UK and Parties in Cayman. Thanks to the efforts of Miss Suzanne Livingston it ran remarkably smoothly. Mr. A elected to represent himself. He was afforded every assistance in presenting his case. In 23-page the charge he gave evidence and made submissions over some 3 days. \\ \hline \end{tabular} \caption{Hearing Details} \end{table} ``` ```latex \begin{table}[h] \centering \begin{tabular}{|c|c|} \hline \textbf{Date} & \textbf{Action} \\ \hline 8th March 2021 & 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.) \\ \hline \end{tabular} \caption{Legal Matter Details} \end{table} ``` ```latex \begin{table}[h] \centering \begin{tabular}{|c|c|} \hline \textbf{Page} & \textbf{Number} \\ \hline 21 & 34 \\ \hline \end{tabular} \caption{Page Number} \end{table} ```
```html 1 39. The Court did not sit on one day because he said he was feeling unwell. On the other 2 days the Court sat late when required to do so. Although he had been given a strict 3 timetable at the Directions Hearings in 2017, 2018 and as recently as December 2020 4 the Court allowed him to produce new documents at the Hearing. 5 MR A’s EVIDENCE 6 40. He is now 58 and of good character. He is a highly regarded and very experienced 7 attorney having conducted many large cases. 8 41. He obtained a degree at the prestigious King’s College in London and has practised as 9 an attorney in Cayman for over 25 years. 10 42. He cited another Cayman case that had taken 10 years to get to Court and which was 11 not resolved even then - Bodden v Thompson in 2011. 12 43. He submitted that 10 years to get to trial is not exceptional in itself. 13 44. The error of not sending $30k to the Plaintiffs’ correct account led to misunderstanding 14 and to an unjustified Complaint against him. 15 45. The Plaintiffs, US Attorney Jakes, Dr Godsall and the Chief Justice have each 16 misunderstood his actions. 17 46. On 12/7/07 I applied to fix a trial date. 7. I had first report on 20th Oct 18 4 obtained the of Dr Godsall not been p 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: 8th March 2021 Page 22 of 34 ```
The trial did not take place in 2007. I listed the case for trial in March 2008. The Defendants were not ready. That turned into a Directions Hearing. The Judge directed exchange of medical reports by April 2008. A final report on Mrs Wilson was not obtained from Dr Jove until 20th March 2008. By the time of his second report of 22/5/08 Dr Godsall was still concerned about missing college records. Jakes had been instructed as a US Attorney to deal with legal matters in the States which included securing the Plaintiff's college records. After 3 ½ years he uncovered where the Plaintiff had attended college and the records showed that the Plaintiff had misrepresented his academic achievements. I have no idea why it took so long. The 2nd report came from Dr Godsall on 25//5/08. He said that the Plaintiff was unreliable and dishonest. He was trying to show greater mental deterioration than was justified. We decided he should produce a 3rd report not relying on the college records. That 3rd report came on 28//9/09. In 2009 Dr Bilsky, a neuropsychologist, examined the Plaintiff. By 2010 a Joint Medical Report had been agreed. On 2/2/10 I filed to fix the Trial. The trial took place in May 2011. 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: 8th March 2021 Page 23 of 34
```html 1 56. Mr. A produced a detailed Fee Note for work carried out up to his departure from 2 Woodward Terry & Co in 2008. That enabled him to secure transfer of the interim 3 damages held by his old firm. He acknowledged that in that document the hourly rates 4 were wrongly charged and the total shown was incorrect. But the Plaintiffs he said 5 were given a corrected document. 6 57. He produced for the first time a document dated 9th February 2015 which he advanced 7 as a Final Account. He acknowledged that it shows nothing paid out or hours billed in 8 2010， it ends on 17th February 2012 and it shows the payment of $30K on 17/2/12 9 when it was in fact paid on 24/11/14. 10 58. Mr. A said： 11 12 13 “I accept that I have never produced a final Invoice. That was because the 14 59. Plaintiffs never provided information as to their expenses and Jakes failed to 15 produce an itemised bill.” 16 17 18 Of three (3) computers in his office the one with QuickBooks software crashed. When 19 60. he told the Plaintiffs and later the Chief Justice that he had “lost all the information” 20 on the computers he meant that he had lost the fee note but still retained data to enable 21 a reconstruction of the original documents. His computers he said were appropriately 22 backed up. 23 The relationship with the Plaintiffs family was such that formal written documents 24 were had orally 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
```html 1 longer involved with the case. ‘I told the Plaintiffs to find alternative Counsel which 2 they failed to do. I do not know why.’ 3 61. Mr. A said: ‘Any monies not accounted for to the Plaintiffs will represent fees which I 4 am entitled to. I accept that I cannot get my fees until the Plaintiffs authorise them.’ 5 62. He has not been paid for his work which has run up a bill of $130,000 nor have his fees 6 been taxed or agreed as would be necessary for the Defendants to meet them. 7 63. Jakes and Godsall always knew how they were to be paid. They were wrong to 8 complain to the Chief Justice about non-payment. 9 FINDINGS 10 64. I accept that matters move more slowly in Cayman than in a large commercial centre 11 equipped with many Court centres available to hear causes. 12 65. I also accept that Attorneys in small practices do not have the luxury of junior partners 13 who can attend to matters in their absence. 14 66. I accept that dishonesty in his handling of the finances is not alleged. 15 67. I have listened to Mr. A’s evidence over three days and had the advantage of being 16 able to observe him over the Zoom link. He was tested in cross examination and I 17 taxed him with matters of concern to the Court and noted his responses. 18 Ovthat Mr. A any inconsistency in the 19 erall I find has magnified Mr. A’s case whilst looking to down ring incon 20 his 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: 8th March 2021 Page 25 of 34 ```
Failure to pursue an expeditious resolution of the case ## (a) The AG relies on the periods of time: ### i. from 2002 to final Judgment in 2011. ### ii. from 2011 to 2015 when the Chief Justice required a final explanation of his conduct. ### iii. from 2015 to 2021 when there has still been no submission of Final Account or Fee Note. ## (b) The Retainer of Mr. A was signed at the beginning of 2002. For the next three years Mr. A was involved in filing the claim and obtaining medical reports to substantiate that claim. I accept that time was needed for the preparation of medical reports and for the Plaintiff's condition to settle. On 1st February 2005 a Release of all Medical Records was prepared. By November 2006 fifteen medical reports had been prepared on Mr. Wilson and five on his wife. They were authorised for release to the Defendants. ## (c) By 2005 severe anxiety was being suffered by the Plaintiff in awaiting the outcome of the case. He had very limited resources. At the request of Mr. A he was to pay for the services of Jakes and Godsall out of his own pocket at this point. A letter from the US Attorney Jakes dated 22nd November 2005 was sent to Mr. A stating that the Plaintiff had expressed 'extreme concern about the safety of his son' and that the Plaintiff had received the medical report of Dr. Godsall dated 20 October 2005 which
```html 1 suggested that no further improvement in the condition of the Plaintiff was likely: 2 “Given the time period since his injury Mr Wilson’s current performance is likely 3 represent maximal improvement in his functioning and any further improvements 4 are likely to be subtle refinements”. 5 (d) I conclude that the time for the damages claim to be set down for trial was by 6 2007. The Defendants made an interim payment of CI$210,000 in January 2006. 7 Liability had been conceded. 8 (e) Mr. A stated that he was very concerned about the absence of college records from 9 20 years earlier showing the Plaintiff’s academic record. If Mr. A had been 10 pursuing this case expeditiously he could easily have ascertained the details of that 11 college from the Plaintiff’s wife or Police Chief Wilson, the brother. It would take 12 a phone call. Mr A claims it was justifiable to allow over 3 1/2 years for Attorney 13 Jakes to obtain them. I do not accept that explanation. Mr. A was running the 14 Plaintiffs’ case. It was his job to see matters moved expeditiously, particularly 15 where the Plaintiff was very anxious, where the claim was substantial and where 16 he had sufficient medical evidence. 17 (f) Mr. A was at this time in touch with Keith Wilson of Solarcom. He employed the 18 Plaintiff for several years before the accident. He could provide a statement as to 19 the Plaintiff’s intellectual functioning as a computer analyst immediately before 20 the accident. Mr. A advanced the claim for damages on the basis that after the 21 accident should only 22 matter in stark contrast. Whilst the college records could show that the Plaintiff 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: 8th March 2021 Page 27 of 34 ```
had misled or lied to Dr Godsall over his academic achievements 20 years earlier it was hardly determinative of the case. If the Defendants sought to delay the case until the records were produced that was for them to justify to the Court. (g) If Mr. A had real concerns that the Plaintiff was acting in bad faith he should have applied to the Court to come off the Record. Otherwise he could be accused of condoning the Plaintiff's stance. He should then have presented his fee note. He did neither. (h) Whatever his concerns about Dr Godsall not having seen the college records Mr. A did apply to set the case down for hearing. That was in 2007. Although all relevant medical records were available by the end of 2005 this Court accepts that a resolution of the case in 2007 might not be unprofessional. But the case was not heard in 2007. It was not heard for another 4 years. (i) Mr. A said in evidence that at a Directions Hearing in 2008 the Defendants admitted to having been 'tardy'. It was Mr. A's duty to denounce such tardiness not to compound it. He says he would have been open to criticism if he had not dotted every 'i'. He said he was waiting to see if the female plaintiff was electing to undergo surgery for her 2001 injury. It was not justifiable to allow a vulnerable Plaintiff in a $3m claim to languish for those reasons. (j) Dr Godsall produced a further report in March 2008 in which he repeated that the Peached 'maxent'. plaintiff had rimal improv emou **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: 8th March 2021** Page 28 of 34
```markdown (k) Mr. A did nothing to expedite the hearing. He allowed Dr Godsall to linger another 17 months over producing a third report in late 2009. If reports were not promptly forthcoming Mr. A should have gone elsewhere. He was paying the piper. (l) The Court concludes that the relevant period of time to consider in the Hearing is the period from 2007 when the case should have been set down to the present day. (m) Mrs Valerie Wilson in late 2011 wrote asking "where was all the money awarded." On 28th Nov 2011 Mr. A wrote that he was then "doing the figures." (n) According to his eventual response to the Chief Justice he was still "doing the figures" - 4 years later. (o) Mr. A failed to present an Account for costs to be taxed within 3 months of the Judgment. The Court has seen no document indicating that costs were ever agreed with the Defendants. (p) As late as 24th November 2015 Mr. A was asking his Bank whether a sum of $30,000 due to the Plaintiffs had been debited from his business account. The Court accepts that there was an initial error as to the account to which the funds should be directed. Nonetheless Mr. A should have checked whether the $30K had in fact left his account when the matter was repeatedly queried. (q) Delay in concluding the case has extended right up until today since Mr. A has still to Final Accoice. (r) the lack of f se has beof I find that the final resol ca almost 14 years - from 2007 to 2021. It is 14 years in the life of a man who had sustained life ``` ```html 1 (k) Mr. A did nothing to expedite the hearing. He allowed Dr Godsall to linger another 2 17 months over producing a third report in late 2009. If reports were not promptly 3 forthcoming Mr. A should have gone elsewhere. He was paying the piper. 4 (l) The Court concludes that the relevant period of time to consider in the Hearing is 5 the period from 2007 when the case should have been set down to the present day. 6 (m) Mrs Valerie Wilson in late 2011 wrote asking "where was all the money awarded." 7 On 28th Nov 2011 Mr. A wrote that he was then "doing the figures." 8 (n) According to his eventual response to the Chief Justice he was still "doing the 9 figures" - 4 years later. 10 (o) Mr. A failed to present an Account for costs to be taxed within 3 months of the 11 Judgment. The Court has seen no document indicating that costs were ever agreed 12 with the Defendants. 13 (p) As late as 24th November 2015 Mr. A was asking his Bank whether a sum of 14 $30,000 due to the Plaintiffs had been debited from his business account. The 15 Court accepts that there was an initial error as to the account to which the funds 16 should be directed. Nonetheless Mr. A should have checked whether the $30K had 17 in fact left his account when the matter was repeatedly queried. 18 (q) Delay in concluding the case has extended right up until today since Mr. A has still 19 to Final Accoice. 20 I find that the final resol ca almost 14 years - from 2007 to 2021. It is 14 years in the life of a man who had sustained life ``` ```latex \begin{table} \begin{tabular}{|c|c|} \hline 1 & (k) Mr. A did nothing to expedite the hearing. He allowed Dr Godsall to linger another \\ & 17 months over producing a third report in late 2009. If reports were not promptly \\ & forthcoming Mr. A should have gone elsewhere. He was paying the piper. \\ \hline 4 & (l) The Court concludes that the relevant period of time to consider in the Hearing is \\ & the period from 2007 when the case should have been set down to the present day. \\ \hline 6 & (m) Mrs Valerie Wilson in late 2011 wrote asking "where was all the money awarded." \\ & On 28th Nov 2011 Mr. A wrote that he was then "doing the figures." \\ \hline 8 & (n) According to his eventual response to the Chief Justice he was still "doing the" \\ & figures" - 4 years later. \\ \hline 10 & (o) Mr. A failed to present an Account for costs to be taxed within 3 months of the \\ & Judgment. The Court has seen no document indicating that costs were ever agreed \\ & with the Defendants. \\ \hline 13 & (p) As late as 24th November 2015 Mr. A was asking his Bank whether a sum of \\ & $30,000 due to the Plaintiffs had been debited from his business account. The \\ & Court accepts that there was an initial error as to the account to which the funds \\ & should be directed. Nonetheless Mr. A should have checked whether the $30K had \\ & in fact left his account when the matter was repeatedly queried. \\ \hline 18 & (q) Delay in concluding the case has extended right up until today since Mr. A has still \\ & to Final Accoice. \\ \hline 20 & I find that the final resol ca almost 14 years - from 2007 to 2021. It is 14 years in the life of a man who had sustained life \\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{table} ```
```html 1 changing injuries. It was a cruel delay. Responsibility for that delay, or at least a 2 major part of it, lies fairly and squarely at the door of Mr. A. Such conduct is not 3 excusable and falls far short of the standard required of him as an Attorney. 4 70. Failure to pay all outstanding monies to the plaintiffs 5 (a) The ‘Final Invoice’ dated 9th February 2012 produced at the Hearing by Mr. A 6 purports to show receipts of $1,588K. Payments out have been made, showing 7 $70,000 retained. It may be that such sum could go towards Mr. A’s fees. But it 8 has never been authorised by the Plaintiffs. Mr. A gave the Court no satisfactory 9 account as to this discrepancy and produced no adequate documentation to explain 10 it. Payment out of all monies received is an essential duty of an Attorney. 11 71. Failure properly to account for all outstanding monies 12 (a) Mr. A produced the 2008 Accounts by which he received the monies paid to his 13 erstwhile firm in respect of the Plaintiffs’ Claim. Those records upon close 14 scrutiny bear incorrect figures and totals. They are misleading. Mr. A says that the 15 document was shown to the Plaintiffs then withdrawn and a revised hourly rate 16 document served. What is missing is an updated number of billed hours and the 17 work carried out to justify them. He produced for the first time at this hearing a 18 a document purporting to be a final Account. It is dated 9th February 2015. The last 19 entry for billing purposes is 4th October 2011. He says he asked Attorney Jakes for 20 an itemised he has never not accept 21 the 21 submission that properly or a 22 72. Failure adequately to safeguard Records or Information 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: 8th March 2021 Page 30 of 34 ```
```html (a) It is essential that an attorney take adequate steps to preserve his records relating to the client, the timetable, Expert Reports, evidence, correspondence, billing hours and invoicing. Mr. A gave evidence that he knew that his 3 computers had been susceptible to viruses and on occasions had crashed. They needed to be backed up so that important records were never completely lost. He said he had put in place safeguards to ensure that if a computer crashed the raw data was always preserved elsewhere, from which the records could be reconstructed. On at least 2 occasions he explained that delay on his part had been incurred by his records having been ‘lost’. This Court is entitled to conclude that Mr. A would choose his words carefully when responding to important requests. (b) On 28th October 2014 he wrote to the Plaintiff who was becoming increasingly anxious about lack of progress to a resolution of the case indeed suicidal-“I had to reconstitute my hard drive as it crashed and I lost a lot of information. I am now completing the invoices.” (c) After that ‘loss’ Mr. A should have been on guard. But lightning struck twice according to him. On 2nd November 2015 he wrote to the Chief Justice that his computer had crashed and that “the fee note is now being completed as I lost all of the information.” (d) The Court accepts that Mr. A would not lie to his client, let alone the Chief Justice. He told them in the clearest terms that the records were ‘lost’ and therefore that he needed time to gather the information and to justify the late responses to the requests. He cites no exceptional circumstances to account for the loss of records, ``` ```latex \begin{table} \begin{tabular}{|p{120mm}|} \hline (a) It is essential that an attorney take adequate steps to preserve his records relating to the client, the timetable, Expert Reports, evidence, correspondence, billing hours and invoicing. Mr. A gave evidence that he knew that his 3 computers had been susceptible to viruses and on occasions had crashed. They needed to be backed up so that important records were never completely lost. He said he had put in place safeguards to ensure that if a computer crashed the raw data was always preserved elsewhere, from which the records could be reconstructed. On at least 2 occasions he explained that delay on his part had been incurred by his records having been ‘lost’. This Court is entitled to conclude that Mr. A would choose his words carefully when responding to important requests. \\ (b) On 28th October 2014 he wrote to the Plaintiff who was becoming increasingly anxious about lack of progress to a resolution of the case indeed suicidal-“I had to reconstitute my hard drive as it crashed and I lost a lot of information. I am now completing the invoices.” \\ (c) After that ‘loss’ Mr. A should have been on guard. But lightning struck twice according to him. On 2nd November 2015 he wrote to the Chief Justice that his computer had crashed and that “the fee note is now being completed as I lost all of the information.” \\ (d) The Court accepts that Mr. A would not lie to his client, let alone the Chief Justice. He told them in the clearest terms that the records were ‘lost’ and therefore that he needed time to gather the information and to justify the late responses to the requests. He cites no exceptional circumstances to account for the loss of records, \\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{table} ``` ```latex \begin{flushleft} 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: 8th March 2021 \\ Page 31 of 34 \end{flushleft} ```
```html 1 such as hurricane damage. The overwhelming inference therefore is that he failed 2 to take adequate steps to preserve his records. He thereby acted unprofessionally. 3 73. Failure to respond substantially to requests by the Chief Justice 4 (a) The Chief Justice wrote to Mr. A after he had received complaints that there was 5 still $70，488.47 owing to the Plaintiffs. He wrote: 6 i. 15th July 2011 7 ii. 11th July 2012 8 iii. 12th October 2012 9 iv. 19th November 2014 10 14th July 2015 - the Chief Justice points out the serious allegation that 4 11 years after Judgment $70，000 is said to be owing by Mr. A and he required 12 a response within 7 days. The Chief Justice wrote: "You have been written 13 to on my behalf about these complaints by the clerk of courts requiring 14 your responses but without response from you...A related claim by Sam 15 Jakes and Dr Godsall has apparently been disregarded in like manner by 16 your failure to respond to a letter from me dated 11th July 2012...I 17 consider that the circumstances prima facie warrant the institution of 18 disciplinary proceedings against you." 20 (b) On 22nd July 2015 Mr. A wrote that a further 14 e n 21 client wi 22 sent off, then any outstanding expense will be paid." That was never done. Thus 4 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: 8th March 2021 Page 32 of 34 ```
```html 1 years after Judgment and payment of the damages there was no Final Account or 2 Fee Note produced. 3 (c) 23rd July 2015 the Chief Justice allows extra time to respond until 5th August 2015 4 (d) If, as Mr. A contends, he did not owe the sum of $70,000 all the more reason to 5 respond immediately to put the record straight or at the very least to explain the 6 problems arose from the Plaintiffs’ end not his. 7 (e) Mr. A did what he had done in the past. He failed to confront his responsibilities as 8 an Attorney and hoped things would go away. After all, no dire consequences had 9 followed any of the letters from the Plaintiffs or the Chief Justice. However this 10 time the Writing was on the Wall: ‘mene mene tekel upharsin’. The threatened 11 disciplinary proceedings were commenced. 12 CONCLUSION 13 74. I find under each of the Heads advanced by the AG that Mr. A has acted 14 unprofessionally. Accordingly I find that he is in breach of the Code. 15 75. I find Mr. A failed to advance his clients’ case expeditiously. He failed promptly to pay 16 out all monies received. He failed to produce a Final Account. He failed to preserve 17 essential records. He failed to respond promptly to the Chief Justice. 18 76. I find no justification for his conduct. It has fallen woefully below the standards to be 19 expected of any Attorney 8 [Book of Daniel 5.25] 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: 8th March 2021 Page 33 of 34 ```
```html 77. I lift the ban on publication of the proceedings. The Press are now at liberty to publish 2 the details of the case and in due course the penalty imposed. 3 78. The next stage will be to consider the appropriate penalty and whether a costs order 4 should be considered. 5 79. The Court adjourns this matter for written submissions on penalty to be made by both 6 Parties no later than 12 noon Cayman time on 10th March 2021. 7 80. The Court will announce the penalty in writing at 12 noon Cayman time on 11th March 8 2021. 9 10 Dated this the 8th day of March 2021 11 12 13 14 The Honourable Mr. Justice Paul Worsley Acting Judge of the Grand Court ``` ```latex \begin{table} \begin{tabular}{|c|c|} \hline

¶ [77] & I lift the ban on publication of the proceedings. The Press are now at liberty to publish \\ 2 & the details of the case and in due course the penalty imposed. \\ 3 & 78. The next stage will be to consider the appropriate penalty and whether a costs order \\ 4 & should be considered. \\ 5 & 79. The Court adjourns this matter for written submissions on penalty to be made by both \\ 6 & Parties no later than 12 noon Cayman time on 10th March 2021. \\ 7 & 80. The Court will announce the penalty in writing at 12 noon Cayman time on 11th March \\ 8 & 2021. \\ 9 & \\ 10 & Dated this the 8th day of March 2021 \\ 11 & \\ 12 & \\ 13 & The Honourable Mr. Justice Paul Worsley \\ 14 & Acting Judge of the Grand Court \\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{table} ``` ```latex \begin{flushleft} 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: 8th March 2021 \end{flushleft} ``` ```latex \begin{flushright} Page 34 of 34 \end{flushright}