A (Attorney-At-Law)

• Jurisdiction: Cayman Islands
• Judge: Worsley, Ag. J.
• Judgment Date: 12 March 2021
• Court: Grand Court (Cayman Islands)

In the Matter of A (Attorney-at-Law)

(Worsley, Ag. J.)

GRAND CT.

Attorneys-at-Law — disciplinary proceedings — suspension or striking off — unprofessional conduct in respect of handling of legal action over several years — failure to advance clients' case expeditiously; failure promptly to pay out all moneys received; failure to produce final account; failure to preserve essential records; and failure to respond promptly to Chief Justice — no dishonesty or undue enrichment — 6 months suspension

Held, ordering as follows:

Any sanction imposed should be designed to protect the public, maintain high professional standards and promote confidence in the disciplinary process. The court would consider culpability, harm, and aggravating and mitigating factors. Mr. A was a well-established practitioner and hitherto of good character. The court's findings did not establish dishonesty and there was no suggestion of undue enrichment. The charge of unprofessional conduct had been proved under five different heads of evidence. The gravamen of the charge was that it was not an isolated lapse but lapses perpetuated over several years. The plaintiffs' claim should have been brought to trial by 2007 but it did not take place until 2011. All moneys received by Mr. A should have been promptly paid and accurately accounted for but they were not. From February 2012 there were repeated requests for payment of money owing to the plaintiffs which Mr. A had purported to transfer to their previous account. It was not resolved until November 2015. Mr. A failed to ensure that adequate steps were taken to preserve his case files. Without them, he could not track the conduct of the case and payment of all moneys received. A fee note and accurate final accounts should have been presented to the plaintiffs by 2012 but they were still incomplete in 2021. Mr. A should have responded promptly to the Chief Justice's concerns over his handling of the plaintiffs' case but he did not. The first plaintiff was vulnerable, having suffered cognitive damage. He was dependent on the integrity of his attorney and he was badly let down. There was still no final statement of account and no fee note. The sum of $70,000 appeared to be outstanding. Mr. A suggested that he was entitled to retain the sum as part of his fees but no fee note justifying that claim had been produced. The power to strike off an attorney should be reserved for the most serious cases of dishonesty or worse. This was not such a case. However Mr. A's unprofessional conduct could not be overlooked with a reprimand. The court would order that Mr. A be suspended from practising as an attorney-at-law in the Cayman Islands for six months (paras. 2–3; paras. 5–14; paras. 19–26).

Case cited:

(1) Bolton v. Law Socy., [1994] 1 W.L.R. 512; [1994] 2 All E.R. 486, followed.

Disciplinary proceedings were brought against an attorney-at-law.

The court found unprofessional conduct proved against Mr. A, an attorney-at-law, in respect of Mr. A's handling of a legal action (see 2021 (1) CILR 705). The court found that Mr. A failed to advance his clients' case expeditiously; failed promptly to pay out all moneys received; failed to produce a final account; failed to preserve essential records; and failed to respond promptly to the Chief Justice.

The court now had to determine the appropriate sanction. The Attorney General sought a 12-month period of suspension.

C. Allen for the Attorney General;

Mr. A appeared in person.

1 Worsley, Ag. J.: Following my written decision finding unprofessional conduct proved against Mr. A in his capacity as an attorney at law (reported at 2021 (1) CILR 705), 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 writing. I have also considered the Bar Tribunals & Adjudication Service, “BTAS 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 eleventh 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.

5 It is sad to see an attorney of Mr. A's undoubted experience fail so badly. He is a well-established practitioner with a practice and staff to maintain, and was charging up to $450 per hour for his services. He is of hitherto good character. He has family commitments, undertakes charitable work and tells me these proceedings have weighed 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 were lapses perpetuated over...