Disbarred attorney decries appeal court’s ‘window-dressing’

While expressing joy yesterday that the Court of Appeal had found that she had not acted dishonestly or had stolen any money from businessman Kaon Northover, disbarred attorney-at-law Minette Palmer-Lawrence criticised the appellate court for “window dressing” the General Legal Council (GLC)’s disbarment.

“I am relieved that the court overturned those findings of fraud and dishonest conduct and that they found as a fact that I did not receive or had stolen any money from the complainant,” she told The Gleaner yesterday after a decision by the court that was partially favourable to her.

The nearly 30-year-veteran, who had vehemently denied the allegation of fraud and dishonesty, said: “The GLC findings were extreme and unfair; they said I had concocted a transaction to steal somebody’s money.”

Palmer-Lawrence was disbarred in 2018 after she was found guilty of professional misconduct by the disciplinary committee of the GLC following a complaint made against her by Northover.

The businessman had reported that he gave the Palmer-Lawrence US$400,000 in 2008 after she persuaded him to make an investment in an overseas scheme.

Following the GLC hearing, the disciplinary committee had found, among other things, that Palmer-Lawrence acted dishonesty and was involved in a dishonest scheme to persuade the complainant to part with his funds in what turned out to be a fictitious investment.

But the appellate court said the conclusion of the committee that she acted dishonestly was erroneous and should be set aside.

“It suffices to say for present purposes that the committee fell in grave error when it found that the appellant acted dishonestly in persuading the complainant to enter into the transaction and invest his company’s money.

“Furthermore, there was no cogent and indisputable evidence establishing that the scheme was fictitious and that the appellant knew it, so as to support a finding of fraud on her part,” the judgment said.

The court also found that the committee was “plainly wrong” in its findings that the appellant was ever in possession or control of the complainant’s money.

The appellate court said that the evidence that was presented to the court showed that a Norman McLeod, who was introduced to the complaint by Palmer-Lawrence, was responsible for the refund.

In this regard, the lawyer said, having set aside the finding of fraud and dishonesty, the appellate court should have overruled the GLC’s decision to disbar her or at least order a new hearing.

“Once the Court of Appeal found that they had gone too far with that, they should reopen everything. They should not have gone on to pretty much window-dress the sanctions,” she contended.

Furthermore, Palmer- Lawrence stated, “An attorney’s reputation is important and to be accused of stealing versus being accused of being negligent or careless are two different things, so it had been really terrible for my family, my mother, my siblings and friends.

“I can’t work. I have been rendered pretty much unemployable with that kind allegation so the Court of Appeal, having ruled as it did, makes a difference, but the fact that they went on to justify what the GLC did by maintaining the same sanction is like you give with one hand and take it back with the other,” she told The Gleaner.

The Court of Appeal, however, has found that she did breach the canons of the legal profession and affirmed the committee’s decision that she was guilty of professional misconduct.

“Her conduct, even though not classified as fraudulent or dishonest, is, nevertheless, so grossly negligent, or, indeed reckless, so as to be sufficiently weighty to warrant the ultimate sanction of striking off,” read a section of the judgment.

The court concluded that the appellant was not only acting as an attorney-at-law but also as a “woman of business” in her dealings with the complainant, McLeod, and the German company Schwarzenberg Trust, which was involved in the investment.

“In this regard, she actively sought investors for what now turns out to be a questionable investment scheme and acted in her professional capacity as an attorney-at-law for the lender and the borrower in the same investment scheme. The multiple roles of the appellant were fraught with inherent risks, which any competent and prudent attorney-at-law of her experience and standing, ought to have recognised.

“The appellant’s failure to appreciate the precarious position in which she had placed herself and the complainant is enough to demonstrate that, at minimum, she lacked the sound judgment that is required of a member of the legal profession and, at worst, was grossly reckless,” the judgment said.

Consequently, in allowing the appeal in part, the Court of Appeal said the conclusion of the committee that she acted dishonestly was erroneous and should be set aside.

It also set aside the decision for her to pay US$498,000 to the businessman and substituted it with an order to pay US$47,000 at the rate of two per cent per annum from September 25, 2008.

The court also upheld the committee’s decision for Northover to be paid $750,000 in legal costs.

Meanwhile, Northover, who was represented by attorney-at-law Joseph Jarrett, said, “Justice has prevailed and I am grateful to the GLC and the court.”

Lord Anthony Gifford, who represented Palmer-Lawrence, said he is studying the judgment with a view of taking the matter to the United Kingdom Privy Council.

tanesha.mundle@gleanerjm.com