Court upholds lawyer’s lifetime ban

The lifetime ban imposed on an attorney who failed for several years to hand over almost $3 million in payment won by his client in a lawsuit has been affirmed by Jamaica’s second-highest court.

Debayo Adedipe was found guilty of professional misconduct in 2019 by the Disciplinary Committee of the General Legal Council (GLC), which ordered that he should be struck from the list of attorneys authorised to practise in Jamaica.

The Court of Appeal, in a decision handed down on Friday, found that the hearings conducted by the committee were not in breach of the principles of natural justice and therefore “not nullified”.

“As a result, there is no basis to set aside the committee’s decisions,” the panel of three judges ruled.

Adedipe was hauled before the committee by his then client, Kemisha Gregory, who was shot and injured by members of the security forces in 2004 while she was a minor.

The following year, Gregory, through her mother, hired the attorney to represent her in a lawsuit seeking damages against the State for her injuries.

AWARDED $1.9 MILLION

The trial ended in December 2009, but it was not until September 2011 that she was awarded $1.9 million in general damages and $250,000 in exemplary damages, both with interest, court records show.

Adedipe advised Gregory of the judgment by letter dated September 30, 2011, according documents published by the court.

Nearly three years later, she got confirmation from the Attorney General’s Chambers that the $2 million had been paid over to her attorney.

Despite several attempts, it took another three years before she heard from Adedipe via email on July 17, 2017 promising that payment would be in 14 days.

She provided him with her banking information, but that promise fell through, according to the court documents.

Gregory retained a second attorney, who wrote to Adedipe on August 7, 2011 demanding payment and got an email eight days later indicating that he should expect a letter “in a few days”.

That, too, fell through.

Gregory took her complaint to the GLC, the body that has oversight responsibility for the legal profession in Jamaica, which subsequently convened a hearing.

FULL ADMISSION

But court records show that before she was to be cross-examined, Adedipe made “a full admission of the complainant’s case to the committee”.

“In particular, he admitted receiving the sums from the Attorney General’s Chambers in satisfaction of the judgment on the complainant’s behalf, and admitted that he had failed to pay them over,” read a section of the transcript of the hearing.

The committee noted, too, that he made arrangements with Gregory in its presence to have the money paid over to her.

“As a result of this full admission and restitution to the complainant, made by the appellant, the committee found him guilty of professional misconduct,” the GLC said.

The attorney confirmed, during a meeting before the disciplinary committee on July 29, 2019, that Gregory would receive $2.8 million later that day, reflective of the initial court award with interest, minus his fees of $945,673.

This time the money was paid over, the committee confirmed.

But with the committee set to decide on his punishment, Adedipe complained that it could not proceed to sanction him because he was not given the opportunity to cross-examine Gregory or present evidence on his own behalf.

This complaint also formed the basis of his legal challenge to the Court of Appeal.

Ravil Golding, the attorney who represented Adedipe in both cases, argued that his client was denied natural justice when the disciplinary committee found him guilty without affording him the right to cross-examine Gregory.

He argued, too, that Adedipe had not waived his right to cross-examination and should have been allowed to exercise that right.

But that assertion was rejected by the presiding judges, who pointed to his actions before the members of the disciplinary committee when he admitted not paying over the money to Gregory and voluntarily agreed to make restitution.

“Any reasonable person would be forgiven for thinking that, in such a case, the issue of culpability was thereby settled,” said Justice Frank Williams, who wrote the unanimous judgment.

“Was there any other outstanding issue joined between the parties? Inquiries were made of the appellant [Adedipe] and he could point to none. Neither did his attorney indicate any area in which there was an outstanding dispute as to liability,” he added.

livern.barrett@gleanerjm.com