Lawyer loses GLC sanctions appeal

The General Legal Council has been given the go-ahead by the Court of Appeal to impose a sanction on attorney-at-law Mario Anderson, who was found guilty of a breach of the Legal Profession Canons of Professional Ethics Rules.

Anderson had filed an appeal in September against the ruling of the Disciplinary Committee of the GLC in August. He then brought an application asking the court to grant a stay of the sanction until his appeal has been heard and determined.

He contended in his application that he had a real prospect of successfully appealing the decision of the committee as its finding cannot be supported by the evidence and/or is inconsistent with the weight of the evidence. He said he would suffer irreparable harm to his reputation as an attorney if the sanction hearing proceeds and a penalty is imposed.

Justice Nicole Simmons heard the application in chambers and on November 1 refused to grant a stay.

The Committee had found that Anderson had breached canon 1V(r) which states that “an attorney shall deal with his client’s business with all due expedition and shall whenever reasonably required by the client provide him with all information as to the progress of the client’s business with due expedition”.

A complaint was lodged against Anderson in August 2022 by Cresilda Chambers, who had retained the Kingston Legal Aid Clinic (LAC) in November 2019 to apply for letters of administration in relation to an estate. She alleged that Anderson had failed to deal with her business with due expedition. She further alleged that he acted with “inexcusable or deplorable negligence in the performance of his duties”.

Simmons referred to the affidavit before the Committee which stated that there was no dispute that before 2021 two other lawyers from KLAC handled Chambers’ matter, and also that she had paid the relevant fees and retainer to the KLAC. In 2021, when Chambers enquired as to the progress of her case, she was advised by an employee of the clinic to attend there and speak with Anderson. She was required by the clinic to pay a consultation fee of $6,000 which she did. She said she met with Anderson in December 2021 and he directed her to go to the Supreme Court to check on the progress of the file. She did so and received a requisition from the court’s office dated October 30, 2020 for a correction and she delivered it to a paralegal at the KLAC.

Not Anderson’s client

On hearing nothing further, Chambers went to the KLAC in March 2022 and was advised that she needed to pay a further $80,000. A series of discussions took place between Chambers and a paralegal at the KLAC but she was not provided with an update and was advised that she was not Anderson’s client and he was only seeking to assist her.

Anderson, in his sworn affidavit, stated categorically that the complainant Chambers had never been his client and he was not retained to act as her attorney. He pointed out that there was another attorney on the record for the complainant and he was never an employee of the KLAC.

He stated further that he was not responsible for any of the KLAC’s matters before October 17, 2020 when the Barbican Law Clinic was engaged to provide services to the KLAC. Anderson said the complainant paid $6,000 to the KLAC for a consultation with him in December 2021 and she was advised by the KLAC that no further work could be done until she had settled the balance with their office. He said he was advised by the KLAC that she had not settled the balance.

Anderson said he had not been retained or instructed by the KLAC in the complainant’s matter and had not received any payment in respect to the matter. In the circumstances he said he owed no duty to the complainant and was not responsible for any delay she experienced in the matter.

Simmons, in refusing the stay, said “in my view the committee had enough evidence on which to conclude that an attorney and client relationship existed between the applicant and the complainant”.

Anderson was represented by attorney-at-Michael Williams.

The GLC, which was the respondent, was represented by attorney-at-law Lemar Neale and Chris-ann Campbell instructed by the law firm NEA/LEX.

editorial@gleanerjm.com