Deliberately deceitful! - Disciplinary committee disbars Minette Lawrence and issues strong warning to other lawyers

The Disciplinary Committee of the General Legal Council has thrown the book at attorney-at-law Minette Lawrence in what is being described in legal circles "as a strong message to members of profession".

The committee found that Lawrence was guilty of professional misconduct following a complaint brought against her five years ago by information technology specialist, businessman Kaon Northover.

Last Saturday, the committee ruled that Lawrence should repay Northover US$498,000 with interest at a rate of two per cent compounded from September 25, 2008.

Lawrence has also been ordered to pay Northover's legal costs of $750,000 and has been struck from the Roll of Attorney's Law entitled to practise in Jamaica.

In its ruling, the three-member panel of the disciplinary committee said that it bears repeating that the primary objectives of disciplinary proceedings are to protect the members of the public and the general reputation of the profession.

"Further, the practice of the law demands very high integrity from attorneys-at-law as clients and third parties, fellow attorneys, judges must be able to repose the utmost trust in what each of us says or does.

"Attorneys must protect the interests of their clients and not inflict serious injury to those interests or act in a manner that is duplicitous and dishonest," said the committee.

It added: "It is our duty (as lawyers) to promote these qualities individually and as a collective. Our very livelihood depends on us, our sense of morality, and what is just and right. When the panel looks at the misconduct of which it has found the respondent (Lawrence) guilty, it is utterly unacceptable.

"The panel found that the attorney acted dishonestly and was involved in a dishonest scheme to persuade the complainant to part with his funds in pursuit of what turned out to be a fictitious investment.

"Our findings go much further and demonstrate that the panel is of the opinion that the most material actions of the attorney were deliberate and deceitful.

"Her conduct is even more confounding in light of the fact that the respondent is a senior attorney-at-law with some 28 years at the Bar and considerable experience in the very areas of commercial law and company law that should have favourably impacted her conduct of the transaction and brought the very best practices and expertise to bear in how she managed a proposal that she insists is legitimate."