est. 2007

Barbados Underground

Bringing News and Opinions to the People

Non Membership in the Barbados Bar Association Does Not Preclude a Lawyer’s Right to Practice Law

Marston Gibson, Chief Justice (l) Andrew Pilgrim, President of Barbados Bar Association
Marston Gibson, Chief Justice (l) Andrew Pilgrim, President of Barbados Bar Association

BU has been provided with a copy of the letter dated April 4, 2013 by which the Chief Justice finally advised the new Queens Counsel that he had received the Letters Patent that the GG had executed and sent to the CJ some weeks previously, instructing that they be delivered. The GG had also officially informed the new Queens Counsel himself of their appointment, from which time they had the right to put the letters QC after their names. Do not expect Chief Justice Gibson to offer an explanation for the delay.

BU has also been provided with a legal opinion on the matter of mandatory membership of the Barbados Bar Association, on which it has been argued, in essence, that there is a requirement that attorneys who are certified to practice law in Barbados must also be members of the Barbados Bar Association. BU’s legal opinion states that, as such an Act breaches the Constitution, it is a nullity ab initio, as indeed is any law which breaches the Constitution. Otherwise, the Constitution, which requires a two third majority of the House to change it, would be held hostage to the much lower standard of a simple act of parliament, which requires merely a majority. This would compromise the rights of Bajans and infringe their liberties. Pursued, it could also potentially lead away from democracy to dictatorship.

Thus, the list produced recently by the Bar Association of those counsel who have not paid their membership fees, is not relevant to right to practice law. As long as those attorneys have certification (and a complete list is available from the Official Gazette updated yearly) those attorneys have the right to practice that cannot be gainsaid by the Bar Association.

The Bar Association list has been generally interpreted and presented in the Fourth Estate and the blogs as being a denial of rights to practice by those attorneys and BU posts this clarification. The suggestion or implication that these attorneys, provided they have current practice certificates, are not eligible to practice law is potentially legally actionable.

105 responses to “Non Membership in the Barbados Bar Association Does Not Preclude a Lawyer’s Right to Practice Law”

  1. ac Avatar
    ac

    ghee can you imagine Caswell having a following of maybe two Well !Well!thats good for a start.!

  2. Well Well Avatar
    Well Well

    AC……..I know you miss Miller……but this is really serious, or are you afraid the current administration that’s riddled with lawyers gets called out on why nothing is being done about the situation…………..try not to lose me.

  3. BAFBFP Avatar
    BAFBFP

    Both Caswell and Amused are my two passes for the year. HA HA HA. But wah, yah get older, yah see t’ings different and yah become more un’standin’ … Life is short

  4. Lemuel Avatar
    Lemuel

    Baffy
    Is that you?

  5. Paque Avatar
    Paque

    @Dr. The Honourable

    “Go back to the Can Fields you black people can seem to manage your affairs.”

    Listen! I am trying my best to understand how in the world your comments are devoid of racial epithets. When you willfully attacked someone’s racial leaning in effort to give purpose to your point of contention. Now, am I to assume that you’re not black? Based on the fact that your choice of words (he or she must be Chinese lol) seems to indicate that you’re erecting a barrier between those who bears resemblance to the race of black.

    Moreover, there are just better ways to express one’s disgusted with the current state affairs in Barbados, then to resort to such distasteful racial labeling in an effort to get one’s point across. I understand your frustration with respect to the events that has transpired in Barbados quite recently. But, it still does not relieve you of the fact that you could have been a bit more sensitive to the people and they way of life.

  6. jeff Cumberbatch Avatar
    jeff Cumberbatch

    @Amused, I have just read your comment of 7:13am [I am sorry, I was off BU by then] and there you encouraged me to provide an opinion on the matter of the constitutionality of the provision. To be honest, I, too, am of the view that it is of doubtful constitutional validity and that a judge would have difficulty fitting it within any of the stipulated qualifications to the right. Moreover, it is not even saved by section 26 of the Constitution, since it is not a law that existed on November 30 1966 to the best of my knowledge.

    But that is not my point. It is, rather, that until the law is declared null and void to the extent of its inconsistency with the Constitution, it remains enforceable no matter what legal scholars may opine. Either the Bar or the dissenters should test its validity in the only forum which can determine this. I believe that Caswell is also making the identical point..

  7. Hants Avatar
    Hants

    It is mind boggling that this topic could take up so much time on BU while innocent people are languishing at Dodds waiting for trial.

    Innocent until proven guilty? right?

    They are people waiting for years to get title searches completed,estates settled,Insurance claims adjudicated and we concerned about Bar Association fees.

    These delays are costing Bajans a lot of money since real property values are dropping because of the continuing economic downturn.

    All we want is for Lawyers to do the work we pay them to do in a timely fashion and I still hope that the good Lawyers will lobby to make law reform a priority.

  8. David Avatar
    David

    Is it not incredible we have a situation in the law that needs a correction which would resolve the matter under discussion yet it would be allowed to go unaddressed by our esteemed legal eagles? What does it suggest? Does it inspire confidence? What about the ethics at play here? This is not good enough.

  9. Mark Fenty Avatar
    Mark Fenty

    @Hants
    Hants, with all due respect, but what are you actively doing about the innocent who are languishing away at Dodds, beside being an armchair advocate? Talk is cheap ;action speaks louder than words.

  10. Hants Avatar
    Hants

    @Mark Fenty,

    I am doing nothing about those languishing at Dodds. You are right I am nothing more than an armchair critic.

    So wtf(ance) does it matter to you what I am.
    The innocents are still in Dodds waiting years for a trial.
    Talk to those who want to do something.

    I would like to see law reform as it relates to that which interest me the most.
    Property and money.

    Law reform and an efficient court systems helps everybody including those at Dodds.

  11. PLANTATION DEEDS FROM 1926-2013 AND SEE MASSIVE FRAUD ,LAND TAX BILLS AND NO DEEDS Avatar
    PLANTATION DEEDS FROM 1926-2013 AND SEE MASSIVE FRAUD ,LAND TAX BILLS AND NO DEEDS

    Law enforcement is needed , We have more laws than we need in a den of lawyers , Pushing and Pulling at the same time ,So nothing gets done, All looking to out smart each other and the People ,
    enforcement , enforcement enforcement. let the JURY decide ,
    Jury can nullify a bad law, It is impossible for a law which violates the Constitution to be valid .All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.

  12. Amused Avatar
    Amused

    @Jeff. I was absolutely sure you would agree. With the greatest respect (and I mean that sincerely and not just in the accepted style of legalese) the public is interested in the bottom line – and that is what I and some of the BU family provide. We don’t waltz around the subject. We Bajans are a very direct people – we cut to the chase. And in this case, the chase is not mired in ambiguity or uncertainty or arcane and possibly contradictory legal precedent. It is extremely simple. Simply put, the Act, which CLEARLY breaches the Constitution and which did not indeed (as you have said) exist in 1966, in breaching the Constitution, is a nullity ab initio. And that is what you have said, but unlike me, with the odd caveat rumpus thrown in. Done with that.

    However, it remains the law. Or does it? How can it ever have been the law FROM THE START, when it was a nullity ab initio (“ab initio” – from the start)? As a nullity ab initio, it simply NEVER EXISTED! Therefore, for a magistrate or a judge to deny counsel audience before their courts (as recommended by Casewell) on the basis that an Act, which is a nullity ab initio, is the law……well, at that stage the professional and mental competence of that presiding officer would be rightly called seriously into question and God help them against the members of the Inner Bar who would all direct their wrath at them.

    And you do Casewell far too much credit – he does NOT understand. But it was a valiant effort to remove his nuts from the fire in which his preceptor has persuaded him to place them.

    @Well Well and Lemule, I say that a man is known by the company he keeps and I am very happy to see that you have both found Casewell. For myself, I will not join you, but instead stick to Sleepy, Maurice, Edmund, Beverley, Hal and Vernon et al.

  13. David Avatar
    David

    Is this where we have reached?

    Nation report:

    Fri, April 12, 2013, 12:08 AM

    BY: MARIA BRADSHAW
    AN INCIDENT earlier this week involving a veteran attorney at law and a High Court judge has left the legal fraternity in an uproar.

    According to reports a Queen’s Counsel after a verbal outburst directed at the female judge, turned around and backed her, lifted his robe and bent over while uttering a profanity.

    The incident, which took place in the corridor outside the judge’s chambers, was witnessed by several attorneys, including another QC, court staff and court marshals.

    It is understood that the incident left the judge in a distressed state and has since been reported to Chief Justice Sir Marston Gibson. Sources said that technical staff had been asked to review the cameras to see if the incident was captured on tape.

  14. Ping Pong Avatar
    Ping Pong

    A QC directing vulgar comments and actions towards a High Court judge!? For shame …. is the emperor naked?

  15. David Avatar
    David

    @Ping Pong

    As you know we have been blogging for a long time that all is not well in our Judicature. The political directorate, people and Fourth Estate have not joined us in pushing for speedy reform. Crap has a way of sinking.

  16. St George's Dragon Avatar
    St George’s Dragon

    So who is the QC whose behind was at the bottom of this?

  17. wuhloss!!! Avatar
    wuhloss!!!

    A white big time lawyer …Alair Shepherd …

  18. Caswell Franklyn Avatar
    Caswell Franklyn

    I don’t know that it is a big secret that Madam Justice Sonia Richards had a dispute with Alair Shepherd that degenerated.

  19. Amused Avatar
    Amused

    @David. Alair Shepherd was the QC and Sonja Richards was the judge. MEANWHILE, in another court…….on the same day…….

    I am told that Barbados’ favourite judge, Elnet, refused to allow audience to another QC and asked him to leave her court. He advised her (rightly) and he had not interferred with nor obstructed the proceedings, he is a member of the Inner Bar and has a right of audience and therefore he was not leaving. So Elnet flounced out. Then, Elnet, clearly having been told, yet again, that she is wrong, returned. However, during this time, the QC left, so she sent the Marshall to ask him back to court. But he refused to return until she had apologised (which she should certainly do, if only to try to salvage what little credibility she still has). To date, she had not apologised and the QC has not returned…..maybe Elnet figures she hasn’t got any credibility left anyway and is just marking time until the Barbados taxpayer can pay her pension.

  20. David Avatar
    David

    @Amused and the other BU legals

    BU has posed questions above which remain unanswered. Let us pose another.

    What does the ‘skinnin of the tail’ by a QC to a judge and the recent ‘verbal’ as narrated by Amuses speak to, the systemic issue if you please.

    When our law and order (police and court) begin to disintegrate what?

  21. Caswell Franklyn Avatar
    Caswell Franklyn

    David

    It all boils down to one law for the Medes and another for the Persians. If nothing is done to show that all are equal before the law, it is only a matter of time before the masses revolt, with devastating consequences.

    If I had done what was alleged, my name would have appeared in the newspapers, and I would have been arrested and brought back before the court and punished for contempt.

  22. John Avatar
    John

    If a vote were taken at the Bar as to whether it should test the constitutionality of mandatory membership in court would the 95% of the lawyers in Barbados who pay and apparently agree with the law prevail?

    Could the 5% even get to vote?

    …. and if the matter actually got to court, (God forbid) brought by the 5% of the lawyers in Barbados who are not members, how would the fact that 95% of the lawyers in Barbados agree with the law as is have a bearing on the outcome of the case?

    Shouldn’t the non paying lawyers take the matter up in court so they can continue to practise?

    Clearly the Bar and its members (>95% of the lawyers in Barbados) don’t have a problem …. and perhaps the 5% are treating themselves the same way many clients get treated in Barbados by the profession!

    Seems pretty hopeless to me that anything will be done in this millenium and we are spinning top in mud on this matter.

  23. robert ross Avatar
    robert ross

    It’s all been debated before. Then it was that the BA was a trades union. Now it’s simply a nullity. John you’re right. Caswell you’re absolutely right. Jefferson…you’re mostly right but do stop pithering.

    What happens if a client of a non-payer has a grievance? To which body does he have recourse? And who, as necessary, will take disciplinary action?

    But David – yes – you are right too. It is absurd that the BA has not had the guts to test the whole thing.

  24. Amused Avatar
    Amused

    @David. Okay. Let me see if I can address your questions.

    First of all, I have to say that I consider the conduct of Alair to have been reprehensible.

    One does not “moon” anyone, regardless……unless, of course, one is a teenager, in which case, although reprehensible, if from the back of a moving vehicle, one moons passers-by or, indeed, friends in other cars, that can be put down to a combination of youth and high spirits and is excusable. I myself, MANY decade ago was known, after the partaking of a few libations or a little weed, to do things like that. But I am old – and so is Alair and I can readily understand the distress of anyone who is confronted with that part of the anatomy on someone where gravity will certainly have made serious inroads. To do it in the courts, regardless of whether it is to a judge or not, and at Alair’s age, one has to wonder if, far from being in high-spirits, he was simply in spirits. I wish someone had goosed Alair as he exposed himself. One can only hope that more of his shortcomings were not revealed.

    @Baffy, you realise that I am setting this up for you. Just I beg you don’t make me laugh too much. Uh old.

    As I say, it is highly inappropriate to moon people, far less in the courts. HIGHLY!!!! Alair owes the judge (and anyone else who had the misfortune to cast an eye on his aged posterior) an abject, public, written apology for (a) mooning them at all; and (b) causing distress by displaying his undoubtedly saggy posterior and evidence of mortality.

    That a queens counsel of Alair’s age and seniority would do such a thing, however, seems to me to bring home the total lack of respect and credibility that the courts and the bench now enjoy and the total contempt in which they are held by the majority of the Bajan people – lacks for which the courts themselves have only themselves to blame.

    Your question, David, is, “When our law and order (police and court) begin to disintegrate what?” And the answer is “anarchy”. And the worst part of it is that the anarchy is the sole creation of the justice system and none other. Because if people cannot obtain justice (and justice delayed is justice denied) and those who are sworn to “serve and protect” merely serve themselves and protect their own personal interests instead of those who pay their wages, what are people supposed to do?

    The solutions are, unfortunately, drastic. It is akin to a patient whose malady could have been cured by a simple operation if applied in time and who now, too long later, is faced with major surgery. There is no avoiding this any longer and no fence-sitting is permissible from our elected government, or from the head of the justice system. The mechanisms are enshrined in the Constitution, which provides clear and unambiguous directions for the dismissal of the Registrar and any members of the Registry who are not properly carrying out their jobs. It also sets out how to go about dismissing judges and the CoP and any unsatisfactory police officers. These removals require certain things, like gross misconduct – and I maintain that the Registrar and 98% of the judiciary have provided more than adequate grounds for their dismissal. All it takes is leadership with balls.

    I have been asked, as I write this, what would happen if the Registry and the judiciary went on strike? My answer is that since they do nothing anyway, they are effectively on strike right now and have been for years, so what the hell difference would it make?

    Finally, for about the last year I have been having dreams (very pleasant dreams) where I march into court, drag the judge off the bench, bend him/her over the QC’s table, remove their lower garments (saggy posteriors notwithstanding) and give them 12 stinging lashes with the heaviest law book I can find. Then I awake and, alas, it was just a dream.

  25. Pat Avatar
    Pat

    I am waiting to see what CJ Marston Gibson does re Alair “Lily Marlene” Shepherd doing a waist backward genuflection to a High Court Judge.

  26. Amused Avatar
    Amused

    @David. Maybe it is a good time to re-name the series and instead of calling it “Tales from the Courts”, call it “Tails from the Courts”.

    Sorry. Couldn’t resist!!!!!

    I mean, it would have been a grim enough sight if it had been a black or deeply tanned saggy posterior – but a WHITE saggy one? Oh dear. Not good.

  27. David Avatar
    David

    @Pat

    The CJ must celebrating that AS skinnin-out did not happen ‘incourt’. Then he would be forced to act. Now it may just be a discretionary thing based on a Code of Conduct which may or may not be enforce.

    @Ross

    Good to see you are alive.

  28. Caswell Franklyn Avatar
    Caswell Franklyn

    David

    I suggest that you do a blog entitled: “QC showed Judge his Silk”.

  29. BAFBFP Avatar
    BAFBFP

    Amused

    But the man din’ drop he trousers … If memory serves, he is wear straps to ensure that they stay in place since the likes of him lack the appropriate physical attributes to hold them in place on their own … So nah harm … HA HA HA

    Ross

    You come back … HA HA HA .. Amused and me is friends now … HA HA HA … Life short!

  30. Amused Avatar
    Amused

    @Baffy. Nicely caught. You have to agree though that, covered or uncovered, it is frightening thought. But what do you think would have happened if, instead of a saggy behind (covered or uncovered) it had been one of the young, fit counsel – like the president of the Bar or even a judge like Randy Worrell? May one speculate that, instead of being “distressed” Madam Justice may have, involuntarily of course, exclaimed, “Tally Ho?”

  31. Hal Austin Avatar
    Hal Austin

    Comrades, the Bar Association is a trade union and there is no legislation compelling people to join a union. If the law pretends that to appear before a judge/magistrate in open court one has to be a member of the Bar Association then, in English Law, the would be flawed and should be challenged in court.
    It is like saying that one must be a member of the Criminal Lawyers Association to appear in court representing a client.
    Or a member of the British Medical Association to be a practising doctor.
    In both cases the legal bodies are the Law Society, for solicitors, the Bar Council, for barristers, and the General Medical Council, for doctors.
    We have too many lawyer/politicians making the law.
    Does one need to be admitted to the bar to give office-based legal advice?

  32. Red Sun Avatar
    Red Sun

    What is the basis of the ‘war’ between Judge Richards and Alair QC?

  33. Caswell Franklyn Avatar
    Caswell Franklyn

    Hal

    The Bar Association is not a trade union. It might behave like one at times, but it is definitely no a trade union.

  34. BAFBFP Avatar
    BAFBFP

    Amused

    I is a man that is grudgingly give credit to members of your fraternity hear … but as aimless as I view most of them, none are so deficient as to believe that they could drop draws in public and walk away unscathed … not with the likes of Lemuel and Cas lurking somewhere in the background … HA HA HA HA

  35. Hants Avatar
    Hants

    Alair just proves that Lawyers are human and the Queen in QC has real meaning.lol

  36. Caswell Franklyn Avatar
    Caswell Franklyn

    Baffy

    If you were in court he would not have gotten away unscathed. I am sure you would have accepted the offer. His poor tail would have been sore.

  37. Caswell Franklyn Avatar
    Caswell Franklyn

    I always say that if you put a pig in a palace, you do not get a king: you get a shitty palace. In this case, you put a pig in silk.

  38. BAFBFP Avatar
    BAFBFP

    But Cas you can’ try to beat me to the punch here pun a blog when you know that you would be scrambling to do so if faced with an exposed ass … HA HA HA

  39. BAFBFP Avatar
    BAFBFP

    Cas

    I meant that in a good way … hear .. 🙂

  40. DR. THE HONOURABLE Avatar
    DR. THE HONOURABLE

    A lot of these persons might be brilliant at what they do but many of them have not grown up, they have not matured, they still act like little boys: Estwick in the House brandishing a gun and teasing -that ” if you is a bad , come outside” to Marshall. The infantile Donville Inniss and his comments to Duguid and the equally childlike response by the said Duguid. Justice Waterman’s attitude during the AX affair.

    These big adults like most of us have a child within .
    Controlling that child is a challenge for some

  41. Amused Avatar
    Amused

    @Baffy. You may like to consider that some people who are not as strong-minded as you – remember I have SWMBO, so am not in the strong-minded category – see these judges uniforms (they call them “robes” – don’t ask me why) and their air of authority and punishment and assumed learning, as being sort of dominators, or in this case, dominatrixes. A turn on for some. Since we do not know that there was even a disagreement, maybe the judge was being invited to, “Spank it.” The name “Spanky Shepherd” therefore springs immediately to my warped mind. So, the cry of, “Spank it, boss, spank it,” may well have been the cry that was thought to be an argument. It greatly amuses me to know that, by his own admission, if Casewell had been (qualified to be) the judge, he would have spanked it – without any momentary hesitation. Ah well, nothing against Casewell, because as the French say, “Chaqu’un as son gout – which basically means, “Whatever lights your fire, turns your crank, floats your boat.

    I don’t know about you, but I have not been so amused (make that “deeply shocked” – got to be a little pompous occasionally – rep, you know, rep) in a while.

  42. BAFBFP Avatar
    BAFBFP

    I had to go before a female magistrate a few years ago, Oistins. My Gad dah woman did UGLY … a miserable, ugly humanoid. With all the robes and shackles and lingerie, there is NOTHING short of radical plastic surgery, that could make dah bitch look even remotely viewable … My Gad …! HA HA HA

  43. Caswell Franklyn Avatar
    Caswell Franklyn

    Baffy

    I am not surprised that you think that the lady magistrate was ugly: all women are ugly to you. I sympathise with you and feel sorry that you were not there to see Shepherd’ behind even if covered would have given you a thrill.

  44. Crusoe Avatar
    Crusoe

    Firstly, I don’t see an issue when a man stops to tie his laces and people misinterpret.

    Secondly, what IS clear is that ALL respect is now gone, from what was a respected system.

    Unfortunately, when one puts someone in place who had NO COURT EXPERIENCE as a judge, do you REALLY think the senior lawyers are going to respect that person at all???

    Come ON, have some sense.

    One big xxxxing mess.

  45. Crusoe Avatar
    Crusoe

    Let me ask you a question, if your Nissan or Toyota brek down, are you going to tek it to de fella now get outs de polytechnic as a trained mechanic, who was wukking in de parts deparment, or are you going to tek it to a mechanic who has been working for a number of years and is respected?

    Four ind e morning an wunna toilet overflow, are you going to call de fella now pass he exams, worked two years at ACE hardware and now start pun he own, or you going tuh call de fella that Auntie Gladys know who been fixing her toilet for 12 years?

    Come one, have some sense, do!

  46. Crusoe Avatar
    Crusoe

    @BAF’BAFBFP | April 12, 2013 at 3:48 PM | i had to go before a female magistrate a few years ago, Oistins. My Gad dah woman did UGLY … a miserable, ugly humanoid. With all the robes and shackles and lingerie’

    We see yuh been thinking about dat lingerie, dat is a Freudian slip (or corset), yuh could not help thinking bout she putting yuh in a holding cell and mekking yuh ‘serve’ yuh sentence…hahahahahaa

    BAF like them UGLY!!!

  47. Amused Avatar
    Amused

    @Crusoe. My sentiments exactly.

    @Baffy. You get the feeling that Casewell trying, with his usual lack of any style, to imply something bout you? Now, I am the type of person who minds his own business – usually – but, if I remember correctly, Casewell’s master/teacher got one of what he trying to imply about you, in de close family – and exactly like Casewell, I understand he does like to discipline too. Methinks Casewell doth protest too much, poor old thing. He like he never learned that ef yuh gone live in a glass house, do NOT pelt rock stones.

  48. BAFBFP Avatar
    BAFBFP

    HA HA HA

    Cas don’t get too sympathetic, hear, ’cause you knows that I got eyes fay you, sweetchile ..! And when I done I gun give wah lef back to Bush Tea to mop up …! Sweetness …!

    HA HA HA

  49. BAFBFP Avatar
    BAFBFP

    Crosoe

    Facing dah woman was sentence enough … Maybe Amused would know her by name … My Gad she did ugly … HA HA HA

  50. Well Well Avatar
    Well Well

    Even before I could answer Amused…………..Alair with his/her effeminate arrogance proved our point of the total disrespect lawyers display in Bim, be they QUEER COUNSELS or whatever…………Amused, the company you keep are no better………….We are trying to get to the bottom of why the judiciary has become a joke and now laughing stock in Bim………..Alair just helped us with that.

Older Comments
1 2 3
Newer Comments

Leave a Reply to Red SunCancel reply

Trending

Discover more from Barbados Underground

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading