Tales From The Courts XII – Barbados Bar Membership Revisited – Registrar and Sir David Simmons, Wilfred Abrahams Exposed

Update: The Nation newspaper has issued a public apology to Sir David Seale and Caswell Franklyn in today’s  edition. It turns out that it was our own Caswell who penned the Guest Column and NOT Sir David

In a recent blog BU investigated the issue of attorneys who opt not to be members of the Barbados Bar Association (“BA”) on the basis that the Legal Profession Act contravenes the Constitution of Barbados and is, as a result, a nullity ab initio.

The almost unanimous opinions expressed by BU’s legal eagles was that the Legal Profession Act would be found in law to be a nullity ab initio.

BU has received a letter from attorney-at-law Wilfred A. Abrahams to the President of the Barbados Bar Association dated April 12, 2003 in which he gives notice that the attorneys of the chambers of which he is head, Aegis Chambers, intend to object to appearing in court with any attorney who has not submitted themselves to the Legal Profession Act and, inter alia, accusing these dissenting attorneys of committing an illegal act by practicing law – See Letter sent by Abrahams to the Bar – part 1 and Part 2

Mr Abrahams is being disingenuous to a degree that is alarming in a practicing attorney-at-law. At the Annual General Meeting of the Barbados Bar Association held on Saturday November 01, 2008 at Amaryllis Beach Resort – a meeting chaired by none other than Mr Wilfred Abrahams himself, in his capacity as president of the BA, BU notes the section of the Minutes of the meeting as follows:

(iv) The Resolution

A query was made by Ms Paula Lett as to whether there was a meeting with the Registrar [Maureen Crane-Scott now a High Court judge]  to discuss the issue of Attorneys-at-Law practicing privately in Barbados who had not paid their annual fees and the outcome. The Chairman [Abrahams] in response confirmed that a meeting was held with the Registrar and the Chief Justice [Sir David Simmons] and after a number of meetings and a number of letters, it was decided that it was not worth the effort to pursue this matter and that litigation to do so would be too expensive. This matter will no longer be pursued. [BU’s insertions] – See Extract of Minutes parts 1 & II

To add to the mix, is a column by Sir David Seale – who is not a lawyer and has no right of audience before the courts and no professional competence as a lawyer – which was published in today’s Nation (17/04/2013). Sir David offers what is in effect a legal opinion, even going so far as to quote the Legal Profession Act, and opines that the dissenting counsel are breaking the law – See Sir David Seale’s Guest Column Nation Newspaper.

Some may find a disquieting similarity between the opinion proffered by Sir David Seale and some of those published elsewhere. It is well known that Sir David Seale’s closest neighbour is none other than the daughter of the other Sir David (Simmons) and that the Seales and the Simmons are very close friends – indeed, it has been observed that each and every weekend, Simmons stays with his daughter and enjoys the unrelenting hospitality of Seale. Obviously people who are close to Simmons think that this confers on them a law degree and right of audience.

There are a number of matters that BU finds deeply disturbing here.

  1. That the CJ and the Registrar (now a sitting judge) were so completely derelict and dismissive of their professional obligations that they actually held a meeting with Mr Abrahams as president of the BA and at that meeting advised him and the BA legally. That is gross misconduct on the part of both.
  2. That the Chief Justice and the Registrar both advised the BA NOT to seek to have the issue clarified by the courts in a matter of legislation that, by breaching the Constitution, is a nullity ab initio and void and of no effect. In other words, the Registrar and the CJ advised the Bar to allow a fatally flawed piece of legislation to subsist, instead of moving to have it corrected. That too is gross misconduct on the parts of the Registrar and the Chief Justice.
  3. That Sir David Seale, a person with no right of audience before the courts, has sought to influence public opinion in a matter touching on the right of audience before the courts of certified attorneys-at-law and, in effect, accusing them of misrepresentation and fraud.
  4. That Wilfred Abrahams, knowing full well the basis of the argument, has taken the stance on behalf of his chambers as set out in his letter which, incidentally, is copied to the present Registrar and the Chief Justice.

It appears that, far from going into retirement at the undeserved expense of the Bajan taxpayers, Sir David Simmons is still trying to influence the administration of justice which, during his tenure first as AG and then as CJ, he has the distinction of rendering into that of a banana republic.

Sir David Simmons is trying to insist that his appointees on the Bench be respected, even though by his own actions and omissions (and their own) he and they have eradicated their right to any respect whatever.

Sir David Simmons, along with his cohorts, is trying to establish the legacy he wants, rather than the legacy he will receive from history – he is trying to re-write history to suit himself.

As for Wilfred Abrahams, BU ventures to suggest to him that sour grapes will not get him the QC he so earnestly desires. AND that neither will his attempts to go through and curry favour with what is now the back door.

Recommended Reading – Other Tales From the Courts


  • Jeff Cumberbatch


    Again you refer to me as a hypocrite, yet you take umbrage at the much less offensive twit? Carry on smartly!


  • @Jeff

    Lemuel is obviously being provocative, ignore the goading.


  • In light of Abrahams position in the BA minutes posted on this blog how do we judge his call as published in today’s Nation?


  • David………………..your blog is a catalyst for change, or the Barbados would be allowed to stay in the dark ages indefinitely.


  • David it is mind boggling that we still can’t reach a conclusion or find out the truth.

    Who is telling the truth and who is mis leading BU and the Nation.

    We could now have more essays of leagalese or the lawyers on BU could surprise us and answer this question like laymen.

    Are Lawyers who have not paid fees to the Bar Association practising illegaly?

    Yes or No.


  • If these arrogant lawyers have been practicing law illegally on the island for decades, some for as long as 40 years, it is indeed mind boggling.


  • @David. Are you aware that Abrahams’ letter has not yet been received by those to whom it is directed? So maybe that is why the AG has not issued a statement and refused to comment to the Nation. Frankly, to my way of thinking, that would be the ONLY excuse.

    @Lemuel. Jeff’s comments are, in my opinion, absolutely correct. The ones from Abrahams are transparently self-serving and based on a lie. The day will never come when Abrahams is even a fraction of the lawyer and in particular, the constitutional lawyer, that Jeff is. Some may disagree with Jeff on occasion, but that is how law works. Personally, I am now tired of your constant harping. You called Jeff a hypocrite and he responded by telling you that you are a twit. Fair exchange. It has not escaped my attention that the lovely Pat and the equally lovely Islandgal habitually refer to you as Le Mule and, given your stubborn persistence in self flagellation (because, trust me, you certainly are not beating anyone else up) I am forced to conclude that Pat and Islandgal have hit the nail on the head. Enough!!!


  • David | April 19, 2013 at 7:09 AM |

    In light of Abrahams position in the BA minutes posted on this blog how do we judge his call as published in today’s Nation?

    It is an individual’s decision whether he/she abides by the law or not.

    The BAR appears to have muddled the individuals’ ability to think simply.

    I would guess that as an ossifer of the court any lawyer with any sense would choose to uphold the law when faced with the choice as an individual.

    In fact, any citizen when faced with a clearcut choice will make the right choice and does need any legal training to do so.

    It is ususlly when people get together as a group that they lose the capability of individual thought.

    They become blinded by their “education” and “ability” and factions manufacture debate to create scenarios which baffle individual thought.

    The rate at which individual thought goes thru the window in such a group is directly proportional to the perceived power of the group and the perceived ability and education of its members.

    The more “able” and “educated” the members perceive themselves and each other to be, the faster they lose the ability to think individually and simply and lose touch with reality.

    It may or may not turn out that required membership of the BAR is unconstitutional but the reality is that there is a law in place and it should be obeyed until it is changed.

    In individual layman parlance, if there are two traffic lights in sight in front of you and the first one says stop and the second one says go, for heavens sake, STOP at the first one.


  • Caswell Franklyn

    Well Well

    You are absolutely correct: David’s blog is a catalyst for change. That is why I submit articles and comment on issues. There are too many issues in this country that need redress but you should not expect those that benefit to cry out for change.

    I am happy that my initial post on “Illegal Lawyers” was the catalyst for this discussion. I really don’t care how it is resolved, just as long as it is resolved. We must not have a segment of society that feels that the law does not apply to them. I will continue to raise issues as long as The Lord gives me he strength to do so. I am not deterred by Amused who become nasty in his remarks: sometimes he post something that is useful, but that is how dementia works.


  • This is soooooo simple!

    If we were to adopt the stance that we will only obey laws that are constitutionally and morally correct ….Wuh um would be bacchanal ’bout here….

    BUshie would not pay one cent of land tax!
    Bushie would skin he boxie at nuff big shots….
    Bushie would do Dixie……(and Islandgal too 🙂 )

    Most laws are debatable.
    Most are based on some epistemological position which is itself subject to debate….

    So the WHOLE POINT of having “Laws” is that, LIKE IT OR NOT….everyone goes by that position as stated in law.

    Jeff is therefore absolutely correct.
    If you feel strongly about a law’s rightness, then you must CHALLENGE it, face the consequences, and get it changed.
    ….either by legal challenge in court, or by political challenge – where you break the law; GO TO JAIL; make your point ; and bring pressure on the highest court of political jackasses to change the law.

    That actual LAWYERS could advocate that since ” in their opinion” the law is flawed from inception (because it breeched the constitution)…. is so juvenile as to be laughable…..

    …dey got laws bout here that, in Bushie’s opinion breeches BBE’s fundamental laws too, but Bushie does still pay land tax….. 🙂


  • I still waiting for an answer to my question and because it aint my blog I AINT GINE SHOUT TOO LOUD.





  • The law requires Professionals to pay a stipulated annual registration fee failing which the granted dispensation is withdrawn until such time as the fee is paid.If the law says, an attorney, in addition to the registration fee must also be what is called ‘in good financial standing’ with the BA,then this fee must also be paid failing which the granted dispensation is withdrawn.The devil is in the details.Which is first the chicken or the egg!Until the clarification is made that the BA is liable in law for the payment of its members’ annual registration fee payable to the Registrar,there will be a continuation of this conundrum.


  • Grabriel

    1 the law requires that a registration fee be paid to the registrar by the applicant.

    2 the law requires that the applicant be a bona fide member of the BA

    3 UNTIL (2) is satisfied, no permission if granted to practice.

    In other words it takes 1 PLUS 2 to make a legal lawyer.

    @ Hants
    YES! IT IS ILLEGAL……but most of our lawyers appear to be too dumb to figure that out….


  • @Hants

    Your question has been answered several times. The law says yes but said law has been challenged by a few lawyers who deem said law unconstitutional. The AG is quoted in today’s newspaper that this disobedience by said lawyers has been going on for years.

    What needs to happen as posited by Jeff is that the matter needs to be tested in court. Those lawyers not paying are obviously decided on their position and prepared to defend. The issue here is that the BA and by extension the AG and government have preferred to avoid the issue.


  • Caswell Franklyn

    Bushie & David

    What is this nonsense that the two of you keep repeating, “as Jeff said”. If you look; you would see that it is as Caswell said and Jeff confirmed. Am I too lowly to be given credit.


  • Thank you Bushie.

    Exactly what I asked has been answered.

    Lawyers and David (lol) cannot answer yes or no to anything.


  • @ Caswell


  • @ Caswell
    “Am I too lowly to be given credit.”
    Short answer….. YES!

    ….now if you were Chairman of the National Supervisory Committee…!!
    ….or president of the BUP…….!!

    …but alas, you are just another pesky blogger in the BU clan 🙂

    Jeff is a big shot…..! LOL


  • Bushie, Caswell, and all who are showing genuine concern………..the government and judiciary has aided and abetted in breaking that law with great gusty and aplomb for decades…………no one cared that they would have to eventually make a decision to uphold the law……as usual, the present group of people who are in charge of the island have no vision past their immediate wants. because a few radicals in the legal fraternity challenged the law, that did not make it illegal, it should have been adhered to until the issue was settled………….those who were charged to uphold the law were the chief ones breaking it………….while locking up everyone else. Chickens are finally coming home to roost.


  • @Hants

    Is it a yes or no issue?

    The dissenting lawyers believe it is a nullity ab initio and have decided to ignore. Jeff opines it needs a judicial declaration to resolve. This is a matter where those responsible make sensible decisions.


  • @Cawell

    Jeff is being referred to because this is what his accreditation offers…lol.


  • No one wants to make sensible decisions in the judiciary or government for that matter, it would take up too much of their time in front of the cameras.


  • David | April 19, 2013 at 11:17 AM |
    Is it a yes or no issue?

    The answer will be that Lawyers don’t have to pay Bar Association fees to practice law in Barbados.

    That is the only way of preventing Lawyers from being sued by clients for doing their work illegally while pretending to be a Lawyer in good standing.

    Buh doan mine me. I ent nuh Lawya an I doan live down dey.


  • Amused
    i want you to know that Island has publicly decried that pet name she has given to me. I do not know who is Pat. I shall let you have the last word in the matter.
    Where did your get these soft skinned word terrorists from. Notice I am not calling any names.


  • Hants………….yuh killing me!!!


  • Who is the QC who rushed hot and sweaty to pay since the BA list was circulated?


  • Bushie
    I am glad that you have seen what I know. Amused, Jeff Cumberbatch or any of these legal eagles harping around this blog would never give Caswell the credit for the genius that he is.



    Sir David ex CJ is a crook , thats why he is no longer head crook of the court. . as AG and CJ and what ever else in life he is doing , He needs to come clean, on all Matters along with other crooks on the bench. Nothing stays hidden for ever , Hope We catch you all before you all died. The new book , “Crooks that got Away”

    Sir David Simmons, along with his cohorts, is trying to establish the legacy he wants, rather than the legacy he will receive from history – he is trying to re-write history to suit himself.@



  • Is this the same Wilfred Abrahams who could not keep his first wife, the same Wilfred Abrahams whose present girlfriend has been seen riding with David Estwick in a car and liming together in St. Phillip?

    Is the same Wilfred Abrahams who claims no knowledge of money passing for vottes in Christ Church West during the recent election?

    Is this the same Wilfred Abrahams that Owen Arthur called a collosal clown with Downe’s syndrome and pissy little boy with a limp prick?



    Caswell Franklyn@ ASK David to remove your picture ,it dont look good with those other so call crooks




    Hey !
    You need to
    enlist some soldiers to help you fight your battle.



    Both Sir Leroy and Dennis Clarke need to make way or at least identify successor(s)



    DR. THE HONOURABLE@ All who are affected are welcome to join,All who feel they are not touched by this massive fraud crime ,think a gain , In every step of Life now, and to come ,
    1, restore the breathing
    2 stop the bleeding
    3. check for shock


  • Wilfred Abrahams might very well have stirred the proverbial hornet’s nest . He notes that at 2008 there were 11 members of the Bar who did not belong to the Bar Association ; the list appearing on this blog shows there are now 80 lawyers who refuse to pay fees . This should be of concern to the Association as this rise in the number of “defaulters” could only mean that an increasing number of lawyers are dissatisfied with the Association as their representative. Abrahams is now prepared to go behind the resolution of the General Meeting of November 20008, published above, to resurrect the matter which the Association UNDER HIS LEADERSHIP was advised to leave alone. His method of raising the matter again has to be looked at for it is certain that it will not go down well with the membership. Why was it necessary to publish a list and leak it to the in-box of non members? Why were the defaulting members not personally notified as is done in ALL REPUTABLE INSTITUTIONS when members owe dues ? Why was it necessary to leak his letter to the AG to the Nation EVEN BEFORE THE AG HAD RECEIVED IT? Does he not consider that his very action might bring the institution into disrepute? What about his professionalism?
    It has become clear that the matter of compulsory membership will have to be decided by the Courts but informed commentators are convinced that this will be struck down. In the event that it is in fact struck down does Abrahams believe that lawyers will voluntarily join an Association which many are now openly defying? He may very well turn out to be the biggest enemy of the very Association . Only time will tell


  • In the meant timeThe Bar Association has today issued a public apology in the Barbados Advocate to one of its members whom it has defamed? How many more will it have to issue and how many will contemplate legal action? The Nation meanwhile has informed that Abrahams has left the island . Is this a case of hit and run?


  • Last year when the time came around to pay dues we read of six QC’s whose names were not on the list in a blog here on BU.


    The list recently published by BU only has two QC’s this time around.

    A year ago, according to the Blog, some bloggers seemed certain the Registrar would get sued for defaming these six senior lawyers.

    This year it is the Bar Association’s turn.

    Is this more long talk?

    What will be the position next year when the time comes around for payment?

    For sure, this thing ain’t getting solved in this millenium!!


  • Barbadian lawyers seem to be in a very contemplative mood these days!!


  • @Bush Tea | April 19, 2013 at 10:25 AM | I recommend that you re-read the comment of @Solicitor, which I have now broken down for you into points:

    1. There were no two bodies existing IN BARBADOS before 1973. There were two bodies IN ENGLAND , the INNS OF COURT and the LAW SOCIETY.
    2. Those bodies IN ENGLAND gave a barrister or solicitor his practising certificate, this certificate was presented to the law courts to enable a lawyer/solicitor as the case might be to get admitted to practise in the Law Courts IN ENGLAND. You could not therefore get a practising certificate, unless you had membership of the Inns, for Barristers or the Law Society for Solicitors IN ENGLAND.
    3. THERE IS NO SUCH PARALLEL IN BARBADOS. The practising certificate here is issued BY THE REGISTRAR ON THE PAYMENT OF THE FEE imposed by the GOVERNMENT and the contribution to the Compensation Fund.
    6. So really membership in the Bar Association is NOT a mandatory requirement to be an ATTORNEY AT LAW in Barbados, like membership in the Inns or Law Society is in England.
    7. There is no correlation between membership of those two institutions and membership of the Bar Association .
    9. There is every reason therefore why the former Chief Justice advised the Bar Association under MR ABRAHAMS not to pursue the matter any further as the Minutes reflect and it was TOO EXPENSIVE BECAUSE THEY COULD NOT SUCCEED .

    @David (BU) then asked the question whether this did not reflect poorly on successive attorneys general of Barbados. The answer is, of course, yes. But not just them. Indeed, it reflects poorly on ALL MPs who are/were lawyers from 1973 onwards. The fact that this Act breached the Constitution should have been spotted when it was in draft form. Indeed, one could say that the drafter ought to have read the Constitution before setting pen to paper.

    And provably since 2008 the BA has been aware of the facts – AND HAS DONE NOTHING!!! And in the absence of their taking action seeking a simple declaration from the Courts, lawyers in ever increasing numbers are refusing to adhere to an ILLEGAL Act.

    Now, I differ with Jeff on one point only. It is this. Obedience to the Constitution must supersede adherence to any Act that breaches the Constitution. Therefore, I posit that, in disobeying an illegal Act, counsel is obeying the Constitution and thus cannot be accused of breaking any law. However, this is a point that is certainly open to argument and is by no means settled. Thus, I respect Jeff’s position.


  • Sad that Barbados has let loose their lawyers, politicians too to produce widespread damage there (Barbados): Owen Arthur, Mia Mottley, Dale Marshall, Gline Clark, George Payne, David Thompson, Sir Richard Cheltenham, Charles O. Williams, etc. Those corrupt lawyers, politicians to have infested itself in corporations, organizations, government affairs, the police, the judicial system too (Sir David Simmons) etc. and like a roach army continuously growing.


  • I see David Simmons was quite able to do his job as part of the Integrity Commission in finding Minister of National Security in Trinidad guilty of fraud, thievery and a host of other crimes, but he was unable as AG and CJ to unmask the thieves and frauds in Barbados………see below link..


  • More on David Simmons, the fraud and thieve buster in Trinidad……………….http://www.trinidadexpress.com/news/Warner-Blazer-committed-fraud-203864531.html


  • Interesting……………the BAR has been an organization of ill-repute from the day they decided to enable their attorneys to commit from on the people of Barbados on other nationals who were defrauded and lost money and properties without the BAR seeing fit to sanction or disbar their thieving attorneys………………this has been going on for years, not just recently, no one i know except the people aided and abetted by the BAR holds it in any high esteem.


  • That should read………..the day the BAR allowed their member attorneys to commit fraud on the people of Barbados, particularly those who live overseas, as well as other nationals.


  • Has the Registrar published the required list in the Official Gazette?

    Last year’s talk about suing may have had an effect.

    If she hasn’t, does it mean there are no licensed lawyers in Barbados?


  • Don’t know whether to laugh or cry…….hopefully any changing off the laws re practicing attorneys should be paid for by the attorneys, bar association, judges, magistrates, former and present AGs, CJs, past and present Prime Ministers alive and deceased ( use their million dollar estates) all if not most of them were also lawyers enabling fraud on the people of Barbados., but definitely NOT the taxpayers of Barbados.

    I do believe Simmons has some gigantic balls on him, not once did he ever expose all the fraudulent politicians and lawyers in Bim, but suddenly his a pillar of integrity in exposing criminal politicians in Trinidad…………..the hypocrisy of it all.


  • @ Amused
    In the AX matter, Bushie advised Caswell to stay OUT of it FROM THE VERY START……since Bushie knows everything (Hants, BU, 2012)….we all know the result on his reputation…

    Bushie is now advising you as man, to stay out of this matter. It is compromising your otherwise wise, sound and consistent position as a senior BU Blogger.

    All the lotta long talk bout England is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT.
    The LAW of Barbados CLEARLY says that an Attorney MUST be appropriately qualified,…
    MUST pay annual Registration fees
    Must be in good standing with the Bar Association

    The Same Attorney benefits from prescribed minimum fees; protection from competition; (since any idiot can complete the forms that constitute 90% of their work, BUT IS FORBIDDEN by law)
    And apparently protection from prosecution for crimes.

    ….all of them things ain’t against the constitution too…..?

    The shitty Bar Association is meant to provide discipline in the profession, …..and THAT is why membership is meant to be mandatory. Apparently the intent is to put a thief to catch a thief, but it don’t seem to be working…. 🙂

    These people who refuse to join…..who supervises their work?
    When they steal people’s property / money/ etc who we going to call?

    What obey what constitutional what?

    One obeys the LAW. The constitution merely sets broad lines in the sand which often need to be interpreted by the courts.


  • dercris | April 20, 2013 at 7:18 AM |
    To members of the justly named criminal bar
    Change de rydim DJ don’t regist star



  • Dercris’ rydim poetry would only apply if the attorney in Bim were DJs.


  • If a Lawyer did not pay his Bar Association fees and represented a client in court,could the client sue the Lawyer for false representation.

    A Lawyer is not in good standing as a result of not paying Bar association fees.

    Therefore it stands to reason that any case he worked on that was tried in a court of law should be retried with Lawyers in good standing.

    Are clients required to ensure that the Lawyers they retain are in good standing ?

    Is a Judge required to ensure that the Lawyers representing clients in cases before him are in good standing?

    I await the 500 word explanations from our BU Legal eagles.

    Now some things in life are really important for one’s mental health.

    I gine fishing.


  • @Hants

    You keep comign to this point. As discussed if some lawyers refuse to pay BA fees and the ‘system’ refuses to challenge what next? It has to be court arbitrated. Again the AG and many have admitted that they are aware of this matter going on for years. The system is failing.


  • George Paynehas sued Edmund Hinkson . The action was filed and served on Hinkson yesterday .


  • @Newsflash

    Send us the filing.


  • Will try !!!


  • @ Hants
    “…..could the client sue the Lawyer for false representation.”
    Don’t ask foolish questions Hants….
    Of course a client can sue the lawyer for false representation…..he can also sue the lawyer for having false teeth, for misrepresenting himself as intelligent, for wearing the wrong suit to the trial….

    man Hants……., ANYONE can Sue ANYONE for practically ANYTHING.

    ….now winning the suit is another matter,
    BUT that is the exact point here….
    Someone in Barbados should have taken some action to address this YEARS ago..
    1 – The Government through the AG’s office
    2 – The courts through the CJ’s office
    3 – The BAR Association in soliciting compliance from all lawyers
    4- The Lawyers in proving their point about its invalidity
    5 – various clients who blissfully used illegal lawyers (if they lost)
    6- The press on behalf of the public’s right to know
    7- the general public – since it is our business


    What does that tell you Hants?
    …..all a bunch of Brass Bowls
    Gutless, mindless, hopeless sheep.

    …so who you going sue? …all of the above? ..including yourself?


  • Caswell Franklyn


    You mentioned all those persons and bodies that should have done something over the years, yet still you refuse to acknowledge that where all of them have failed, I brought the matter to the public’s attention, by posting on BU and in the Nation as Sir David Seale LOL.


  • Just stating the obvious....


    Sir David Seale has a right to an opinion and a right to say it publicly. If the law is on the books and it is not being followed is it not being broken?

    The proper determiniation as to if the law is unjust is to be made by the courts. In the meantime lawyers who do not pay their dues are in breach of the act.

    The situation needs to be clarified. Is it unconstitutional? If they feel so then they should sue and put the matter before the competent authority, get a decision and then the matter will be clear. This is the correct process.

    Otherwise they are simply ignoring a law they disagree with.

    However if they are not members of the Bar Association, are they bound by it’s code of conduct? By the sanction of the disciplinary committee? Do their clients have any assurance of any particular level of service or professionalism?

    You can choose not to join the Bar Association but then you cannot cloak yourself in the respectability derived from it.


  • @Bushie. I am not staying out of it, but thanks for your well-intentioned advice. You see, since, according to Solicitor, Jeff and self the Act is a nullity ab initio, it follows that the BA, which does NOT issue practicing certificates NOR determine qualifications or right to practice, has no authority to cancel those certificates. So, no. I will not stay out of this. Because, unless an attorney’s practice certificate is cancelled by the Government, under the laws of this land that attorney has the right to practice.

    This factor opens a whole can of worms in respect of attorneys who have been disbarred by the BA on its own authority. The ramification of that are clear – at least to me they are.

    @David. I was aware that proceedings were to be filed and served in Payne v Hinckson either late this week or early next week. I am not fully conversant on what is complained of and therefore would prefer not to comment further until I have axed a few questions.


  • Payne v Hinckson

    ……… do we know if the Registrar has published a list of lawyers licensed to practise in the OG …..

    …. because if she hasn’t it may be whatever papers David gets to display may be a complete joke!!


  • Does anyone have access to “THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE” and can they tell us if Barbados actually has any licensed lawyers practising this year?


  • And I thought Abrahams was different from the rest. Oh well.


  • @ Amused
    A license to practice is not yours to “be cancelled (only) by the ‘government’…. ” ….SURELY it is granted annually FOR ONE YEAR- upon payment of the registration fee (and upon making your peace with the Bar) LOL…perhaps that can be achieved with two rum and cokes 🙂

    This is a mold hill amused….don’t try to make it into a mountain…

    @ Caswell
    You ain’t a bad fellow you know…..despite all your efforts to appear otherwise…
    You HAVE done some REAL shiite in your time….. But this impersonation of Sir David Seale is really pushing it….! 🙂

    Now if you had raised that issue as CHAIRMAN OF THE NATIONAL SUPERVISORY COMMITTEE everything would be different….

    ….for one thing, Bushie would look like he know what he doing… (…and that kind of thing is IRRESISTIBLE to Islandgal) ….but NO!…you raise it as David Seale….

    Until you start your REAL calling, you are nobody. nothing but a pesky BU blogger ….LOL …just like Bushie…


  • Unfreekinbelievable.

    BU has becoming the only credible legal information resource in Barbados.

    We have Jeff and Amused who always speak the truth as they know it.

    We have Caswell Franklyn who takes pride in being correct and obviously has a stash of Law books that he actually reads.

    They we have Bushie who knows everything.

    Those of us intelligent enough to understand these men can make informed decisions based on their comments.


  • Caswell Franklyn


    Re: your comment at 11:24 a.m.

    The Bar Association does not debar any lawyers on its own authority: it has no such authority. The Court of Appeal is the competent authority to disbar lawyers. I think that you use to know this but that’s how dementia works.


    Get your facts straight: I did not impersonate David Seale, from where I sit, it looks like the other way to me. LOL!


  • Caswell, to impersonate is to assume the character or apparence of someone else…
    According to you @10.51…… “I brought the matter to the public’s attention, by posting on BU and in the Nation as Sir David Seale LOL”

    Wuh Bushie only going by your assessment…. 🙂
    You will need more than the suit to get away with posing as him though…..you will need dinero… LOL Ha Ha


  • Bushie
    You mek me real shame; all amused has to do is to quote some latin and you soft soft in his hands of law. But Bush latin is a dead language may be it speaks a lot about Amused and his smooth prose here.

    By the way Bush ALL of us in Bim are nobodies. A recent piece of research that upset the poor british found that 95% of the british came from the servant class. This is why most try to hid their pedigree behind the queen’s accent. Most of us in Bim do our hiding in the parks and terraces.


  • @Casewell. I was very sure you would not see a trap if I set one. I was right. Thanking for proving my contentions.


  • @Lemuel. The Roman Empire covered the major part of the known world, including England, whence springs English, the language. The British Empire covered even more of the world than the Romans. In centuries to come as the language of each former colony of Britain evolves, it is likely that some people like you will talk about English being a dead language when those who use the odd English word or phrase use them. Words like “TWIT”.


  • What is striking to me, is that a matter of formality, albeit required for clarification to ensure proper legitimacy of actions by attorneys, has taken up so much and become the ‘raison d’etre’, while the biggest issue of timing and efficiency of court cases, is still not being addressed by authorities.

    That says a lot as to the dysfunctional situation and current state of mind.

    Implementing change to ensure effective action, while requiring to be within the Constitutional rules of the land and rights of the individuals in cases, can surely be done within one year, at least the framework of the change.

    That the issue is languishing is not heartening. However, that is not surprising, as this is so in so many facets of government now.

    Water – so many are regularly out of water, across the island.

    Schools -still issues exist, and the issue of Alexandra School, despite Mr.Broomes being moved, as those who claimed that he was the issue insisted, we are now being told that it is not over. Idiocy.

    Taxation and VAT – These functions, as the Auditor General has stated, are NOT being carried out effectively and are actually in a full mess. In the midst of a recession and Government’s primary collection agencies are in a mess??

    Those are just a few of the things that indicate that the intention and political will are NOT there to solve issues in reality, but merely being sugar coated or band-aided.


  • Amused
    You better stick to the Law thing. Linguistics is not your thing. We have a man here called Professor Peter Roberts who would let you that Latin was not an original language. Most research indicate that Sanskrit or Hebrew would qualify. Poor you are so europeanized that you even fell for that whole world conquor by the Romans. The Romans stole like the Greeks all of the knowledge out of Egypt and the Babylonian Empire.

    But if you want to continue in your dead speak go right ahead. Me and Bushie are not following.

    Amused if you really knew what the term “twit” meant you would not use it so loosely. I must confess now that you and Jeff Cumberbatch are clearly not men of letters, as I thought you both were. But I do love your smooth prose. It reminds of a palin cock; making a racket on the palin but when the hens should be “served” hiding around the corner. Maybe serving is not your orientation.

    Little more on the language thing before i go. even our “bajan” on the surface, the words you repeat are of an english origin, but the substructure of the sentence formation is African. Amused leave this language thing alone. you maybe clearly be the twit here; that is lingusitically speaking. LOL


  • Amused
    I got a good one this morning in the Nation from Sir Roy, and I like Sir Roy shall not stand by idly in Amens Alley while you spout your dead latin phrases about this blog. LOL


  • Carson C. Cadogan

    Well Well | April 20, 2013 at 6:44 AM

    that is how it works.

    Cant see the moat in your own eye but you can see the beam in someone’s else’s eye.


  • #€|@$!!?! @ Lemuel
    “But if you want to continue in your dead speak go right ahead. Me and Bushie are not following.”
    You and Bushie?
    …since when you speaking for Bushie bozie?

    …right now when Bushie seeking legal representation um is still Amused (if Bushie got cash)
    ….and Caswell if things tight… 🙂


  • Bushie
    I thought as a man of critical thinking you would clearly see where I was coming from. How could I speak for thee.


  • Bushie
    You must admit that all of us need living words of life not dead words. Given how things working out with the lawyers and this tiefing thing, I am willing to give Amused my money ONLY with a collins sharpened on both sides at arm’s reach. I know I could trust Caswell.


  • Read Jeff’s piece on this matter:

    Musings: Lowering the Bar [I]


    By Jeff Cumberbatch

    “…a law is just and therefore binding in conscience if its restrictions are… necessary to protect the rights of others and…proper insofar as they do not violate the preexisting rights of the persons on whom they are imposed…” R. Barnett – Restoring the Lost Constitution: The Presumption of Liberty

    Given the nature of the content of this essay, I might equally have captioned it, “Groucho Marx and the Bar”. And this has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that members of the Bar – the legal Bar – have been, from time immemorial, the butt (ha!) of a slew of mostly deprecatory jokes that laymen (and some lawyers too) delight in telling. Like the question asked about why lawyers are buried twenty-five feet below ground -Because deep down they are nice guys! Or the one about Mr. Strange KC who desired nothing on his headstone but “Here lies an honest lawyer”. “But”, protested his wife, “no one would be able to tell that it was you.”



  • Bushie
    What became of Chris Halsall. His thermodynamics laws are being broken by new research.


  • We need an Albert Haddock in Barbados.

    Remember misleading cases on TV? …. Mr. Justice Swallow

    Work of A.P. Herbert

    This suggests a commoner can appear in court and needs no lawyer!!

    I have heard of two civil cases where that happened.

    One was a local civil case which was lost on a technicality but won in the long run in the court of common sense and involved the PM and AG.

    Scotland District Association vs O$A and David Simmons re Greenland!!

    In the criminal court I often read of criminals who act for themselves … and sometimes win outright against QC’s!!


  • Smooth Chocolate

    LOOK | April 20, 2013 at 4:46 AM |
    Sad that Barbados has let loose their lawyers, politicians too to produce widespread damage there (Barbados):.. George Payne, David Thompson, Sir Richard Cheltenham, Charles O. Williams, etc. Those corrupt lawyers, politicians to have infested itself in …government affairs, ..etc. and like a roach army continuously growing

    u forgot to add Freundel Stuart, Michael Lashley, Donville Inniss


  • @Lemuel. You say that I am lacking in linguistics and that I don’t know what “twit” means. But you are wrong.

    According to Cassells Dictionary of Slang published 1998, here is what it means:

    “twit” n, [1920+] a fool, an idiot, [TWERP + TWAT (2)].

    I then looked up “TWAT” aka “TWOT”, but delicacy and respect for Islandgal, Pat and, most importantly, SWMBO, and all the ladies of the BU family, prevents me from reporting my finding here. I note that TWAT and TWOT date from the 17th Century.

    Therefore, out of respect for something that IS useful, I prefer to restrict myself to the interpretation of “a fool, an idiot”.

    Believe it or not, I have just as many books as Casewell – probably many more. Also, believe it or not, I did learn how to both read and write – English, Latin, Greek, French (very well) and even a little German (not so well, but improving).

    I hope this assists you.


  • Amused
    Again, you expose your lack of scholarship when you knowingly refer to a humble brumbly boy as a twit. I could see that Jeff Cumberbatch’s summation came from his inflated ego, and his false sense of intellectual superiority, but yours it is if you are steeling yourself to the sticking place.

    By the way I would not know what Caswell has or has not read. But you still remain my legal defender when in dire need.


  • @ David.
    Roy Morris’ article in today’s Barbados Today On the position of Mr Vernon Smith’s reaction to his name appearing on the list of lawyers refusing to pay Bar fees raises another very interesting element to this matter . It will be a matter of great interest to see how the Bar Association will respond to Vernon Smith; he is every bit the gladiator .


  • Caswell Franklyn


    When are you going to realise that you should not take legal advice from anyone who purports to be a lawyer but wants to give that advice under a nom de plume. One Amused contended that Vernon Smith objected to the payment of Bar dues because such a requirement was unconstitutional. Barbados Today carries Mr. Smith claiming that he has been paying his dues but the cheques have been continually returned because he did not include VAT.

    On this score Mr. Smith is quite right, membership dues are not subject to VAT. Mr. Smith’s dispute is about VAT.


  • How come the other 800 plus lawyers in Barbados apparently pay VAT on theirs?

    Do we have 800 plus idiots and one genius in Barbados?


  • @ John
    Too many persons are followers and not thinkers . It takes people like Mr Smith to bring about change by correcting long standing errors .


  • Sorry………posted it to the wrong thread. it’s been a long day…



  • Vernon Smith is incorrect in saying that the Barbados VAT system is modeled after the English one.

    The Barbados legislation was based on the Canadian, Jamaican, New Zealand and Trinidadian Acts.


  • Pingback: Tales from the Courts – Mars(ton) and Pluto Were Inside the Closet Part XVIII | Barbados Underground

  • Pingback: Tales From the Courts – The Idiocy of Chief Justice Marston Gibson XXV | Barbados Underground

Join in the discussion, you never know how expressing your view may make a difference.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s