Regulate Lawyers’ Clients Accounts

The Speaker of the House Michael Carrington has been reported to have significantly repaid monies withheld from a septenarian wheelchair bound client demanded by Madam Justice Jacqueline Cornelius’ court order. The issue of the indiscipline approach to how Barbadian lawyers appear to manage client’s monies must become part of a national discussion and lobby to make better.

While it serves the purpose of the legal profession, including the large cadre who makeup the members of parliament, managing client’s accounts (monies) does not require a rocket science approach. President of the Barbados Bar Association (BBA) Tariq Khan can deny it all he wants, we know lawyers hold client’s monies handed to them for simple to complicated transaction for unacceptably long periods and complaining to the BBA is a joke.

Have a look at the Solicitors Regulation Authority handbook. We claim t be an educated people, we pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to educate lawyers so where is our return in value to making our society a better place.

89 comments

  • The problem in Barbados with respect to lawyers abusing the trust that their clients repose in them and getting away with it is multifaceted. First and foremost is the fact that the legislators have traditionally been lawyers. They go to the House and pass laws to benefit themselves, like reserving certain functions for themselves. They also ensure that the laws to regulate their profession are tepid and ineffectual. They make sure that the laws that are put in place are not used to harm themselves when they are no longer legislators and back in their practices fleecing clients.

    Liked by 1 person

  • Old timers say the white solicitor firms did more thieving than the new generation black punk lawyers who cant keep their hands off their clients money. The difference was few people were educated or brave enough to question solicitors back then and what they siphoned off was mainly poor and often illiterate black people’s land. There was no social media or call in programs back then and blacks were strictly hewers of wood. Now the young pups bequeathed with intelligence from Barrow’s free education stealing from their own people. Same story different pigment.

    Did I miss it or didn’t Mia Mottley broach the subject of Nicholls one of her BLP candidates borrowing $15,000 on Deacons Road on ELECTION DAY. This act brings into question electoral integrity, governance , bribery, vote buying and the rest. It should be discussed in those contexts.

    Like

  • @Togetherness aka waiting

    What you missed is the Prime Minister and Attorney General of Barbados admitting to having witnessed irregularities on election day.

    JA

    Like

  • Sir now as designated(presumably) acting head of BU. Bar association can u please specify/or explain in legal terminology the following ” unlimited access” also please bear in mind that each case is treated on an individual scale according to merit.

    Like

  • John Hanson 1781-1782- I SERVE 1788- 1792 BARBADOES.

    Well we may see that. the same time that BANKS in Barbados make a list of monies that belong to dead people or other families members, Unclaimed FUNDS that they hide and use for self , FUNDS that were never handed over the the CENTRAL BANK,

    FIRST CARIBBEAN IS ONE OF SUCH BANKS , CROOKS LIARS AND SCUMBAGS THEY ARE , IN GOOD COMPANY WITH LAWYERS.

    Like

  • John Hanson 1781-1782- I SERVE 1788- 1792 BARBADOES. January 31, 2015 at 4:17 PM #

    I do not understand – if the list is published, why do you say that the funds are hidden?

    Like

  • As a matter of interest, when will the BU BA scrutinize the activities of clients when it comes to payment for services rendered?

    Like

  • robert ross January 31, 2015 at 7:22 PM # As a matter of interest, when will the BU BA scrutinize the activities of clients when it comes to payment for services rendered?

    Oh lookie, you have got to be joking. So, RR’s solution …two wrongs make a right1

    Gotcha!

    Like

  • Crusoe

    “Gotcha”…bollocks….oh dear, you poor fella, you do rather lack understanding. I neither said not implied anything about “two wrongs making a right”. BUT if you admit there are “wrongs” all ends up in the system then good.

    Like

  • I do not lack understanding and you certainly inferred it. Backtracking much???

    Like

  • So, RR methods (I would not advise using him, whomever he is), is Mr Jones does not pay him on time, nor Mrs Ethelbert, so Mr.Davids should not expect his money for the sale of a house anytime soon…… because the first two are owing him….

    😉

    Yes we get it RR!

    Like

  • Ther is a system in place in the UK dealing with this lawyer/client accounts business.Skulduggery is wherever a sucker exists and where the law is either non existent or loosely written affording the lawyer a way out.
    In the bad old colonial days the AG was a UK appointee and he couldn’t afford to have local lawyers making him look bad.Bajans with a 7th standard education were well informed and no white man could steal their land just so.This nonsense only start recently fueled by drugs and guns, Benzes and Beamer

    Like

  • Gabriel you would have be the hue of an angel or the inside of an oreo to make that statement. A zillion credible stories are out there of the skullduggery of solicitors before the professions were fused in the 1970’s. Only solicitors could convey and handle land transactions before then. Don’t bring no jackass distractions to the discussion. Solicitors were major culprits in shenanigans where poor disenfranchised blacks lost their property after trusting a solicitor. What only start with benz and drugs what! Foolishness on your part.

    Like

  • Here is what section 22.3 says about how lawyers should manage interest paid/not to be paid on Client’s Accounts.

    http://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/handbook/accountsrules/part5/content.page

    Like

  • Here is is in 2015 Barbadians are concerned about the governance of lawyers’ Clients Accounts TODAY and all therein and we have two JAs who would bray about what use to happen YESTERDAY OR citizens owing the BA (officers of the court). No wonder!

    Like

  • Crusoe…now don’t let your empty article go to your head…you may trip over it. OR…you’re over your head…stick to dreaming.

    Like

  • @Togetherness January 31, 2015 at 2:50 PM “Did I miss it or didn’t Mia Mottley broach the subject of Nicholls one of her BLP candidates borrowing $15,000 on Deacons Road on ELECTION DAY. This act brings into question electoral integrity, governance , bribery, vote buying and the rest. It should be discussed in those contexts.”

    @David January 31, 2015 at 2:52 PM “What you missed is the Prime Minister and Attorney General of Barbados admitting to having witnessed irregularities on election day.”

    Dear Togetherness and David: You are BOTH right. In the 2 situations above NEITHER of you is a JA.

    Like

  • I feel like a complete idiot now. It seems clear that both parties were passing money, and gifts to ensure an election victory.

    And me like a big idiot, or a SImple Simon didn’t get any.

    Like

  • @Alien

    About time, may the gods go with you Patrick Toppin.

    Like

  • Robert ross ”robert ross February 1, 2015 at 12:09 AM # ”

    You don’t like to be caught out, do you? And no, I know you would have found my article ’empty’…aka you like the ‘status quo’, works for you, doesn’t it?

    Now I know why you defended the Speaker so heartily! Birds of a feather!

    😉

    Like

  • the question is whether or not the receipt of the cash of over $10,000.00 could be considered money laundering. Ask the DPP

    Like

  • @Puzzled

    Based on the law Carrington’s bank should have requested a declaration if deposits of greater than $10,000 and this applies to Griffiths lawyer’s bank as well. Some banks based on relationships assign deposit limits to lawyers and others. Let us hope the authorities are looking on.

    Like

  • This post is rooted in desperation. It says nothing new and, as usual, takes the line “Whatever X says, we say” no matter the status and level of expertise of X and whatever the evidence actually is.

    In context this is understandable given that the post asserts that Carrington has complied with the Court Order.

    The overarching principles contained in the Solicitors’ Regulation Authority link really contain nothing that is not understood and practised. In particular, the Judicial Advisory Council under s.13, Legal Profession Act Cap 370A may make rules of the kind stipulated in the Act governing client’s monies. Rules 87 and 88 of the 1988 Code of Ethics established by the Disciplinary Committee under s.18 of the Act explicitly deal with client’s monies and there are other rules which deal with unconscionable delay. There is no self-evident difference in substance with the SRA principles and the distinction between attorneys’ monies and clients’ monies and the duties arising therefrom are clearly explicated.

    Like

  • Crusoe

    You are quite right. I do believe in justice and would always place it over mob rule even in the case of a 70yo, wheel chair bound complainant. As I said in another post, it matters not whether the complainant has that handicap or is a teenage forty legs. He is entitled to the SAME consideration in matters of this kind as everyone else.

    Like

  • @Ross

    Did you not also assert that BU was wrong to highlight the dishonorable deed by the Speaker of the House MICHAEL CARRINGTON for withholding quater million from a wheelchair bound septuagenarian last week?

    Does ignorance have any bounds?

    Like

  • David

    In your case, no.

    But I NEVER argued that BU should not have highlighted this case. What I said, and I reassert it, is that in the absence of all the facts BU was not entitled to make itself counsel, judge and jury. That was not right then. It is not right now despite all your fake moral posturing.

    Like

  • By your response Ross you have cemented yourself into the JA Hall of Fame. All BU did was to give vent to Madam Justice Cornelius court order. What you conveniently opted to do was to retreat behind procedure. You may have the last word.

    Like

  • @ David
    Does ignorance have any bounds?
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Of course not….. you ever heard of AC….?
    rahhhhhh ha ha !!! too sweet bout here…!!

    You all right yuh….
    Ross is understandably concerned that this situation may lead to all lawyers in Barbados being forced to account for all client funds…..

    Wuh shiite man David!!…..we can’t have THAT…….can we?

    Liked by 2 people

  • @ Bush shite ..

    look close …see! i am rolling my eyes

    Like

  • @ AC
    …and a blessed good morning to you also…

    WAIT….
    You have eyes…?
    How come you can’t see a shiite…?

    Like

  • David February 1, 2015 at 9:50 AM #

    @ ross

    All BU did was to give vent to Madam Justice Cornelius court order.

    ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

    to vent …….

    Irritated? Angry? Plain furious?

    were all of the above necessary given the fact that the court had spoken.
    …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

    seems more likely a pillar of political venting towards mr carrington with an unauthorized appendage of theft to judge cornelius order laid out in the BU court authorized by judge DAVID>

    Like

  • @ Bush shite

    Look again ! this time look a little closer ! see! it is sitting right next to your name even a blind man stumbling in the dark can see it,

    Like

  • A time out from some of the BS comments so far:

    Guidance notes

    (i)
    Requirement to pay interest

    (a)
    Money is normally held for a client as a necessary, but incidental, part of the retainer, to facilitate the carrying out of the client’s instructions. The main purpose of the rules is to keep that money safe and available for the purpose for which it was provided. The rules also seek to provide for the payment of a fair sum of interest, when appropriate, which is unlikely to be as high as that obtainable by the client depositing those funds.

    (b)
    An outcomes-focused approach has been adopted in this area, allowing firms the flexibility to set their own interest policies in order to achieve a fair outcome for both the client and the firm.

    (c)
    In addition to your obligation under rule 22.3, it is good practice to explain your interest arrangements to clients. These will usually be based on client money being held in an instant access account to facilitate a transaction. Clients are unlikely to receive as much interest as might have been obtained had they held and invested the money themselves. A failure to explain the firm’s policy on interest may lead to unrealistic expectations and, possibly, a complaint to the Legal Ombudsman.

    (d)
    The Legal Services Act 2007 has abolished the distinction in the Solicitors Act 1974 between interest earned on client money held in a general client account or a separate designated client account, meaning that interest earned on the latter type of account is, in theory, to be accounted for like interest on any other client money on a "fair and reasonable" basis. In practice, however, a firm which wishes to retain any part of the interest earned on client money will need to hold that money in a general client account and continue to have interest paid to the office account (see rule 12.7(b)). The tax regime still treats interest arising on money held in a separate designated client account as belonging to the client, and requires banks to deduct tax at source from that interest (subject to the tax status of the individual client) and credit the interest to the separate designated client account. This makes it impracticable for firms to retain any part of the interest earned on a separate designated client account.

    (e)
    Some firms may wish to apply a de minimis by reference to the amount held and period for which it was held, for example, providing that no interest is payable if the amount calculated on the balance held is £20 or less. Any de minimis will need to be set at a reasonable level and regularly reviewed in the light of current interest rates.

    (f)
    It is likely to be appropriate for firms to account for all interest earned in some circumstances, for example, where substantial sums of money are held for lengthy periods of time.

    (g)
    If sums of money are held in relation to separate matters for the same client, it is normally appropriate to treat the money relating to the different matters separately but there may be cases when the matters are so closely related that they ought to be considered together, for example, when you are acting for a client in connection with numerous debt collection matters. Similarly, it may be fair and reasonable in the circumstances to aggregate sums of money held intermittently during the course of acting for a client.

    (h)
    There is no requirement to pay interest on money held on instructions under rule 15.1(a) in a manner which attracts no interest.

    (i)
    Accounts opened in the client’s name under rule 15.1(b) (whether operated by you or not) are not subject to rule 22, as the money is not held by you. All interest earned belongs to the client. The same applies to any account in the client’s own name operated by you as signatory under rule 10.
    (ii)
    Interest policy (rule 22.3)

    (a)
    It is important that your clients should be aware of the terms of your interest policy. This should normally be covered at the outset of a retainer, although it may be unnecessary where you have acted for the client previously. It is open to you and your client to agree that interest will be dealt with in a different way (see rule 25).
    (iii)
    Unpresented cheques

    (a)
    A client may fail to present a cheque to his or her bank for payment. Whether or not it is reasonable to recalculate the amount due will depend on all the circumstances of the case. A reasonable charge may be made for any extra work carried out if you are legally entitled to make such a charge.
    (iv)
    Liquidators, trustees in bankruptcy, Court of Protection deputies and trustees of occupational pension schemes

    (a)
    Under rule 8, Part 3 of the rules does not normally apply to liquidators, etc. You must comply with the appropriate statutory rules and regulations, and rule 8.3 and 8.4 as appropriate.
    (v)
    Joint accounts

    (a)
    Under rule 9, Part 3 of the rules does not apply to joint accounts. If you hold money jointly with a client, interest earned on the account will be for the benefit of the client unless otherwise agreed. If money is held jointly with another practice, the allocation of interest earned will depend on the agreement reached.
    (vi)
    Failure to pay interest

    (a)
    A client, including one of joint clients, or a person funding all or part of your fees, may complain to the Legal Ombudsman if he or she believes that interest was due and has not been paid, or that the amount paid was insufficient. It is advisable for the client (or other person) to try to resolve the matter with you before approaching the Legal Ombudsman.
    (vii)
    Role of the reporting accountant

    (a)
    Paragraph 2.8 of the Guidelines for accounting procedures and systems at Appendix 3 states the need for policies and systems in relation to the payment of interest.

    (b)
    The reporting accountant does not check for compliance with the interest provisions but has a duty under rule 40 to report any substantial departures from the Guidelines discovered whilst carrying out work in preparation of the accountant’s report. The accountant is not, however, required to determine the adequacy of a firm’s interest policy (see rule 41.1(d)).

    Like

  • Oh David…now you’re scissor and pasting from a link you’ve already given us. It changes NOTHING. The relevant principles are all in the Code of Ethics.

    As a matter of concern……which banks do/do not pay interest on clients’ accounts monies?

    Like

  • Where are these “facts” that ac etc persistently told BU to await before passing judgment? Am I to conclude that with the money now paid these facts were pure myth?

    Like

  • An Factoid of theft which was mostly said and repeated by the BU witness without substantive or formal information in BU court and which the BU judge had let be stated as evedience while not being able to provide proof,/evedience /or knoweldge of such criminal activity by the defendant.
    However the FACT as stated by the court shows no relevancy of said accusation / allegation Those are the facts.

    Like

  • wahlosssss arrant nonsense!! But many have repeatedly shot down this argument so no sense in me wasting my time. Girl bye!!!

    Like

  • the same ole ammo used by the yardfowl Hit and run but in this instance missing the target /bulls eye called “THEFT”

    Like

  • ac

    Yes, the idea of “venting” also crossed my mind. I saw it more as ‘a lot of hot air’.

    Like

  • regulate? 1st thing lawyers will claim is attorney/client privilege. it will never get pass.

    Like

  • most lawyers in Barbados practice independently and don’t have accounts departments and don’t have their accounts audited.

    Like

  • Some solutions to the issue where property is sold and the lawyer for the vendor collects the money is to have all parties and or reps of those involved to present at the closing and all funds verified and handed over. NO LARGE SUMS WILL be held by any lawyer.

    If it is a debt collection let the money be paid into the high court accounts dept.

    Like

  • Robert Ross said and I will translate..

    ”robert ross February 1, 2015 at 9:35 AM #

    Crusoe

    You are quite right. I do believe in justice (what RR believes is justice, may be a bit subjective) and would always place it over mob rule ) and to retiterate, such as RR dont give a damn about citizens and good men’s opinions NOR Professional ethics) even in the case of a 70yo, wheel chair bound complainant. (RR introduce red herring, funny that, same tactic as ac and Nordick Invader use) As I said in another post, it matters not whether the complainant has that handicap or is a teenage forty legs. He is entitled to the SAME consideration in matters of this kind as everyone else.

    Oh I agree, the issue IS actually more of professional ethics and why in gosh name, the man had to wait 14 years for a Judge to ORDER him to pay the man his money.

    That is all it is about and darned right too!!!

    Res Ipsa Loquitor!!!

    14 years to pay the man his money!!!!!!!

    Like

  • robert ross February 1, 2015 at 11:30 AM # ”As a matter of concern……which banks do/do not pay interest on clients’ accounts monies?

    Ah,.,..more red herring. Heck, throw the gallon of paint at it and cover the whole issue with irrelevant ramblings, cloud the issue. As per ac and Nordick Invader.

    The issue IS of professional ethics and dealings with client funds. Stop there.

    Like

  • Baroness Brenda Browne

    As long as you are a so called Big-up in Barbados, you can do anything and find a way out. What with friends in position who will back you to the hilt, its anything goes. Members of Parliament especially feel that they are Hollywood stars -Celebrities and certain rules , admission fees to events and other things that so called ordinary persons are subjected to daily does not apply to them. They are the Political class . They need to be shown a sickle -thats what. Then they are the lackeys who feel that they can get Ministers of Government to telephone people in private businesses and the public sector too and harass them and confuse their lives for some frivolity. These so-called Big-ups need to humble or be humbled.

    Like

  • Baronness said”These so-called Big-ups need to humble or be humbled.”

    And that is what people like David and some of the rest of us fear. That these idiots like RR above, don’t realize the road they are marching down…….

    They love their warped thought processes but don’t realize that man in the street done widdat.

    Attacking what we are saying calling us all ‘yardfowl’ because we disagree with their ways, is ironic, considering that we are the reasonable ones who wish any potential issues to be averted and good for Barbados.

    You think people on this forum vexated?? Should go listen on the street.

    I just because some of us disagree, sorry we are not yardfowl.

    We just do not take to the idea of marching in tandem, arm raised and chanting ‘Heil’ as certain people seem to think we should. Heck no.

    Like

  • crusoe of course everything else becomes “rambling” as long as the wordings are not couched /address and rearranged to fit a specific agenda
    the vexations of all things considered to be ramblings comes from a spirit wanting to control and define, go in peace angel of wickedness

    Like

  • @Tariq Khan et al

    Will you be another toothless President of the BBA?

    So far your empty mouthings suggest such.

    Like

  • If ever I have to go to a lawyer to transact some business and have money coming to me, I will demand that the monies be paid to me to an account and that the lawyer is hired only to do the legal paperwork. NOT ONE EFFING CENT GOING TO ANY EFFING LAWYER unless it is for payment for his services.

    Like

  • pieceuhderockyeahright

    @ Crusoe

    Indeed a gem

    “You think people on this forum vexated?? Should go listen on the street..”

    The thing is Crusoe that when these fellows get in the house neither they nor their Parliamentary Assistants venture into the gazas nor slums that they have either created or, in absentia, continue to nourish

    They think that Michael Lashes getting beat to donkey up is just a single instance.

    Let any one of them venture into their communities after the sun gone down, BY THEMSELVES, its their BMWs, and see if we doan read bout them and the lashes that them get in them communities!!

    I beleive that only Owen and Mia wont get licks

    Owen, because people would tek compassion on he as he moving around and Mia becausing she got she Glock on her him just in case

    Like

  • It will be interesting to hear the reaction to Mara Thompson named in the Affidavit by the JM. Up to now she has been given a pass. She was the Office Manger at Thompson & Associates, time up!

    Like

  • Amen David. Do you think the cheque will be evidence?

    Like

  • @enuff

    The cheque has to be evidence. It can easily be requested by the Court from the bank.

    Like

  • millertheanunnaki

    @ David February 1, 2015 at 6:55 PM

    Be careful here. That ‘request’ can be made only if it is the timeframe allowed by the law for the keeping of financial records.

    Let us hope the JM and forensic auditors took a photocopy of the cheque(s) in preparing their reports.

    Liked by 1 person

  • @Miller

    In the first forensic audit when the natter was mentioned one suspects the JMs had sight of the cheque.

    Like

  • I don’t know if this is window dressing but it’s a start.Maybe the PM will now advise Mara to go get a lawyer.First the Speaker involved in a court case which calls into question his bona fides.Now the Deputy Speaker is in a court case too and in both instances applying parties seek redress for monies chequed and passed through the banking system.

    Like

  • The dead coming back to haunt ………Barbados politics and lawyers are now being shown up for exactly what they are.

    Like

  • All of the tiefing political class should be exposed, looks like there is lots more to come. Man dem shameless cleptocrats dat skinning their teeth need some time in Dodds. What part of thou shall not steal is it that they don’t understand.
    A former PM allegedly created a false invoice for over 3 million dollars. Nothing to see here move along. This apparently is standard practice for the political class.

    Like

  • Baroness Brenda Browne February 1, 2015 at 5:49 PM #

    Members of Parliament especially feel that they are Hollywood stars -Celebrities ..............
    

    ………………………………………………………………………………………
    And GOD , since they are worshiped by many, and given preference by the clergy, over Christ when they attend some churches, and also over the Deceased when attending a funeral.

    Like

  • Crusoe

    I see you’re still deeply in love with yourself. Go for it. Two things though.

    It’s res ipsa loguitUr…you see the problem when idiot no-all’s try to talk law?
    The issue of interest on clients’ accounts is critical for clients. But you’re not really interested in clients are you….just political fodder and love of self.

    Like

  • One of the things which needs to be made clear is this…..

    It is right and proper that the legal profession be scrutinized. There are bad apples in every walk of life…and that goes for BU too. When I read some of the things people write I wonder how any of this will ever change the world, or could.

    For example, many commentators on here accused Carrington of stealing/theft. Well for a lay person that may be how it seems. But in law there’s only slender evidence of it. But, yes, that’s the mob at work, the market place. Not that there’s anything wrong with a market place. It’s right too that people should sound off, get it off their chests and YES at times there is good reason to do so.

    A moment ago I referred to Crusoe as a ‘No-all’….and the point was that he has the arrogance to dismiss, in his interminable ravings, every contribution other than those which agree with him. Like David, he says ‘NO’ to everything….like a spoiled kid.

    If the public wrath at what has happened, which I quite agree is real enough, leads to real change in the system, in this instance a more stark understanding of the concept of ‘trust’, then all to the good. But it must also be understood that there are envious and malignant dispositions who will ever try to make capital from whatever rears its head in the public domain and much of it stems from the political barnyard. In short, there are agendas.

    For myself, I have no special brief for this Government. Indeed, I have written on a number of occasions about its “mean spiritedness”. I admire Owen tremendously. But none of that means that by my own lights I cannot say “I don’t agree with you” to people like David and Crusoe (who’s now a star to himself), who wish to ride roughshod over elementary principles of natural justice – one of which is ‘you don’t condemn a man without hearing the full story’. The problem here is that from the first BU – because of course it detests lawyers on the screen because that panders to its followers, though many of its protagonists are in fact drawn from its ranks – has acted as advocate, judge, jury and executioner. For me, that cannot be right. Carrington, as any other accused person, is entitled to consideration, if not respect.

    If THAT position is unacceptable to people like David and Crusoe, I really couldn’t give a monkey’s nuts. The world is big enough for dissent. It’s what the democratic process is about. And it’s the failure to understand that, with tolerance, which makes me say ‘It is very doubtful whether any of you will ever change the world for good not least because at root many of you are as rotten as those you condemn’.

    Like

  • Yes it is tantamount to theft in the real world if you factor the opportunity cost of the Griffiths not being able to utilize his money. Everything is not defined y law.

    On Monday, 2 February 2015, Barbados Underground wrote:

    >

    Like

  • @robert ross February 2, 2015 at 10:13 AM…For example, many commentators on here accused Carrington of stealing/theft…that may be how it seems. But in law there’s only slender evidence of it. ===============

    Ross, please clarify your remarks that there is only slender evidence.

    I appreciate your statement that we did not have all the evidence but based on that which we did have: legal matter between client & lawyer initiated some 14 years ago; dispute developed where client claimed money was due to him; attorney refused to make any payment; matter taken to civil court; lawyer does NOT contest matter; judge adjudicates for client.

    Based on that and this legal definition below I searched please clarify why it was so wrong to label Carrington’s actions as theft and the so slender connection to being a thief.

    –A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it; and “thief” and “steal” shall be construed accordingly.

    –It is immaterial whether the appropriation is made with a view to gain, or is made for the thief’s own benefit. —– source: legislation.gov.uk

    It’s likely the Barbados statute is different but you can clarify surely.

    Like

  • @ David

    Yes it is tantamount to theft in the real world if you factor the opportunity cost of the Griffiths not being able to utilize his money.

    Opportunity Cost: The loss\cost foregone to a recipitent by not having use of his monies as a result of the holder’s deliquency…..where Artaxex when needed nuh?

    Yes David ya on the ball….apply this now to the CLICO senario…loss here includes deaths of individuals….how do we place a price on a life? Nasty business indeed….Carrington should be glad for the voices in social media…. As for the persons involved in the covering up \ shelving whatever you care to call it..illgotten sums of that CLICO money for self and family….RELEASE THOSE FUNDS NOW! Before further sins lie on your hands .

    Like

  • Robert Ross said.. ”robert ross February 2, 2015 at 9:25 AM # Crusoe

    1 ) I see you’re still deeply in love with yourself. Go for it. Two things though.

    2) It’s res ipsa loguitUr…you see the problem when idiot no-all’s try to talk law?
    The issue of interest on clients’ accounts is critical for clients. 3) But you’re not really interested in clients are you….just political fodder and love of self.

    1) Heck yes. Of course I love myself, heck if by now as a grown adult, you do not love yourself, you have more problems than seeing what is immoral and right than what is not.

    2) Yes, I get it. What you are saying is that by the one letter incorrect, my intended meaning is unkown, as we idiot no-alls, should understand, that one letter incorrect means that allegedly educated folk, cant decipher the meaning of a phrase, or its intent.

    Sorry, it is indeed Res Ipsa Loquitur, you understand now?

    3) Where the heck did you pull that one from. Show me the evidence on this site that demonstrates that I am just after political fodder? And not yourself the same?

    Interesting that both yourself and ‘ac’ (oh, that was precious, ac’s Angel of Wickedness, I cracked up) rush to get personal when one’s arguments are falling apart and even throwing everything and the kitchen sink and three gallons of paint fails to cloud the issue.

    Are you one and the same?

    Res Ipsa …whatever…. 😉

    Like

  • Robert Ross ”people like David and Crusoe (who’s now a star to himself), who wish to ride roughshod over elementary principles of natural justice – one of which is ‘you don’t condemn a man without hearing the full story’. ”

    Hey Mr. Full Story, show me where on this site I demonstrated to ‘run roughshod’ over natural justice?

    And yes, of course, my belief that to keep a clients monies 14 years, only to be delivered after ordered to do so by a judge, is indeed immoral.

    And if you don’t think so, well, I am not surprised based on your ramblings. As I said before, I know one to avoid for sure.

    😉

    Like

  • @ Ross
    steupsss…the man is a damn thief.
    what slender evidence what?!?

    Damn man’s client had to get another lawyer and go to court to get a HIGH COURT judge to get his rightful money……what the hell do you call that…?

    The problem with wunna lawyers is that MOST of wunna do this shiite ROUTINELY and refuse to accept that IT IS THEFT….

    This matter seem to have you in jitters… you are not you usual calm self…. Bushie certainly hope that YOUR client fees are intact…..
    ….and the Bushman don’t mean “intact” in your home loan….. 🙂

    Liked by 1 person

  • DeeWord

    Our Theft Act is, as you suggest, borrowed from the Theft Act in England. There are various concepts at work. One is the concept of ‘appropriation’. Another is ‘dishonesty’ and the third ‘intention to deprive permanently’. All three would have to be satisfied. The second, ‘dishonesty’ is the one that best suits your argument since the yardstick is objective and geared to what most people would account as dishonesty. The third is evidential. The first in essence entails a consideration of whether there is a usurpation of the rights of the owner (the client).

    A civil action was brought which, as we all know, was not contested – for whatever reason. And it’s that – the unarticulated reason – which for me is the critical point. There are all sorts of reasons why client’s funds might be withheld and these are recognized in the Code of Ethics I mentioned in an earlier post. At what point, if at all, was there a usurpation of the rights of the client? The short answer would be if Carrington had withheld the money, or absconded, following the Court Order. Had this not been so, the assumption must be that the client would have complained to the police at an earlier date or to the BA if he thought his proprietary interests were being usurped. That he did not do so suggests, as I say, that there was no usurpation, or no perceived usurpation, and, since BU says the bulk of the money has been returned, there is clearly no intention to deprive the owner permanently IF the critical date is indeed the date of the Order. I assume also that the client had the benefit of independent legal advice on this which is why he sought recovery in a civil suit.

    Bush Tea

    I do assure you I am totally calm; perhaps a little sad at the things I’ve been reading. I can’t pretend it doesn’t sadden me when I read – and so often on here – attempts to destroy people who can’t give evidence before David’s court.

    Crusoe

    To suggest that I might be ac qualifies you to join me in David’s ‘Hall of Fame’. But yes, do avoid me. You sound like one of those people who wouldn’t pay for services after the ‘no charge’ first interview.

    Like

  • When the original story concerning this matter broke it was reported that John Griffiths revealed he had reported the matter to the Barbados Bar Association.

    Like

  • Good to hear David Ellis, VOB’s Director of News, plans to keep the issue of lawyers and related matters front and centre on the airwaves. Very good David Ellis, block by block.

    Like

  • @ Ross
    I do assure you I am totally calm; perhaps a little sad at the things I’ve been reading. I can’t pretend it doesn’t sadden me when I read – and so often on here – attempts to destroy people who can’t give evidence before David’s court.
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    …But why are you sad that a citizen was able to recover his RIGHTFUL money?

    …Why are you sad that someone who attempted to deprive a citizen of his RIGHTFUL assets has been exposed and forced to do the right thing?

    …Why are you confusing the issue when A LAWYER fails to defend himself in court? …are you saying he was unaware of his right to do so…?

    …Why the hell can he not give his side of the story? CAT GOT HIS TONGUE?

    …don’t you think he OWES an explanation to Parliament?

    Don’t you think that, failing such a satisfactory explanation, Parliament OWES us to dump his ass from that institution?

    Tell us what you think Mr Ross….

    ….or do you think that lawyers have a RIGHT to use client’s funds as they see fit…?

    Liked by 1 person

  • How does the Carrington matter compare to Neville Nicholls son Lumpy?

    Like

  • Bush Tea

    Your views on lawyers generally are well documented and there is little point in arguing the toss with you. Your last question is simply stupid – a quality for which you are renowned. And no, I don’t think he owes an explanation to Parliament. I take Owen’s line on that one.

    Now: how are you on nepotism and political creeping in the Anglican Church?

    Like

  • The first telling fact is that the Speaker did not contest the case. That usually means that one has no defence for one’s actions – not one that would fool a judge anyway. The next telling fact is that the Speaker ignored his leader’s advice. He did not hire a lawyer but complied with the court’s order. The final telling fact is that it took so long for settlement to occur – past the deadline given by the court. How long does it take to transfer funds and give a simple account of them? Hmmmmmm……what else do we need to know? Some people seem to be taking their law degrees too seriously. We non- lawyers are capable of rational thought, you know. Please do not insult our intelligence any further!

    Like

  • millertheanunnaki

    @ robert ross February 3, 2015 at 9:07 AM

    Robert R, I think you have lost the Carrington case.
    The man by his subsequent act of restitution confirms he had wronged Mr. Griffiths all along.
    It’s a pity you are not in receipt of fees for defending the actions of Mr. C. You certainly would have been in line for a massive windfall of financial luck due 14 years down the road.

    Now let us see how you can put up a similar spirited defence of a client of similar moral hue. Leper Parris is in dire need of your services, even though he has the protection of the highest court of the Land and hoping the Statute of Limitations kicks in.

    Like

  • LOL @ ROSS
    ….stupid questions are often the ones with the most insightful answers.

    Here it is again….
    Do YOU think that lawyers have a right to the use of their accumulated client account – which may total in the millions, and which can be arranged to sit in an account 100% CONTROLLED BY THAT LAWYER for as long as the client is forced to tolerate?

    Yes or no?

    If ‘yes’, then you will have explained the genesis of your warped position on the subject case.

    If ‘no’, then pray tell us why the funds cannot be deposited in an independently administered account (say held by the BAR assoc) for transparency and safety.

    If you wish to abstain, and remain silent, we will (based on recent law) come to obvious conclusions about your concerns about incriminating yourself with respect of YOUR own circumstances…

    LOL ha ha ha ….Shiirt!!

    Like

  • Ross, your response certainly validates your profession. But allow the non-lawyer to walk through your remarks.

    “And it’s that – the unarticulated reason – which for me is the critical point…they are all sorts of reasons why client’s funds might be withheld”

    In the absence of a why according to Carrington, the simple and uncomplicated fact is that he determined that there was no valid ground for him to waste the court’s time and prolong the proceeding by contesting.

    Don’t let us make esoteric suppositions on why he remained silent. If he had VALID grounds he would have raised them. After all, he is as seasoned a lawyer as you are.

    “At what point, if at all, was there a usurpation of the rights of the client?”. Ross, if you are my lawyer and I advise you at 11:00 that I no longer want you as my counsel then I suspect that if we are both standing before a judge and she accepts that I am fully capable of making that determination then you and I are done at 11 am.

    And yes you gotta file with the court or others accordingly to severe all ties, properly. And eventually, my new lawyer will advise any related parties that he is now my legal guide.

    The point sir, is that at 11:01 before that Judge you are just another person that has no special relationship with me, thus you start to usurp my rights the moment you do not honor my requests and those of my new lawyer. Simple, I think.

    “… if Carrington had withheld the money, or absconded, following the Court Order.”

    So, is it understood from this statement that an officer of the court who is supposedly bound by a regulation that stipulates in essence that he should not hold on to the client’s money any longer than legally or contractually required is in fact, according to you, excused and should only be accountable if he breaches a court judgment to repay that client? That is interesting to say the least.

    “… the assumption must be that the client would have complained to the police at an earlier date or to the BA if he thought his proprietary interests were being usurped.”

    And the interpretation of this one is that you do not see “his …interests … being usurped” although he hired another attorney. Although that action clearly showed the GRAVITY of his conviction re his monies due .

    “…the bulk of the money has been returned, there is clearly no intention to deprive the owner permanently …”.

    That is as eloquent as I have heard in a while; straight up bold faced lawyer obfuscation.

    Mr. Griffith asked for his money and it was not given to him. Finally after many years the money was finally returned due to a court ruling yet, according to you, nothing can be construed as an intent to deny Mr. Griffith his money permanently.

    In short, Carrington simply borrowed these funds indefinitely and the court was needed to stipulate the duration of the borrowing period.

    I believe your remarks clearly explain why there is such a major problem with attorney’s and client’s money. Bushie said it well: “The problem with wunna lawyers is that MOST of wunna do this shiite ROUTINELY and refuse to accept that IT IS THEFT…. “

    Liked by 1 person

  • robert ross February 3, 2015 at 9:07 AM # Bush Tea Your views on lawyers generally are well documented and there is little point in arguing the toss with you. Your last question is simply stupid – a quality for which you are renowned. And no, I don’t think he owes an explanation to Parliament. I take Owen’s line on that one

    No, of course not. Morality and ethics have no place in Parliament according to the ‘modern types’ we have in authority. Morality what, ethics what.

    It is ALL about what they can and cannot slither under, over and around.

    Yeah, Rossie boy, we are on opposite sides of the cliff and I am glad to be on this side.

    We both may fall in, but I am comfortable with being on this side, just like you are being on that side far over there….as many others today.

    And at least I have Bushie on this side to provide entertainment….

    Like

  • @ Crusoe
    …And at least I have Bushie on this side to provide entertainment….
    +++++++++++++++++++++
    LOL …not to worry, the whacker can reach over by Ross on the wicked side 🙂

    Like

  • Deeword,

    Well done! I didn’t have the patience to deal with that load of crap as you did.

    Like

  • Lawyers searching for distractions today there is another in the news for stealing not only that Avonda Pile is still practicing while on bail. How is that allowed Tariq Khan. Is he a Barbadian? Now he complains that the new judicial Center making lawyers sick. News flash Khan lawyers and before them solicitors have sickened and robbed our people for decades. Your job is to stop the rot. The Bar Association needs to stop casting around for scapegoats for the scandalous crookery that is endemic in the profession. Time to get the finger out and self police your thousand comrade of lawyers out there many prone to misusing client funds. We are not buying this nonsense that its government’s fault. The doctors engineers even police handle people’s money and trust and their rates of deviance pale next to lawyers persistent shenanigans.

    Like

  • And to say that only three lawyers out of a thousand have been disbarred serves only to confirm the ineffectiveness,ineptitude and uselessness of the Bar Association. It is like putting Al Capone and his henchmen in control of the Mafia ! Let us hope that other judges will follow Judge Cornelius’ lead and render justice in a fair and timely manner!

    Liked by 1 person

  • You may want to read

    BarbadosToday page 3 and page 5 (bottom right)

    Like

  • @Hants

    So BU is serving a purpose?

    Liked by 1 person

  • One afternoon a lawyer was riding in his limousine when he saw two men along the road-side eating grass.

    Disturbed, he ordered his driver to stop and got out to investigate.

    He asked one man, “Why are you eating grass?”

    “We don’t have any money for food,” the poor man replied.
    “We have to eat grass.”

    “Well, then, you can come with me to my house and I’ll feed you,” the lawyer said.

    “But sir, I have a wife and two children with me. They are over there, under that tree.”

    “Bring them along,” the lawyer replied.

    Turning to the other poor man he stated, “You may come with us, also.”

    The second man, in a pitiful voice, then said, “But sir, I also have a wife and SIX children with me!”

    “Bring them all as well,” the lawyer answered.

    They all entered the car, which was no easy task, even for a car as large as the limousine was.

    Once under way, one of the poor fellows turned to the lawyer and said, “Sir, you are too kind.”

    “Thank you for taking all of us with you.”

    The lawyer replied, “Glad to do it.
    You’ll really love my place.
    The grass is almost a foot high.”

    Like

  • here in america, a broker’s account may not earn interest, i think that’s why the lawyers
    there in barbados hold on to clients funds so long.

    Like

  • Of course client money should be held in separate client accounts from the practice money. All attorneys should also be compelled to have indemnity insurance if not they should not be allowed to practice.
    We do this with motor vehicles, so why not with professionals. Also, a new disciplinary authority should be established to discipline lawyers.
    The myth that only lawyers will understand the so-called technical side of the cases is hogwash. Any disciplinary authority will have a legal adviser who will advise the authority. Ordinary people, non-lawyers, will bring common sense and fairness to the table.
    But do yo expect a parliament overloaded with lawyers to bring in such change?

    Like

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