Philip Nicholls and the Cottle Catford Matter, Questions

Philip_NichllsThe release of the book published by Philip V. Nicholls More Binding Than Marriage – the former partner of the once venerable Cottle Catford law firm – has only served to exacerbate public scrutiny of the legal profession. Those who read the book were astounded by many revelations shared by Nicholls. Until now the public has not been treated to a rebuttal to the tell-all.

BU shares the following documents received which put Nicholls on notice that offended and or interested parties intend to push back against some of his allegations. We invite others who have documents and a story to tell about the demise of Cottle Catford, the part played by Philip Nicholls and related other matters to visit the top of the BU page or click on the Contact Form located at the bottom of the blog (note the blog and NOT the comments section). Submissions via the contact page will be directed to BU’s confidential inbox.

Perusing the documents submitted we find it interesting that that upon the withdrawal of Allan Watson as a partner, he, along with Sir Neville Nicholls, were appointed by Cottle Catford whose sole partner was Philip Nicholls, to be consultants of Cottle Catford. If as at 01 January 2003, Philip Vernon Nicholls was the sole partner of Cottle Catford, why did he not have a taking of accounts? We invite Nicholls to elucidate on this matter in the public interest. In the book Nicholls pleads ignorance and a high level of naivete as contributing to highly questionable business decisions taken as a partner at Cottle Catford, can the scholarly and respected Sir Neville Nicholls claim to be of the same mind at that time?

A disclaimer: BU holds no brief for any of the actors in this affair. We will publish all documents received without fear or favour.

page 1-DelvinaWatson vs Cottle Catford

page 2-DelvinaWatson vs Cottle Catford

page 3-DelvinaWatson vs Cottle Catford

page 4-DelvinaWatson vs Cottle Catford

page 5-DelvinaWatson vs Cottle Catford

page 6-DelvinaWatson vs Cottle Catford

page 7-DelvinaWatson vs Cottle Catford

page 8-DelvinaWatson vs Cottle Catford

page 9-DelvinaWatson vs Cottle Catford

page 10-DelvinaWatson vs Cottle Catford

page 11-DelvinaWatson vs Cottle Catford

page 12-DelvinaWatson vs Cottle Catford

page 13-DelvinaWatson vs Cottle Catford

page 14-DelvinaWatson vs Cottle Catford

page 15-DelvinaWatson vs Cottle Catford

page 16-DelvinaWatson vs Cottle Catford

page 17-DelvinaWatson vs Cottle Catford

page 18-DelvinaWatson vs Cottle Catford

page 19-DelvinaWatson vs Cottle Catford

page 20-DelvinaWatson vs Cottle Catford

page 21-DelvinaWatson vs Cottle Catford

page 22-DelvinaWatson vs Cottle Catford

page 23-DelvinaWatson vs Cottle Catford

page 24-DelvinaWatson vs Cottle Catford

page 25-DelvinaWatson vs Cottle Catford

page 26-DelvinaWatson vs Cottle Catford

page 27-DelvinaWatson vs Cottle Catford

page 28-DelvinaWatson vs Cottle Catford

page 29-DelvinaWatson vs Cottle Catford

page 30-DelvinaWatson vs Cottle Catford

page 31-DelvinaWatson vs Cottle Catford

page 32-DelvinaWatson vs Cottle Catford

page 33-DelvinaWatson vs Cottle Catford

78 thoughts on “Philip Nicholls and the Cottle Catford Matter, Questions


  1. Would be interesting to see what the push back entails and who is doing the pushing, I gather the push back would cause much more to be revealed and that mught just answer many unanswered questions.


  2. @Mr Blogmaster, you have a way with words that crowns you the universe boss of understatement… not unlike that other famous ‘universe boss’ you rely on astounding performance as your guide – and very awesome they are – and to hell with a few badly elucidated comments here or there.

    I have followed this saga from the pages of BU and based on what I have read of your excerpts from the book etc I would sooner donate a few hundred $$ to some stranger battling with the Bajan legal system than buy Nicholls’ tome…as my money would be much better served as a donation I believe.

    Your wry understatement: “we find it interesting that that upon the withdrawal of Allan Watson as a partner, he, along with Sir Neville Nicholls, were appointed by Cottle Catford whose sole partner was Philip Nicholls, to be consultants of Cottle Catford. If as at 01 January 2003, Philip Vernon Nicholls was the sole partner of Cottle Catford, why did he not have a taking of accounts? ”

    The brother could rise to be sole partner of a ‘blue-blood’ legal firm and to wit appoint his father a deeply respected, astute businessman and lawyer to the company’s Board and we hold this man as a whistle blowing change agent about nefarious Bajan legal operations!

    I call that the most startling insider, or rather insidious, shenanigans of the entire episode.

    BTW, I do hope you get Mr Nicholls to do some writing here on BU as you suggested.

    Cause I would love to hear him elucidate (another of your understatement sweetness) on how he used his smarts to ascend to the top and then was so badly outsmarted; the alternative narrative is that he was he tricked to the top post as a fall-guy…but that would mean that he was really a doufus all along. That I can’t believe.

    Anyhow, Mr Understatement Blogmaster excellent work as usual…so you can parse your words however you want to…unlike the other universe boss your awesome skills will not diminish so much more to come from you surely…especially wry remarks..LOLL.


  3. In reading Nicholls’ book, it was very clear that he dod not rise to the top of Cottle Catford as sole partner, but was chosen as head of the firm when Hutchinson and the other dude retired or whatever, gotta read the book again to remember the exact sequence of events, one wonders why John Watson as the remaining senior partner, never challenged Nicholls being chosen to head the firm…seeing that Nicholls was basically a newbie.


  4. Having skimmed through the documents I am reminded of the witticism “there are three sides to a story, his side, her side and the truth.” In this story some version of the “truth” seems to be emerging (BTW is the book in the fiction section of the book store? For those who invested in this paper they could have spent their money on the soft kind that one uses in bathrooms it would have served a nobler purpose)

    Looking forward to further “stories”, a small point but I noticed that the date on the covering letter (page 28) was 13 April 1007, the cheque however was dated correctly (13 April,2007).


  5. WW&C is English comprehension your second or third language skill? Surely it can’t be your first with statements like “it was very clear that he dod not rise to the top of Cottle Catford as sole partner, but was chosen as head of the firm when Hutchinson and the other dude retired…”

    How do partnerships work, WW&C?
    How are partners appointed and by whom?
    How do you perceive that ‘chosen’ would supersede or dismiss ‘rise to the top’ in a discourse of partnership matters?

    As a partner would Watson not have been in the meetings or at least appraised of Nicholls being ‘chosen’ as managing partner?

    If he was overlooked as managing partner and he really wanted the job but clearly did not have the support then he had two basic choices 1) retire from active work or 2) support the new man

    Do you stop for one moment and consider that it made more sense (in a good way) to get the younger Nicholls to head the firm as they moved forward into the next generation?
    Or did you stop for another moment to consider that the bona fides of the Nicholls’ name and contacts (his father status et al) was an important aspect of his being ‘chosen’ because of the deep shiitee they knew exsisted?

    So WW&C he did not ‘rise to the top’ he was ‘chosen’ to the top. Amazing !

    My comments on the blog are not an attack on Mr Nicholls.

    I simply ask basic questions to explore a different narrative so please desist from the semantics and try to properly decipher and comprehend. You have read the book so you really should be better placed to make well sourced remarks.


  6. @de pedantic Dribbler April 26, 2016 at 7:33 AM “I would sooner donate a few hundred $$ to some stranger battling with the Bajan legal system than buy Nicholls’ tome.”

    I am not battling the Bajan legal system but never-the-less send the few hundred to the
    blogmaster who will pass them on to me. I will use the money to take my significant other to dinner at a fancy hotel.

    This will be an excellent use of your hard earned dollars.


  7. @Sargeant April 26, 2016 at 8:47 AM “BTW is the book in the fiction section of the book store? For those who invested in this paper they could have spent their money on the soft kind that one uses in bathrooms it would have served a nobler purpose”

    Wuhloss!!! You very rough this morning Sarge.


  8. Pedantic…if you ever read the book, you too will UNDERSTAND, the chain of events that led to Nicholls being CHOSEN to head the firm, even if you spoke 3 languages, whether English is your first language….or not.


  9. There are some nonfiction books I never read, whether in English, French, Italian or German….but I NEVER PRETEND to know the chain of events that lead to any given situation or matter, experienced by any of the players in the book, a reminder for some that many of the actions in this book is not only well documented, but also a part of public record.


  10. that law firm laundered land from the UDC, made up names to suit, survey land in the names who was on the land, or was collecting rents, but not in the name of the True Owners 0f the land. None of the names of the so called owners were not recorded at the land registry, UNTIL the noise was made and years later some pop up at the land registry with no clear title. no other records of such people ever lived or died.

    Black First, Land First ,South Africa.
    More Pain to come, when the down grade hit “F” then you all will know that ‘Failing ‘Grade because of the Massive Land Fraud.
    MUCH MORE PAIN TO COME.


  11. pédant …vous avez déjà fait vous regarder idiot sur ​​ce même sujet ,…… il peut être préférable de commenter uniquement sur le périphérique, puisque vous ne lisez jamais le livre et ne peut pas commenter objectivement , …si vous ne pouvez pas faire non plus, pourquoi commentaire du tout .


  12. Just in case I am accused of being insulting, silly in english translates to…idiot in French…lol

    Pedantic…. let Alvin translate for you, I bet the combined amount of time both of you lived in Canada calculates to 60-80 years, ya’ll should be able to speak French.

    Dont worry, I got one for Alvin too.


  13. Like most who have commented above, I too have not purchased or read Nicholls’ book, on the basis that if I want to read legal-based fiction, I will buy a John Grisham book.

    I congratulate BU on publishing these documents. The whole complaint of Nicholls’ cases against Mrs Watson is that she has not paid off the debt owed to Cottle Catford, but it is clear that she has. So those who have bought and read Nicholls’ book have been lied to.

    Since this debts(s) has/have been all paid off, on what basis did Nicholls obtain an ex parte injunction(s) (other than by lying to the court, which is perjury)? AND on what basis is the injunction(s) allowed to subsist?

    Ex parte means without notice (to the other side). I would be most interested to see the receipt signed by the defendant or her counsel that shows that Nicholls notified the defendant of the Order druing the prescribed time after he had obtained it. Maybe Nicholls will send copies of this to BU – but he cannot, because he did not serve it and has no signature for receipt, either on Mrs Watson or her counsel.

    I happen to know that Nicholls’ injunctions are on appeal, but are inexcusably held up, because transcripts of the proceedings (requested, I am informed, in 2012) have not been provided, nor have the reasons of Richards J. (one of the more sloathsome and incompetent judges of the bunch of brass bowls driving around with Police drivers calling themselves judges), also requested in 2012. And an appeal cannot proceed absent the transcript of what I understand is over 100 hours of hearing and, most importantly, the reasons of the judge. For you see, an appeal must be grounded on where the judge has erred in their reasons and in law. Well, if the judge has been keeping her reasons (and the law governing them) reserved to herself and not sharing since 2012 (4 years) although notice of appeal can be filed and served, the actual appeal cannot be perfected nor heard.

    In his reported (and as I have said, I have not read, nor shall I read, his work of fiction) Nicholls has exhibited many documents. Why not these ones? Might they demonstrate to the people whom he wanted to purchase his oeuvre that he is a fraud and by extension merely a pot calling the kettle black.

    It also raises the serious question – as Neville, his father, has supported Philip in his attempts at fiction, then clearly knighthoods are political, rather than meritorious and ought to be treated with contempt, rather than praise.

    Unbelievable. Look at the letter to the Registrar. Mrs Watson did not defend Nicholls’ actions – well, numb nuts, they were without notice and you never served the proceedings on her. Law 101 and even those not involved in law know that, far less one who holds both an LLB and an LLM degree.

    @Well well. Point of correction that I hope you will accept in the affectionate spirit in which it is made. You said words to the effect that Nicholls replaced Hutchinson as senior partner. He did not. He replaced Watson. If memory serves, Nicholls became a partner under the senior partnership of Hutchinson, but Hutch was long gone before he became senior partner. I am assuming therefore that maybe Hutch had reservations about Nicholls’ competence to be a partner, far less senior partner, but Hutch was a quiet and charming man intent on avoiding confrontation and was merely asking Nicholls to search his conscience and determine for himself if he had the competence to be a partner, rather than the way Nicholls has chosen to represent it.

    I had heard that Mr Babb, at the hands of the “great author and defender of our laws and legal system” was dealt with as if he was a field labourer with mud between his toes and I could not think why, as I have the greatest respect for Mr Babb, indeed so has almost all, except……. Now of course, having taken over carriage of the defendant/appellant’s case from Mr Smith QC, one understands why. After all, if you oppose Philip, you have got to be wrong, even if you are right. But you are not only wrong, you are the lowest of the low. Oh dear oh dear oh dear, goodness gracious me.


  14. Barbados is no more than a highly organized Mafia. If you’re well-connected even murder could be gotten away with far less the routine actions of openly stealing people’s monies.

    Philip Nicholls is a thief. Even in that he is nor particularly distinguished. You say business per usual.

    That he seeks to explain his crimes as requirements of his profession and by extension of the larger society should not make him less than the criminal he is.

    And in some ways it speaks to the dead-endedness of a society that nobody in Barbados could be protected from recidivist criminals like Philip Nicholls.


  15. Amused…where is the proof that Griffith paid off what she owed prior to the appeal. I would like to see it, in the interest of being fair, remember the lawyers who did the appeal, one started, then handed it over to the young Jamaican who was “holding” papers for him and still lost the appeal…lol.

    It is a matter of public record.


  16. Amused…we all know that knighthoods aka pimphoods are crap, only those still living in the 50s with the mentalities that were given to them by Europe, still believe them or the titles and statuses are worth anything..lol


  17. Actually Amused, how I read it, I did not think Nicholls replaced Hutchinson, I figured he was just brought into the fold and allowed to head the firm, I am surprised that he replaced Watson as head, while Watson still remained at the firm…as what I might ask.

    No wonder all that money was stolen, why was Watson not allowed, as senior attorney, to head the firm after Hutchinson left, seeing that he was not only senior to Nicholls but was at the firm for many years.. Hope you can answer that Amused.


  18. @Gabriel. If you instruct counsel, then usually the money is paid out of counsel’s accounts. You pay into counsel what is owed or provide them with security for the money and they pay it out to the persons to whom it is owed. I see that Mrs Watson, through her counsel, paid Watson, Nicholls and Griffith. Now, BU has provided no word on whether Griffith paid what she owed to Watson and Nicholls, so hopefully Griffith will provide the documents showing that she did. If she has not, then Nicholls has a case against her. But he has no case against Mrs Watson as can clearly be seen by the documents BU has posted. Therefore, in his book, he lies. And we have to ask ourselves how many other deliberate lies are there?

    @Well well. I think the above answers you.


  19. Amused
    Is not there a warrant out for the arrest of Allan Watson?
    Why has Allan Watson left Barbados in his old age?Was it voluntary?


  20. @Well well. Take another look at the exhibits. Watson gave up being a partner. A consultant is very different and has no authority in the running of the firm, nor does a consultant benefit, except if he undertakes work for the firm. It is like casual labour. So as of 1 January 2003, Watson ceased to have any executives authority at all.


  21. Amused
    The truth and nothing but the truth.Why is there several filings all stating Delvina Watson vs Cottle Catford,repeat Cottle Catford,the FIRM.Circuitry is associated with electricians.


  22. Amused…which now begs the question, why wss Watson allowed to touch client’s money in the form of drawings, when he was no longer head or partner, in my mind Nicholls really should have given instructions to the accounts departments that the activity should cease…period, neither of them should have been allowed any drawings as was routine under Hutchinson and the other dude.

    As a “casual laborer” Watson was not entitled to any perks. I wonder how the judge viewed that…hmm


  23. Actually Amused…the book is very explicit…neither Griffith nor Watson did any work or brought anything to the firm after Hutchinson and the other dude left, those two are accused of bringing no new bisiness but just extracting money as if it was their personal bank account. Hence the reason, the other dude returned to the firm, to aid Nicholls and appease clients.

    I gotta tell you though, it’s at that point Nicholls should have had them both arrested and can be seen as complicit in their activities because he elected to do nothing but ask them to repay them money, which they ignored.


  24. Actually Amused…the book is very explicit…neither Griffith nor Watson did any work or brought anything to the firm after Hutchinson and the other dude left, those two are accused of bringing no new bisiness but just extracting money as if it was their personal bank account. Hence the reason, the other dude returned to the firm, to aid Nicholls and appease clients.

    I gotta tell you though, it’s at that point Nicholls should have had them both arrested and can be seen as complicit in their activities when all he did was continue to ask them to repay the moneym which they both ignored.


  25. Well,Well
    It is clear for all but the purblind that we are dealing with hooligans masquerading as lawyers.There oughta be a law from which they should swing.Bastids and thieves.


  26. As I interpret what is going on here with the contribution of Amused in particular.
    The FIRM and Delvina Watson are up before the court.The court finds in favour of the FIRM.Delvina has to pay the FIRM.Delvina’s lawyer,who thinks he is the brightest spark in practice,decides he will determine WHO is to be paid,in my book a contempt of court.Amused with some lame excuse unacceptable to any sensible person,supports the action of Smith.Two wrongs never made right.I wouldn’t have thought Amused would go down there with Smith,who took up a chair to beat his sister in law and had to be restrained by his more sensible wife…..


  27. LOL @ Gabriel
    It is amazing how Smith seems to bring out a side of Amused that we have not been able to detect before on BU… actually more than amazing… 🙂


  28. @Well well. I would imagine that the documents released to BU were released for the edification of BU’s large legal following. I have merely attempted to put it into an understandable form for those who are not legal eagles. However, what my efforts have produced, only from yourself and Gabriel I hasten to say, is an almost manic attempt to defend the indefensible. You have absolutely no idea of what written or customary arrangements had been made in relation to the debt, any debt, to Cottle Catford’s partners, yet you jump to certain totally speculative conclusions. And yes, I certainly get that you don’t like Mr Smithn(who could miss that) – but fair is fair and you are being extremely unfair. But hey, that is your right. So go ahead.

    @Gabriel. You would appear to have far more information on the Smith issue than has generally been circulated. Whence cometh this information? Please share. BTW, are you aware that Mr Giles QC and the firm of Yearwood and Boyce have withdrawn their services and come off the record for Roger Smith and the estate of the late Marcelle? Buzz in the legal world is that Y&B and Mr Giles were grievously misled by their clients and withdrew representation with quite a lot of egg on their faces. I am quite sure you would have known that and am perplexed as to why you would not have shared it, as you try desperately to divert the content of this blog from Nicholls’ lack of frankness and attempts to mislead and turn it into a personal attack on Mr Smith on the matter of the late Marcelle, simply because Mr Smith at one time was Watson’s counsel – and therefore, based solely on you anti-Smith agenda, Nicholls MUST be right and Watson wrong. Interesting.

    At the end of the day, the documents are there before all. The questions are obvious. The conclusions do not take the brain power of an Einstein. I think the general public is more than capable of working it all out for themselves.


  29. Well Well,
    Why you down let m3e alone? I here reading all the contributions and keeping myself very quiet. I read French and understand what you wrote, but I eat commenting. I keeping quiet these days fun purpose.


  30. Amused…I said nothing about Smith, how could you jump to the conclusion that I dont like him, why would I not like him, we were speaking about why Watson did not challenge Nicholls being selected as head of the firm, why Nicholls allowed Watson who was reduced to the level of a ” day laborer” your words, and allow him tocontinue you to dip his hands in the cliet’s money…how does that equate to me not liking Smith, I fail to see the role Smith played in that, unless you know something about Smith’s role in Watson and his wife treating the client’s money like their own, that we dont know…lol


  31. donc Alvin , heureux de vous entendre se taire , rester loin de votre maître dlp…….ne voudrait pas entendre votre nom pris dans Fuites Panama Papers .


  32. Gabriel…it’s sad that lawyers were allowed through their brotherhood or lodge or whatever one calls it…and here I must stress some lawyers, before am accused of hating all lawyers or hating Mr. Smith….to use client’s money as they like to be repaid when they get new cases and new clients, that’s taking from Peter to pay Paul and is not sustainable under any circumstance, the clients are the losers

    . I still blame Nicholls for allowing Watson and Griffith to do as they liked for so long before he tried to put an end to it, causing himself to have to repay what they took and ending up locked up, disgraced etc.

    I must say, if according to Amused, the client’s money has been repaid, I see that as a good thing, despite the number of years it took However, I still believe that clients money have no right being in lawyer’s hand…at all, period.


  33. “Alvin Cummins wrote “,I am especially perturbed; nay angry, at the sign, a photo of which appeared on BU, purported to have been paid for by Hants, pulling down the island.”

    Still angry Alvin ?


  34. Amused..I only just saw Gabriel’s other post re Smith, I cant believe you actually blamed me for what Gabriel said, that’s why i was a little puzzled, 2 different cases. I would still like to know what motivated Hutchinson et al to choose Nicholls as the firm’s head, without the senior partner Watson challenging that decision, in my view Nicholls should not been head of the firm, bad choice…he was too enamored of Hutchinson et al and their practices.


  35. @WW&C, I am suitably impressed by your polygot (English, French, Italian or German) ability. Methinks however that the psychology of life suggests that the lack of perception in one language would CLEARLY indicate lack of perception in all language… LOLL.

    Incidentally, I (we all do) regularly comment based on details shown here on BU without reading any book…so do tell why special consideration is needed to comment on Nicholls’ situation. My remarks are related to what is noted here.

    Carry on smartly. At least your thought process in French is just as illogical as that in English…fits the psych profile I mentioned. 🙂 !


  36. Carry on smartly Pedantic. ..ya still did not read the book and still making comments outside your knowledge. …lol


  37. I read the book. Nicholls is a fool and is guilty of callously continuing to take “overdrawings” along with Watson and Griffith. And is guilty of not protecting the clients’ account. Where did he think the money for the overdrawings was coming from? However, he is to be commended for putting himself in extreme debt in order to pay back the clients. His level of criminality in the whole affair is small compared with Watson and Griffith.

    I am not sure what to make of Smith. He outsmarted Nicholls at every turn and will probably say that he was just doing his job. I’m not sure that he is as evil as Nicholls would have us believe.

    The whole stinking den of thieves (the legal profession in Barbados) has to be brought to heel.

    By the way, Carol Pitt did an awful job editing this book. There are hundreds of grammatical and punctuation errors as well as awkward style and construction throughout the book. It’s possible she wasn’t paid, but if that was the case she should not have allowed her name to be mentioned.


  38. Amused claimed he did not read Nicholl’s book.I read it and there is a lot of stuff on Smith,The Watsons and Griffith in Chapter 14,including Smith’s delaying tactics and judges’interrupting him when he thinks he is in full flight,silencing him.
    Amused you would do well to hearken to the advice of Nicholls senior to his son…”move away from Vernon,he is not worth it”.Nary,a truer observation after reading the book.We
    also have the opinion of Caswell,Sir Marston and the CCJ to drive home the point.


  39. Smith is an old hand at the legal system, knows how to circumvent at every turn and make Nicholls miserable..lol


  40. @Amused April 26, 2016 at 10:48 AM “clearly knighthoods are political, rather than meritorious and ought to be treated with contempt, rather than praise.”

    So wait Amused. A smart fella like you has only now discovered this?


  41. @Well Well & Consequences April 26, 2016 at 5:19 PM “to use client’s money as they like to be repaid when they get new cases and new clients, that’s taking from Peter to pay Paul and is not sustainable under any circumstance”

    It is also the classic definition of a Ponzi scheme.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponzi_scheme


  42. Bushy was the first, I think, to accurately label the borrowing from the clients’ account as a Ponzi scheme. Like most Ponzi schemes, it goes well in the good times but when the legal work starts to dry up the perpetrators are in trouble.


  43. @Well well. For the record, I am not blaming you at all for the misplaced comment of Gabriel. I would never think such a thing of you. Indeed, were it not for the anonymity of BU and SWMBO, I would find your telephone number and ask you for a date. I was merely pointing out that you in the past and here have displayed a strong bias against Mr Smith that I, knowing him quite well, do not understand in the least. Mr Smith is severely hearing-impaired and, as is common with people in the situation, often speaks far more loudly (which is misinterpreted as being dogmatic) and appears aloof (in other words, he may not have heard you). He is a man who, in large measure and like all real intellectuals (of which he most assuredly is one) lives a lot in his head. He is never less than extremely courteous and strictly non-violent, except on very rare occasion in court, but only ever verbally. He would NEVER EVER not in several billion years, offer violence, either by act or threat, to a woman – that would be complete anathema to him. The VO Smith I know (and know quite well) is neither dogmatic nor aloof. But you see, I have the advantage of actually knowing him, which many (if not all) of his detractors clearly do not. And it makes me profoundly sad that I appear to live in a society where appearances generated by physical disability are used as a measuring stick of a person’s actual social worth and personality. I am not in any way accusing you, but asking you to consider what I have just said – you are a very bright person and have the capacity and, one hopes, the humanity and understanding of digesting all factors and reaching a conclusion.

    There is a lot of talk about clients accounts and lawyers who have mis-used these. To lump Mr Smith, Mr Gollop, Mr Springer, Mr King, Mr Giles, Mr Stuart (when he is not busy being Prime Minister instead) Sir Henry and many others and their respective law firms in along with those who have misused clients accounts, is scandalous as no such accusation has EVER been made against any of them, nor, frankly, could any such accusation ever be sustainably made against them. You see, clients accounts are akin to a sacred trust for these people. A law firm takes the client’s money for the purposes of a legal transaction – such as Mrs Watson paying off her indebtedness to Nicholls, a payment that he is trying desperately, despite the clear and irrefutable evidence to the contrary, to claim he did not receive. The other option would be for banks to hold the money is escrow and I recommend that those who blithely and ignorantly talk about escrow as if it is either easy or cheap, should telephone their bankers and find out exactly the degree of difficulty in establishing an escrow account and the amount such an account would cost them.

    Now I will admit candidly and with considerable dismay that the regulatory system by which clients accounts in Barbados are regulated and administered and lawyers penalised for misuse is woefully inadequate, to the extent that it could almost be said not to exist. However, the older counsel, those that qualified under the England and Wales Law Society, administer their clients accounts in the responsible and ethical manner that is apparently not taught or known to the crop from T&T. That said, England and Wales paid out some £54 million last year out of their compensation fund in respect of lawyers who had misused clients accounts. Said lawyers were also immediately disbarred and the whole process in each case took less than 18 months, often with suspension being put into force, pending determination of the complaint. But you see, complaints in England and Wales are handled by an organisation independent of the Law Society, so it is not a matter of elected lawyers (many with aspirations of elected political office) being asked to sit in judgement on their peers, some of whom might have electoral influence and power. AND I would be grateful if anyone could point me to a single instance in which one red cent has been paid out of the Compensation Fund in Barbados. It is, I admit, a deplorable situation and needs to be swiftly and aggressively addressed. Mrs Woodstock-Riley, the head of the disciplinary committee, talks a very convincing game and, I will admit, has me convinced FOR NOW, as to her intent and willingness to address at least the disciplinary committee’s delinquencies (even though I sincerely believe that she is ham-strung ab initio, despite her intent). For, unless she does this and the self-regulation of lawyers is seen to be just, proportionate, effective and timely by the general public, the reputation of all lawyers will be impaired in the general perception. And it will be time for the authority that issues practice certificates to step in and set up a body independent of the BA for such complaints and which has sole charge of and authority over the Compensation Fund.

    Finally, @Well well, you say: “Smith is an old hand at the legal system, knows how to circumvent at every turn and make Nicholls miserable.” Well, thanks for that and if I need counsel, I know exactly where to go now. To “an old hand at the legal system.” As for Mr Smith making Nicholls miserable, in light of the documents produced by BU here, it looks to me as if Nicholls is the author of his own misery, not Mr Smith. If I ever end up in court, God forbid as I know far too much about how it works, as either plaintiff or defendant, I want Mr Smith on my side firmly seated in first chair at the Inner Bar, preferably with Mr Gollop sitting right beside him. That would be my “dream team”. And I could be confident that any money I paid in to their clients accounts would be safe and secure and not abused.

    @Simple Simon. I know, man. But that is the case in every country that has knighthoods, not just Barbados. Sad, but true. The ones who do the work may, if they are lucky, be awarded an MBE (or Silver Star, like if they are a bunch of kindergarten children with report cards) while the ones that do nothing or little and take the credit, get the knighthoods and are made Dames. Was ever so. Classic example is “Sir” Marston Gibson – for services to law. Do me favour!!!! Three letters and a hyphen missing before the word “service”. “DIS”.


  44. Amused…I was told recently that Smith has a disability and now walks with a cane, far be it from me to beat up on a disabled senior citizen.

    Years of neglect by disciplinary committee and stingy-ness by bar association, has seen that compensation fund never being used to give relief to people who proved they were victimized by attorneys. The boxes of complaints residing at disciplinary committee are never looked at, it appears it’s just a game for Woodstock-Riley, it seems over the years, these positions were just seen as a means to acquire titles and the people affected by the actions of rogue attorneys seen as nuisances to be dismissed and ignored. That is where the problems lie, the only people who have the power to do anything about these situations are doing nothing.

    The parliamentarians have the power, the PM, AG,…the Chief Justice, I know if the former do nothing, the latter will find it even more difficult to move forward. Case in point, the draft legislation for regulating the legal profession, still in draft form after 6 years, because according to the AG the bar association refuses to return the amended version and according to the bar association, they been waiting 6 years as well for the CJ to get back to them about something or other related to the draft legislation. …so all the people responsible for getting the legislation in place are doing everything else but…so therefore, nothing is happening, nothing is getting done, I cannot fathom why none of these professionals can see and they are supposed to be learned people, that this is making an already decades old problem, that much worse.

    If they believe that the public will not become savvy enough to find a way around needing lawyers for most things, they are sadly mistaken, the profession will suffer because of their inability to do the right things.

    There are many lawyers on the island who take client’s accounts very seriously, many names pop in my mind, one attorney I know very weĺl is a stickler for all that is right and proper re clients, cant call his name cause I fear that attorney might be you, fear not Amused, if we cant date in this lifetime, there is always the next…lol

    Then there are those attorneys who reduce all the decades of hard, honest work done by other attorneys to dust, just by their actions toward clients. I still believe that the attorneys whose reputations are affected by these rogue attorneys should withhold their loyalties from them,for the good of the profession, let them sink by themselves, until that draft legislation is implemented and enforced, because there is no telling how long bar association will take to get the draft just right or even after it’s returned to the AG, how long him and parliament will play footsie with it or if the legislation will actually be ever enforced. There are many legislations, as you know, that are never enforced.

    I am sure Nicholls knows very well the misery he heaped upon himself by going along with the same old practices despite the change at Cottle Catford being very evident. I dont know what legacy he was trying to preserve, but am sure he can see and feel how well that ended, again, his loyalties were misplaced and brought him to his knees, not unlike the current situation re rogue attorneys and honest attorneys, it’s now up to the honest ones not to let themselves be brought down with the rogues, bear in mind that I am generalizing with that comment.


  45. @Amused, reading your post as they delve into the real world aspects of your profession is a treat…but as with any accomplished lawyer those well articulated comments do yet invite further entreaties.

    re V O Smith: Any reasonable person who does not know the man as well as you but has had any interaction with him would accept that he is quite intellectual. And to that however one can add: arrogant, self-serving, forceful. Just as surely he can be described as you noted as gracious, courteous …Those lines of text as you know can describe a megalomaniac or a most humble person.

    You have seen the ‘humility’ of Smith. I offer that you do yourself a grave injustice to suggest to us that you never saw the other side because it appears that you discount the written evidence of Mrs. Smith as fraudulent or dismiss her as a liar because you say quite unequivocally:
    —“…and strictly non-violent, except on very rare occasion in court, but only ever verbally. He would NEVER EVER not in several billion years, offer violence, either by act or threat, to a woman’

    As an attorney you are doing as Mr Smith often did. You speak with a level of hubris that ‘ab initio’ challenges any different opinion. Yet you say he is not dogmatic.

    Incidentally, it’s a bit rich to play the sympathy card of ‘severely hearing-impaired’ re Smith.
    How long has the learned gentleman been so afflicted…most of his life then!

    Because he displayed dogmatic hubris in my presence many years ago (several times) and he didn’t appear to have any hearing issue then. So maybe only in his later years. But regardless a man of his intellect likely used his hearing impediment like that other intellectual Dr. Eric Williams: turned off/tuned out when it suited him.

    Always interesting reading your stuff. A man of loyal and trusted heart for a friend clearly.

    With your date comment, you remind me of one of your lawyer colleagues who I was told said he would likely refuse any judicial appointment if offered because it would cramp his style…you know….checking and from time to time getting the lil date pon de side. I thought that as he grew older he would change his tune due to physical denouement, so to say, but maybe not. LOLL.


  46. Well Well,

    “Alvin , heureux de vous entendre se taire …” As they say in Spanish, “Gracias!” Mais je suis pauvre!…Dans les journaux, et papiers de Panama? Non!! Et, je n’avais pas de maitre.

    @Hants,
    From the time I saw that posting and the accompanying photograph of the poster, I was angry, and will forever be angry at you. As Shakespeare wrote:…”First to thine own self be true…” A person who does what you are accused of doing, having been born in Barbados, is doing the bidding of others and cannot be true to themselves. I could never do something like that, not in a million years. Would you do that to your child? Put a picture of him and his infelicities in a conspicuous place where millions of people from all over the world can ridicule him and revile hime?You are doing that to every Bajan. We as a country and a people do things that may offend others. We as a country will make mistakes, but we do not deserve the type of scorn you are pouring on us.
    Yes Hants, I am still angry.


  47. We are good Alvin…

    Non malicev destiné … mais vous devez savoir quand couper vos perd ou descendre avec le navire .


  48. Alvin…Piece nearly had me looking online to order a book. What you saw re Hants was hypothetical, It was not real…lol

    You may want to tell Hants sorry, he is innocent..this time.


  49. @ Alvin Cummins,

    You are making a comprehensive asss of yourself and Pieceuhderockyeahright and those who read his post is laughing at you.

    @ Well Well & Consequences, I am glad that you can read, comprehend and perceptive enough to understand what our friend Pieceuhderock wrote. lol.

    I don’t want any apology from Alvin. He is not the first to falsely accuse me of “nefarious” acts.


  50. Hants…Piece had me going fot a few seconds with that bestseller book, it looked so real.

    Alvin has not recovered from the other one yet…lol

    Where is Piece anyway, does he even know the chaos he is causing..lol


  51. @Amused April 27, 2016 at 6:17 AM “the ones that do nothing or little and take the credit, get the knighthoods and are made Dames. Was ever so. Classic example is “Sir” Marston Gibson – for services to law

    I hate to rub it in your face but “I told you so.”


  52. @de pedantic Dribbler April 27, 2016 at 8:23 AM “one of your lawyer colleagues who I was told said he would likely refuse any judicial appointment if offered because it would cramp his style…you know….checking and from time to time getting the lil date pon de side. I thought that as he grew older he would change his tune due to physical denouement, so to say, but maybe not. LOLL.”

    But nobody grows old now that there is viagra and cialis etc.


  53. De ole man heah and tank (not AG Williams) wunna for asking.

    I was unwell so keeping my old three letter word quiet.

    I was reading the various contributions and noted that, as I suspect/ed, that Philip is not “without sin” and may, given the reasoning presented by Amused, be guilty as France

    But I was then looking at what Pedantic said of the party to whom Amused pledges such “untiring allegiance” and I was transfixed by what I call the skipping rope, which speaks to a young girl skipping and how, even though the rope is sometimes up or down, she adroitly, avoids said rope.

    So Vernon, like an adept skipper, has been on his game, most times when Amused has seen him but Marcelle, and certainly VS’ wife, would have seen him when he messed up his “skipping “, unless of course Amused wishes to impute that this is the “Second Coming” and Jesus incarnated in a lame hard of hearing 80+ old man

    @ Amused

    The Sam way that central bank is hold Leroy Parris money client funds can be held by an independent authority that, like your online bank account, allows you to see what your balances are, be you client, lawyer with an itch for client money, other lawyer awaiting buyer funds, purchaser of the land checking to see if your tiefing lawyer transferred your money to the other tief accunt but that is too easy for the Riley woman ent it?


  54. @de pedantic Dribbler April 27, 2016 at 8:23 AM. It is not unusual for a top lawyer to refuse an appointment as a judge. A top lawyer earns far more than a judge and so it would of course “cramp their style”. I remember a top QC friend of mine in Canada telling me once that his law firm was in the habit of getting rid of unsatisfactory partners by arranging for them to be appointed to the Bench where their incompetence would achieve for them the fame that private practice would not, that of being in the running to become the most appealed and overturned judge in Canada.

    @ Well Well & Consequences April 27, 2016 at 7:05 AM. I said you were very bright and I am glad to see that we stand a chance of a date, even if we must wait for another incarnation. You said: “I still believe that the attorneys whose reputations are affected by these rogue attorneys should withhold their loyalties from them, for the good of the profession, let them sink by themselves….” AGREE. But if you look at it historically, wasn’t it Mr Smith who led the charge to have Michael Simmons disbarred? Isn’t it the same Mr Smith who is leading the charge to call not just the CJ, but also the BA to account? Wasn’t it Mr Smith who single-handedly ended the nice little earner for the Nation arranged through the Registrar where unnecessary costs were being charged for large ads advertising the estates of deceased persons, a nice little earner arranged for the Nation by one Simmons CJ? Wasn’t it Mr Smith who took on the Hilton Hotel for racial (anti-black) discrimination and won? Also, back in the day was it not Mr Smith who reluctantly bowed to the wishes of Mr Barrow and took up the job of High Commissioner to London and then immediately resigned when he refused to follow the dictates of Sandiford, returned to Barbados and, along with Dr Haynes, started a third party in Parliament? And no, I am not the person of whom you speak – the honest attorney that you know. However, if you personally ever need assistance with legal matters and are in doubt as to how to proceed, I would be very happy to see if I can steer you in the right direction.

    I will share with you precisely what has bothered me all along about Nicholls’ court cases and which, ultimately, means that I will not read his book. Frankly I have better things to do with my time that read the outpourings of a person whole legal knowledge is no deficient.

    The Partnership Agreement of Cottle Catford & Co. mandates that, upon reaching the age of 70, partners must retire/withdraw from the partnership. Watson was 70 and he had no option but to retire/withdraw from the partnership.

    It is also set out that the next most senior takes over the position of senior partner.If you think about it, it is inherent in the title “senior partner”. Griffith was the next most senior. However, Nicholls said that he was not working with her and would leave the partnership. Griffith therefore offered to leave the partnership instead and so she too withdrew.

    The idea that apparently Nicholls is trying to engender that he was in some way “tricked” or otherwise misled into being senior partner is absolute nonsense. He actively sought it. So I have no hesitation in saying that he is a liar if he tries to claim otherwise.

    Next, there is no such animal as a “sole partnership”, although this is a fact of law thjat appears to have escaped the incompetents we call judges. The words “sole” and “partnership” make absolutely no sense in English, far less law, so presumably our judges and Nicholls are deficient in English as well. There were, prior to 01 January 2003, three partners. Watson, Griffith and Nicholls. Once Watson and Griffith resigned, the partnership ceased to exist and Nicholls had a legal obligation to register the name of Cottle Catford and to be the sole practitioner trading under the registered name of Cottle Catford. Therefore, Nicholls’ pleadings in his actions are fatally flawed, a fact that the courts ought to have spotted and thrown the case out, pending the proper registration and description of Nicholls’ role and position, which was not that of a partner or, indeed, of senior partner.

    Now we discover as a finding of fact that, contrary to what Nicholls has claimed, Mrs Watson repaid to Nicholls and Griffith all monies plus interest that she owed them as partners of the former partnership known as Cottle Catford & Co. Yet, knowing that the money was repaid, Nicholls has maliciously obtained an ex parte injunction that prevents Mrs Watson from dealing with the assets she owns in Barbados and Nicholls has allowed the injunction to subsist for a period of over a decade, with the apparent assistance of one Richards J.

    Now do you see why I have no intention of reading Nicholls’ book? Why. If I want to read legal fiction, I will buy a John Grisham novel. Because John Grisham at least understands law, so while the plots may be a little far-fetched, although having read Nicholls’ pleadings, I am starting to wonder, at least they are based on correct legal practice and procedures, of which Nicholls clearly does not have a clue.


    • @Amused

      By Richards J are you referring to the Justice who was presented with the unholy sight of Alair Shepherd doing a moon?


  55. Amused…looking at it from your view point, I quite understand why you feel the need to give a full account of the story from the other side, of course I will now ask why Griffith did not pay back her money, since there is a judgement win against her and she lost her appeal, in all of this I am keeping sight of the money belonging to the clients…and repaying the money to Griffith would be frightening, since she can claim, as I am sure she did, according to the book at one point, that she never received money paid to the firm. This is scary stuff and would frighten away clients.

    I can circumnavigate the legal system quite nicely and rarely, if ever, need an attorney, but I will keep your offer in mind for others.

    Still wondering why Watson, particularly now that his age is revealed, alloed by Nicholls to take money from client’s account, that is a courtesy that should never been extended, ditto Griffith, that info ensures that Nicholls was responsible for their actions, as he was head of the firm, making all the decisions, so why the oversight in stopping them from drawings.

    Never knew Smith was so active in upgrading standards, live and learn, although with a snake like Simmons it would have been an uphill battle.


  56. @Well well. I have no idea whether Griffith paid anything back or not. I am going on the documents posted here and axed a few questions solely based on those. As for the background to Nicholls taking over as senior partner, well that was generally well known.

    Taking a draw down if properly set up and regulated is of benefit to both partner and client. Think “decent interest”.

    Griffith would be in no position to say she did not receive payment if she cashed the cheque, any more than Nicholls could. I think it would be a safe bet that there will be similar proof to that against Nicholls.


  57. @Amused, as you said the term ‘sole partnership’ is a contradiction of terms unless taken separately to mean one partnership rather than two. Which of course is not applicable here.

    However, that’s meaningless.

    But why was the Cottle partnership not valid and proper in the expectation that another associate or associates would have been invited to the partnership ranks to replace those who were retiring?

    Indeed for all practical intents it was also quite possible to invite an outside attorney of repute and skill to join the partnership…surely!

    Unless of course the partnership terms explicitly prevented such an invitation.


  58. @de pedantic Dribbler April 28, 2016 at 7:16 PM “Indeed for all practical intents it was also quite possible to invite an outside attorney of repute and skill to join the partnership…surely!”

    What if such an invitation was issued and nobody accepted?

    What then?


  59. And what then? That’s self fulfilling!

    You ask someone to dance and if they decline you seek another partner or remain off the dance floor and dance by yourself. Very simple!

    Just asking about the options.


  60. @Pedantic. There are many former partnerships that now operate as sole practitioners under a registered name and they register and describe themselves as such. This is no way prevents them from taking on associates within the practice and, if it is later decided that the associate should become a partner, then the partnership can be registered. You assume that Nicholls asked one or others to come in as partners, but has it occurred to you that he may not have? That he may have sought associates, which is how I would do it, to see if they could work together as partners? Remember that the turnover of staff at Cottle Catford was extremely high since Hutchinson and Hinkson left – unusually so for a law firm and even the lowliest employee had nothing good to say about Nicholls (or Watson) well before the partnership, as opposed to the sole practitionership, ended on 01 January 2003. Incidentally, while I am sure that former Cottles employees have read Nicholls’ book – and I am not speaking about the attorneys, but the support staff – it may be instructive for you to address your questions to them, rather than me. That way, pedantically, you avoid having to accuse me of hearsay and you will have supported, or not, your suppositions with actual investigation. In other words, you will have done the work yourself, instead of simply throwing out irrelevant questions for others to answer. Of course it is likely Nicholls asked others to join him; but it is equally likely that they refused, as the legal community is a small one and word travels fast and furious. What Nicholls was looking for would have been an upwardly-mobile attorney with a good client list – but such an attorney would themselves have been looking for a partnership in a firm that could enhance their already-secure income, not a firm that expected to support itself out of that income. In any case, Cottles was done for. The scandals of Simmons and Waterman had left a bad taste. Armstrong was dead. Freddie had retired and so had Hinckson, so the confidence of the big money boys had gone with them. And can you really think of Watson, Griffith and Nicholls as being anyone’s dream team? Finally, is your pedantry now satisfied? Are you ready to move on to another area of the justice system? If so, I highly recommend to you BU’s latest Tales From the Courts.


  61. “Taking a draw down if properly set up and regulated is of benefit to both partner and client. Think “decent interest”.

    Amused…that is what I know happens at many law firms, of course it quickly turns into theft when the money is not repaid to the client account.. It did enter my mind re the Nicholls, Griffith, Watson relationship, being as it turned out, a clear very recipe for disaster.

    You missed some info by not reading the book and could have filled in quite a few spaces and answered some very disturbing questions.


  62. @Amused, thank you. You have filled in the blanks re Cottle. Frankly I took it for granted that such a firm employed associate lawyers who could also ascend to the partnership ranks. You seem to suggest they were either all gone or otherwise non-existent at the time.

    You also suggest (as factually as any Cottle staffer could, I assume) that the firm was being poorly managed. Indicating that it’s a moot point to debate the acumen or savvy of Mr Nicholls as he became the managing partner: he (they) had already proved lack of acumen, in essence.

    Biased though one may consider you to be (based on your stated dislike of the gentleman) you also provide details objectively so I will accept your remarks as closure on all questions re Philip Nicholls and this expansive Cottle saga. No more irrelevant questions or pedantic ramblings!


  63. David, if you take the time to read the style of cause on page 1 of the documents you published you will see the plaintiff is Cottle Catford and the respondent is Delvina Watson!!!

    You have erred and misdirected your readers 33 times as shown below!!

    What you really should be talking about is Cottle Catford vs Delvina Watson.

    Now, if Amused had read Philip’s book he would refer the ignorant among us to the chapter dealing with 151/152 of 2004 so David’s 33 journalistic errors could be corrected.

    Instead, he/she has chosen to contribute from a position of ignorance ensuring the ignorant among us remain ignorant, himself/herself included!!

    He/she has chosen to remain ignorant even although there is a book available to be read.

    Meanwhile, the wise who seek knowledge just get wiser!!

    Here are David’s 33 journalistic errors!!

    page 1-DelvinaWatson vs Cottle Catford

    page 2-DelvinaWatson vs Cottle Catford

    page 3-DelvinaWatson vs Cottle Catford

    page 4-DelvinaWatson vs Cottle Catford

    page 5-DelvinaWatson vs Cottle Catford

    page 6-DelvinaWatson vs Cottle Catford

    page 7-DelvinaWatson vs Cottle Catford

    page 8-DelvinaWatson vs Cottle Catford

    page 9-DelvinaWatson vs Cottle Catford

    page 10-DelvinaWatson vs Cottle Catford

    page 11-DelvinaWatson vs Cottle Catford

    page 12-DelvinaWatson vs Cottle Catford

    page 13-DelvinaWatson vs Cottle Catford

    page 14-DelvinaWatson vs Cottle Catford

    page 15-DelvinaWatson vs Cottle Catford

    page 16-DelvinaWatson vs Cottle Catford

    page 17-DelvinaWatson vs Cottle Catford

    page 18-DelvinaWatson vs Cottle Catford

    page 19-DelvinaWatson vs Cottle Catford

    page 20-DelvinaWatson vs Cottle Catford

    page 21-DelvinaWatson vs Cottle Catford

    page 22-DelvinaWatson vs Cottle Catford

    page 23-DelvinaWatson vs Cottle Catford

    page 24-DelvinaWatson vs Cottle Catford

    page 25-DelvinaWatson vs Cottle Catford

    page 26-DelvinaWatson vs Cottle Catford

    page 27-DelvinaWatson vs Cottle Catford

    page 28-DelvinaWatson vs Cottle Catford

    page 29-DelvinaWatson vs Cottle Catford

    page 30-DelvinaWatson vs Cottle Catford

    page 31-DelvinaWatson vs Cottle Catford

    page 32-DelvinaWatson vs Cottle Catford

    page 33-DelvinaWatson vs Cottle Catford


  64. Delvina Watson, Watson of the arrest warrants’ wife, used Cottle Catford’s client account, as her personal bank although I dont see anywhere in the book that shhe was either a lawyer or worked for the firm in any capacity, the book hints that she also built or bought a house from client’s money.

    A good question is, did Watson repay the money that was mentioned as missing from Gale’s law firm, while he was working there..

    By then, Watson had long flown the coop and an extradtion for his arrest never pursued and Delvina was said to be running up and down between Barbados and US to visit her husband, unimpeded, she was the best person to pursue, if she still owed the money, the book also hints that she was close to the other defendant Griffith.

    That’s why I told Amused as he has not read the book, many spaces are still left wide open that he can obviously explain.


  65. Many BU contributors will not read yet still profess to know what they do not know!!

    Amused for example has admitted he/she does not or perhaps will not read.

    It is as if they do not know what they do not know but perhaps in this case it is just willful and deliberate lies meant to deceive!!

    I googled to find a word for someone who is both ignorant and proud of that ignorance and found a word which I have never heard of which may explain Amused’s contribution.

    eristic ‎(plural eristics)
    1.One who makes specious arguments; one who is disputatious.
    2.A type of dialogue or argument where the participants do not have any reasonable goal. The aim is to argue for the sake of conflict, and often to see who can yell the loudest.

    There were others I reckon that were equally applicable!!

    I am sure there are some who will say the word applies to me too … but at least I do read and try and check my facts and have pretty clear and reasonable goals, even if sometimes they are known only to me.


  66. Appellate court challenge
    Effort on to take disbarment case to CCJ
    by BARRY ALLEYNE barryalleyne@nationnews.com
    THE COURT OF APPEAL’S DECISION to allow embattled attorney Philip Nicholls to keep practising law is being challenged.
    Lawyers have filed an application to the Court of Appeal for leave to appeal to the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) in Trinidad and Tobago to have that decision overturned.
    They want the CCJ to rule that Nicholls was properly found guilty of gross professional misconduct by the Disciplinary Committee of the Barbados Bar Association, and a recommendation that he be disbarred be upheld by the Court of Appeal.
    On July 27, the Court of Appeal, in a 2-1 decision, dismissed a recommendation by the Disciplinary Committee to disbar the former partner of Cottle Catford & Co.
    Justices of Appeal Kaye Goodridge (retired) and William Chandler found that the report of the Bar Association to dismiss Nicholls was not valid, while Justice of Appeal Rajendra Narine dissented, determining the report was not flawed.
    The Disciplinary Committee claimed Nicholls had not been able to account for more than $800 000, the proceeds of the sale of a property in 2008, previously owned by John and Hazel Connor. John died in August 2008, while his wife remained at Rendezvous Retreat Nursing Home. She has since been removed from the facility as she could no longer afford to be kept there, and is being cared for by her sister.
    Evidence submitted to the Court of Appeal revealed that the committee, which was chaired by Cicely Chase (now Justice Cicely Chase-Harding) recommended that Nicholls be disbarred and his name removed from the roll of attorneys for unprofessional misconduct. The report was then submitted to the Court of Appeal.
    Queen’s Counsel Sir Elliott Mottley, who represented Nicholls, had objected to the court relying on the report, saying it was flawed since it only contained one signature and did not show on the face of the report that the committee was quorate, but Queen’s Counsel Barry Gale, representing the
    complainants, submitted it had satisfied the requirements of Section 21 of the Legal Profession Act.
    In an interview with the
    DAILY NATION, Gale said his clients were entirely dissatisfied with the decision of the Court of Appeal in July, and felt it necessary to take the matter to the CCJ to have it settled once and for all. He added if the Court of Appeal did not grant leave, they would go directly to the CCJ for special leave to appeal.
    The leave for appeal is being sought on two grounds:
    • the right to appeal “as of
    right” in the circumstances of the case which directly or indirectly relate to a claim or a question in relation to property in excess of $18 250; and
    • that the Court of Appeal’s
    decision was one arising from civil proceedings which determine a question of great public or general importance or questions, which otherwise ought to be submitted to the CCJ for its determination.
    Gale is asking the CCJ to consider whether a report by the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Association, as representing the findings, decision and recommendations, can be declared void for alleged procedural irregularities in the absence of evidence founding the basis, nature and extent of such alleged irregularities.
    The CCJ is also being asked to determine whether the Court of Appeal erred in law by ruling the complainants had made no complaint to that court in all the circumstances, and this affected its jurisdiction to discipline Nicholls under Section 23 of the Legal Profession Act.

    Source: Nation

Leave a comment, join the discussion.