Est.2007

Barbados Underground

Bringing News and Opinions to the People

Philip Nicholls and the Cottle Catford Matter, Questions

โ† Back

Your message to the BLOGMASTER was sent

CONTACT THE BLOGMASTER ONLY

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.

โ† Back

Thank you for your response. โœจ

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

Discover more from Barbados Underground

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

78 responses to “Philip Nicholls and the Cottle Catford Matter, Questions”

  1. Well Well & Consequences Avatar
    Well Well & Consequences

    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. de pedantic Dribbler Avatar
    de pedantic Dribbler

    @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. de pedantic Dribbler Avatar
    de pedantic Dribbler

    correction not “he was he tricked ..” but ‘he was tricked’…

  4. Well Well & Consequences Avatar
    Well Well & Consequences

    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.

  5. Sargeant Avatar
    Sargeant

    Having skimmed through the documents I am reminded of the witticism โ€œthere are three sides to a story, his side, her side and the truth.โ€ In this story some version of the โ€œtruthโ€ 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 โ€œstoriesโ€, 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).

  6. de pedantic Dribbler Avatar
    de pedantic Dribbler

    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.

  7. Simple Simon Avatar
    Simple Simon

    @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 Nichollsโ€™ 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.

  8. Simple Simon Avatar
    Simple Simon

    @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.

  9. Well Well & Consequences Avatar
    Well Well & Consequences

    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.

  10. Well Well & Consequences Avatar
    Well Well & Consequences

    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.

  11. Violet C Beckles Avatar
    Violet C Beckles

    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.

  12. Well Well & Consequences Avatar
    Well Well & Consequences

    pรฉdant …vous avez dรฉjร  fait vous regarder idiot sur โ€‹โ€‹ce mรชme sujet ,…… il peut รชtre prรฉfรฉrable de commenter uniquement sur le pรฉriphรฉrique, 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 .

  13. Well Well & Consequences Avatar
    Well Well & Consequences

    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.

  14. Amused Avatar
    Amused

    Like most who have commented above, I too have not purchased or read Nichollsโ€™ 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 Nichollsโ€™ 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 โ€“ 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 Nichollsโ€™ 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 โ€“ 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 Nichollsโ€™ actions โ€“ 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 Nichollsโ€™ 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.

  15. Gabriel Avatar
    Gabriel

    Amused
    Why did Smith assume the role of accountant/paymaster on payments due to the FIRM.

  16. Pachamama Avatar
    Pachamama

    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.

  17. Well Well & Consequences Avatar
    Well Well & Consequences

    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.

  18. Well Well & Consequences Avatar
    Well Well & Consequences

    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

  19. Well Well & Consequences Avatar
    Well Well & Consequences

    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.

  20. Amused Avatar
    Amused

    @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.

  21. Gabriel Avatar
    Gabriel

    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?

  22. Amused Avatar
    Amused

    @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.

  23. Gabriel Avatar
    Gabriel

    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.

  24. Well Well & Consequences Avatar
    Well Well & Consequences

    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

  25. Well Well & Consequences Avatar
    Well Well & Consequences

    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.

  26. Well Well & Consequences Avatar
    Well Well & Consequences

    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.

  27. Well Well & Consequences Avatar
    Well Well & Consequences

    Sorry…I had a glitch.

  28. Gabriel Avatar
    Gabriel

    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.

  29. Gabriel Avatar
    Gabriel

    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…..

  30. Bush Tea Avatar
    Bush Tea

    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… ๐Ÿ™‚

  31. Amused Avatar
    Amused

    @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.

  32. Alvin Cummins Avatar
    Alvin Cummins

    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.

  33. Well Well & Consequences Avatar
    Well Well & Consequences

    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

  34. Well Well & Consequences Avatar
    Well Well & Consequences

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

  35. David Avatar
    David

    Still waiting from Nicholls or any other to respond to BU’s questions.

  36. Well Well & Consequences Avatar
    Well Well & Consequences

    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.

  37. Hants Avatar
    Hants

    “Alvin Cummins wrote โ€œ,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 ?

  38. Well Well & Consequences Avatar
    Well Well & Consequences

    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.

  39. de pedantic Dribbler Avatar
    de pedantic Dribbler

    @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. ๐Ÿ™‚ !

  40. Well Well & Consequences Avatar
    Well Well & Consequences

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

  41. Old Baje Avatar
    Old Baje

    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.

  42. Gabriel Avatar
    Gabriel

    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.

  43. Well Well & Consequences Avatar
    Well Well & Consequences

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

  44. Simple Simon Avatar
    Simple Simon

    @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?

  45. Simple Simon Avatar
    Simple Simon

    @Well Well & Consequences April 26, 2016 at 5:19 PM “to use clientโ€™s money as they like to be repaid when they get new cases and new clients, thatโ€™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

  46. Old Baje Avatar
    Old Baje

    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.

  47. Old Baje Avatar
    Old Baje

    “When the tide goes out we see who’s been swimming without trunks” – Warren Buffet

  48. Amused Avatar
    Amused

    @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 โ€“ 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 personโ€™s actual social worth and personality. I am not in any way accusing you, but asking you to consider what I have just said โ€“ 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 clientโ€™s money for the purposes of a legal transaction โ€“ 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 ยฃ54 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 committeeโ€™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: โ€œSmith is an old hand at the legal system, knows how to circumvent at every turn and make Nicholls miserable.โ€ Well, thanks for that and if I need counsel, I know exactly where to go now. To โ€œan old hand at the legal system.โ€ 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 โ€œdream teamโ€. 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 โ€œSirโ€ Marston Gibson โ€“ for services to law. Do me favour!!!! Three letters and a hyphen missing before the word โ€œserviceโ€. โ€œDISโ€.

  49. Well Well & Consequences Avatar
    Well Well & Consequences

    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 weฤบl 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.

  50. de pedantic Dribbler Avatar
    de pedantic Dribbler

    @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.

The blogmaster invites you to join and add value to the discussion.

Trending

Discover more from Barbados Underground

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

Continue reading