It is a bad rap on Hugh Wooding law school and simply a disgrace to the profession.
Submitted by Chefleur
Once upon a time the legal profession was considered noble. I had to pause from my very busy schedule to chronicle to inform you and the public of some very disturbing events and atrocious behaviour of a member of the Guyana Bar.
Before my mother died I filed various DVA before the Magistrate’s courts in Georgetown. A particular attorney representing the defendants would enter the chambers spewing his diatribe, in order to sway the Magistrate from granting the protection order sought.
Because of his utterances all those requests for protection of my elderly and abused mother were given a mere “keep the peace” warning. My mother died because various magistrates in Guyana *refused* to act to protect an ailing elderly person.
Since my mother’s death in January 2022 this same attorney has filed various ridiculous motions on the estate. All were promptly dismissed for no grounds by understandably very irate judges.
This has to be a morbid game being played by this banas. It’s one thing to use loop holes in the law to defend and a totally different thing to bend or break the law or as in his case taking a fee to represent a case without grounds or evidence or merit and advising clients to act illegally.
Last year after my mother died I asked this Banas to instruct his client, to stop using the Trustee order she garnered covertly and unethically from the high court. In her presence he replied that she could continue to use it until the Will is probated. Shocking!
I advised the utility firms of my mother’s demise and as per the common law they discontinued the services. The banas, claiming he’s representing one (only) executor wrote the firms and demanded they reinstate the services claiming, I am only one executor and any action required all 3 executors concurring.
Mr Editor. I am the first named executor and only one in Guyana. I have begun the probate process. His client(s) brazenly entered into a tenancy contract for my deceased mother’s property, without a probated Will. GPL by it’s attorney, changed the service to another user’s name claiming they erred in acting on my instructions. The water too was reconnected on instructions of GWI’ legal advisor. The CEO ordered it discontinued immediately siting the tenancy as illegal. Nevertheless the service was again reconnected and supply provided under my deceased mother’s name for over a year.
Again this member of the Guyana Bar manipulated the GWI’s legal officer to join him in the diatribe of his client having authority to represent the estate, intermeddled and got the service changed to a tenant’s name.
Next, the Banas drafted a Power of Attorney for his client, the second listed executor to my mother’s Will whereby she gave power to another nonentity when there are two other executors alive. The probate process has begun by me and is progressing in the high court. How could an an attorney be so ignorant (of the law)? This rogue attorney filed a Caveat obstructing the probate. This move is hilarious. Check mate! This matter was decided on May 31st, instant. It’s grievous to say the least. Such madness is stupefying. Whoever advised a beneficiary or especially an executor to challenge a Will? Check mate!
Renunciation is in order and has was executed promptly. My question is, how is a Huge Wooding graduate and member of the Guyana Bar behaving so recklessly, ignorantly, scandalously, disrespectfully in disregarding the law and crossing all levels of stupidity?
To date three judges have dismissed such foolishness, enraged that this bloke either doesn’t know the law (of Estates Administration) just plain dumb or unethical. The highlight of all his depravity is to absent himself from trial without a word of explanation to the court or provided substantial evidence and proof in a $17,000,000 law suit he filed against me. Naturally he lost with cost. All expenses to his clients. With judicial resources so scarce, how and why is this wanton lawlessness tolerated on so many occasions? It’s time too that clients begin suing attorneys for misleading them into court battles.
There comes a time when enough is enough. The Banas filed *another* Caveat for the very client-executor who gave attorney to the nonentity for the first Caveat. I want to laugh but this is cry-story. This officer of the court is skimming on crimes against his clients. It’s either he really doesn’t know about estates but grabbed the case or knows and is flaunting the law like an outlaw. Ripping off his dumb clients.
The Banas’s demeanor is that of a thug and from what I’ve been faced with his behaviour and character are like those of a thug. David, It’s not easy having to read and have such rubbish enter my psyche. It’s traumatizing seeing such garbage belched out in print at such an esteemed forum. This itself is a crime. Also known as Print terrorism. Please, BU, a wild horse has broken and bolted the paddock. Please publish my story so someone in authority knows what is going on and try to rein it in. This display in the judiciary is disgraceful. It is a bad rap on Hugh Wooding law school and simply a disgrace to the profession.
@David, it’s all good to publish the blogger’s rant but does s/he SERIOUSLY want to use it to lambaste ALL those from Hugh Wooding Law school 😒… I mean I thought Bushie was our enfant marviloso (to badly mix up lingua) on that!🤣😎😂
But seriously tho, this is a very specific and absolutely NOT UNCOMMON abuse of the system by attorneys (assuming what is written is the truth, WHOLE truth …).
Thus when s/he said: “This has to be a morbid game being played by this banas. It’s one thing to use loop holes in the law […] or as in his case taking a fee to represent a case without grounds or evidence or merit and advising clients to act illegally.” I almost fell off my seat with laff-ter …
That’s what lawyers are paid to do: “represent a case without grounds or evidence or merit”. Buuut, it’s libelous on his/her part to add “and advising clients to act illegally”!
Anyhow, seems a classic case of elder abuse, administrative sloppiness by the utility companies and over-careful action by the courts.
S/he should blame the mum😒, however. Multiple executors is not uncommon but three seems an interesting choice and one can surmise why the mum thought THAT was necessary.
As is usual with all things: there’s always much more to the mortar than one “stupid legal banas”!
I gone.
@Dee Word
Stay with the substantive issue, no need to nitpick.
***at pidantic dribbler****
Lawyers are not paid to defend when there are no grounds. Whoever files an application or SOC without grounds?
Slim chances and loop holes, yes.
Unless this representation is pro bona, advising an executor to challenge a Will is sure grounds for the ignorant client to run him up to that unit at Main street, Georgetown.
Telling someone to continue using a Trystee order after to doner died is criminal.
Evidently you, like the Banas, don’t know the (Estate Administration)Law.
My mom was brilliant n had expert n sound legal directions. That is just an ignirant rogue child with a bone to grind, like the attorney.
@David, LOLLL … and what EXACTLY is that ‘substantive issue”, good sir??
As I noted, “this is a very specific and absolutely NOT UNCOMMON abuse of the system by attorneys …”.
First up it’s a lark that the blogger said: “Once upon a time the legal profession was considered noble.”
The only folks who ever considered that so were us (then) un-read, ill-informed neophytes who believed that these lettered lawyers had our very best interests at heart. That was NEVER true or rather I should say was apt only in very specific political circumstances of social justice …
In the law courts on a daily basis it has ALWAYS been about the interests of the specific client and thus lawyers will do whatever is necessary to win their case.
Hugh Wooding or any other law school didn’t specifically create that lack of ethics and greed … so his/her basic thesis is ill-founded.
That the system allows or supports such bad behavior is that thin line between supposed democratic institutions (open to all to seek redress) and autocratic judicial systems.
So brother, I hear the cry of the blogger and I wish them well in their quest to redress this “classic case of elder abuse, administrative sloppiness by the utility companies and over-careful action by the courts.”
BU, when a man’s life is at stake, it is allowed, for attorneys to use the flimsiest of evidence and squeeze n bent interpretations *to defend*. For it is the maximum for criminal law, “beyond *reasonable* doubt.
However, in other branched of the law n particularly for applicants, “you’d better have your GROUNDS”.
So I don’t know which law school Pedantic Dribbler graduated from