Re Barristers

• Jurisdiction: Bermuda
• Judgment Date: 20 February 2012
• Date: 20 February 2012
• Docket Number: Civil Jurisdiction 2011 No 324
• Court: Supreme Court (Bermuda)

In The Supreme Court of Bermuda

Civil Jurisdiction 2011 No 324

In the Matter of a complaint of improper conduct brought by Jennifer Lindsey Calko against certain Barristers & Attorneys

And in the Matter of the Bermuda Bar Act 1974

And in the Matter of the Bar Professional Conduct Committee Rules 1997

And in the Matter of the Decision of the Professional Conduct Committee dated 15 September 2011

Mr D Kessaram for the Applicant

Mr S Froomkin, QC for the Respondent

The following cases were referred to in the judgment:

R v General Medical Council, ex parte TothUNK (2000) 61 BMLR 149

Roberts and Hayward v Minister of Home Affairs and Public SafetyBDLR [2004] Bda LR 5

Bank of Bermuda Ltd v Minister of Community Affairs and SportBDLR [2004] Bda LR 36

Abstract:

Barristers' improper conduct - Judicial review - Appropriate party to make complaint

JUDGMENT of Kawaley, J

Factual background

1. The Applicant applied for Judicial Review by Notice dated 29th September 2011 by which application she sought an order quashing the decision of the PCC dated 15th September 2011. The Application was based on various grounds which can all conveniently be distilled into the global complaint that the decision was unlawful.

2. The background to the matter is that the Applicant on 17th August 2011 made a complaint to the Bermuda Bar Council against certain members of a firm concerning a matter rising out of the breakdown of her marriage and the complaint can be broken down into two elements:

i. the first element is the allegation that the law firm was involved in assisting her husband to misappropriate a business that was solely owned by her; and

ii. the second element is that the same lawyers were in knowingly involved, either actually or constructively, in facilitating the operation of the company incorporated for the husband in breach of the provisions of the Companies Act which require a company to be not just owned 60 percent but also controlled by Bermudians.

3. The complaint was dealt with by way of decision dated 15th September communicated in a letter sent to the Applicant which stated as follows:

"Thank you for bringing your complaint to the attention of the Professional Conduct Committee.

The Committee is of the view that opposing attorneys have an obligation to look out for their client's best interest and it is not always appreciated by non-lawyers that our adversarial system does give some latitude to counsel. Having said that, it is always open...