Trudy-Ann Francene G. Russell
Allegation / charges
Struck off | Disciplinary Committee decision delivered February 07, 2026. || Guilty of Professional Misconduct | Disciplinary Committee decision delivered January 17, 2026. View PDF SANCTION DECISION OF THE DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE OF THE GENERAL LEGAL COUNCIL COMPLAINT NO: 35/2025 …
Findings — machine-extracted (anthropic-batch:claude-opus-4-8); verify against the decision
Minett Lawrence, a sole practitioner, was found guilty of professional misconduct by the GLC Disciplinary Committee and struck off the roll for conduct arising from an investment/loan transaction in which she acted for both the complainant (lender) and the borrower. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part: it set aside the Committee's express finding of dishonesty (the GLC conceded the evidence was insufficient to meet the criminal standard) and set aside the finding that she failed to account for and held US$498,000 (Canons IV(r), VII(b)(ii)). However, the Court affirmed findings of conflict of interest (Canon IV(k)), inexcusable and deplorable negligence (Canon IV(s)), and failing to maintain the honour and dignity of the profession (Canon I(b)). It held the striking-off sanction was justified even absent dishonesty given the gross negligence/recklessness. Restitution was reduced to US$47,000 (the US$32,000 retained as fees plus US$15,000 dishonoured cheque) with 2% compound interest; costs of J$750,000 to the complainant were affirmed.
Duties found breached:
- No conflict between current clients
- Overriding duty to the court
- Uphold public trust in the profession
Aggravating factors:
- Seriousness and extent of misconduct given her experience as a seasoned commercial attorney
- Took multiple conflicting roles (investment promoter/financial advisor and attorney for both lender and borrower)
- Wrote a letter falsely stating funds had been received and disbursed when she knew this was untrue (lack of candour)
- Had complainant's funds deposited to her husband's non-client account; cheque for US$15,000 dishonoured and unpaid
- Failure to conduct due diligence on overseas entities; failure to stamp loan documents
Mitigating factors:
- Unblemished disciplinary record over approximately 28 years in practice
- Impressive curriculum vitae and evidence of good character
⚠ figures not found verbatim in the source were dropped: ["review_dishonesty_finding_cue_present"]