Anthony M. Gifford Q.C.

Findings — machine-extracted (anthropic-batch:claude-opus-4-8); verify against the decision

Lord Anthony Gifford, who had undertaken to enforce a judgment for the Complainant, was found by the General Legal Council Disciplinary Committee to have breached Canon IV(r) (conceded) and Canon IV(s). He used an inappropriate enforcement process (Writ of Seizure and Sale rather than attachment of the bank account) and, relying on a nulla bona Bailiff's return, took no further steps to enforce the judgment for years despite the client's repeated enquiries. The Panel found this amounted to inexcusable and deplorable negligence/professional misconduct. The Panel expressly accepted his belief was genuine and found no dishonesty. He was fined J$1,100,000 (payable to the Complainant in partial satisfaction of damage) and ordered to pay J$200,000 costs.

Duties found breached:

• No conflict between current clients
• No taking unfair advantage

Aggravating factors:

• Negligence sustained over a considerable period of time (no enforcement steps from January 2002 until replaced June 2005)
• Failure to act despite Complainant's repeated letters and the 5 May 2002 letter informing of $63m placed in a joint deposit account
• Use of wholly inappropriate enforcement procedure (Writ of Seizure and Sale instead of Writ of Attachment) and reliance on Bailiff's nulla bona return as basis for inaction

Mitigating factors:

• Respondent's genuine (though mistaken) belief that the funds had been dissipated
• Respondent was a barrister/advocate unaccustomed to instructing-attorney enforcement work
• No dishonesty or sharp practice; conduct otherwise of an advocate of eminence
• Complainant led no evidence that the judgment was in fact rendered fruitless by the delay