Ramnath Hetram
Allegation / charges
Struck off | Disciplinary Committee decision delivered November 13, 1998. View PDF DECISION OF THE DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE OF THE GENERAL LEGAL COUNCIL SERAGH LAKASINGH AND PAULETTE THOMPSON COMPLAINANTS AND RAMNATH HETRAM DEFENDANT PANEL PAMELA E. BENKA-COKER Q.C. CHAIRMANLEILA PARKERBERYL …
Findings — machine-extracted (anthropic-batch:claude-opus-4-8); verify against the decision
The Disciplinary Committee of the General Legal Council found that attorney Ramnath Hetram, retained in 1987 to handle the estate of Aston Thompson (obtain probate, sell two properties, and discharge a mortgage), received the full $1 million sale price for 5 Cherry View and $25,000 for 64 Alexander Park but failed to complete the transactions, never accounted to the executor/beneficiary, kept no proper accounts, and left over $299,000 unaccounted for. Applying the criminal standard of proof, the Committee found him guilty of professional misconduct in breach of Canons IV(r), IV(s), VII(b)(i), VII(b)(ii), I(b) and VIII(b). Although the tribunal preferred other witnesses over the attorney and condemned use of client funds for personal gain, it made no express finding of 'dishonesty.' The attorney's name was ordered struck from the roll under s.12(4) of the Legal Profession Act. No fine or costs order was stated.
Duties found breached:
- No conflict between current clients
- No improper use of client money
- Uphold public trust in the profession
Aggravating factors:
- Failed to account for a balance of $294,889.93 on the 5 Cherry View sale and $5,000 on the 64 Alexander Park sale
- Took fees from estate funds without ever submitting a bill or obtaining client agreement
- Never responded in writing to numerous letters from the client over a period of years
- Inexcusable and prolonged delay (1987-1994) in conducting estate business
- Failed to produce any statements of account or records of where estate funds were held
- Conduct found to undermine and erode public confidence in the profession
- Tribunal found the attorney's credit unreliable, preferring other witnesses where evidence conflicted (e.g. denial of receiving $150,000)
Mitigating factors:
- Attorney was a man of mature years
- Profession was perhaps his only source of financial support
- He did perform substantial work: obtained probate, registered executors on transmission, and liquidated the bank mortgage
Documents
Source: https://www.generallegalcouncil.org/judgement/ramnath-hetram-complaint-no-122-of-1994/