Anthony M. Gifford Q.C.

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

The Respondent, an eminent barrister, undertook responsibility for enforcing a default judgment obtained for the Complainant against S&T Ltd. He used a Writ of Seizure and Sale (appropriate only for goods) rather than garnishee/attachment proceedings to recover money in a bank account, then wrongly treated the Bailiff's 'nulla bona' return as meaning the assets were gone, taking no further enforcement steps from January 2002 until being replaced in June 2005, and ignoring the client's information that $63m was held in a joint deposit account. He also conceded breach of Canon IV(r) for failing to respond to correspondence. The Panel found this crossed the line into inexcusable and deplorable negligence, professional misconduct under Canon IV(s). No dishonesty was found. As full loss could not be established, the Panel imposed a fine of J$1,100,000 (30% of net judgment) payable to the Complainant plus J$200,000 costs.

Duties found breached:

• No taking unfair advantage
• No conflict between current clients

Aggravating factors:

• Negligence sustained over a considerable period of time (from January 2002 until replaced June 2005)
• Repeated failure to respond to numerous letters from the Complainant seeking updates
• Failure to act on the client's key information (5 May 2002 letter that $63m was held in a joint deposit account)
• Reliance on a mistaken interpretation of the Bailiff's nulla bona report as basis for taking no further enforcement steps

Mitigating factors:

• Respondent's inexperience as a barrister undertaking solicitor/instructing-attorney enforcement work
• No dishonesty or sharp practice involved
• Matter undertaken largely on a contingency fee basis with minimal fees paid
• Full loss not proven; uncertainty whether the judgment fruits could actually have been recovered