Raymond Clough

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

Complainants retained the Attorney (pro bono) to apply for modification of restrictive covenants on their land to permit development. Despite instructions that R.N.A. Henriques QC appear at court, the Attorney did not ensure counsel's attendance and instead allowed Donovan Rodriques, a law student not admitted to the Bar, to attend chambers and represent the applicants and to help settle a Consent Order. The student had held himself out as an associate of Clough Long & Company. The resulting Consent Order was amended at the hearing without the clients' consent and ultimately allowed an objector to obtain an injunction blocking a multi-unit development; attempts to vary/discharge the order failed in the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal. The Panel, applying the beyond-reasonable-doubt standard and the Witter v Forbes test, found the Attorney's supervision and handling inexcusable and deplorable, and found him guilty of professional misconduct contrary to Canon 4(s). No dishonesty was found (negligence only), and no sanction is recorded in this document.

Duties found breached:

• No baseless or threatened misconduct report

Aggravating factors:

• Allowed an unqualified law student to hold himself out as an attorney/associate of his firm while under his supervision
• Failed to follow specific client instructions that R.N.A. Henriques QC represent them in court
• Initially claimed he never knew or heard of Donovan Rodriques when the issue was raised
• Consent Order was entered contrary to client's interests, resulting in an injunction preventing development

Mitigating factors:

• Retainer was undertaken pro bono, with only disbursements reimbursed