Decision record
C. Judith Pantry
Appeals and appellate references
- Appellate document — relationship to this matter unverified: Causwell v The General Legal Council (ex parte Elizabeth Hartley), [2019] U KPC 9 Privy Council Appeal 0037 of 201 7
- Appellate document — relationship to this matter unverified: Arlean Beckford v The General Legal Council Civil Appeal No. 32 of 2005
- Appellate document — relationship to this matter unverified: Fredrick Scott v Elsie A. Taylor a 30 July 2009 decision of Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2004
- Appellate document — relationship to this matter unverified: Jennes Anderson v Eileen Boxill (A member of the General Legal Council) [Civil Appeal No 22 of 2018
- Appellate document — relationship to this matter unverified: Arlean Beckford v The Genera Legal Council [Civil Appeal 32 of 2005]
- Appellate document — relationship to this matter unverified: Gresford Jones v The General Legal Council (ex parte Owen Ferron) Miscellaneous Appeal No. 22/2002 (delivered March 18, 2005)
“Unverified” means the upstream page linked an appellate judgment but did not preserve enough context to prove that it was an appeal in this matter.
Allegation / charges
Guilty of Professional Misconduct | Disciplinary Committee decision delivered November 11, 2021. || Reprimanded, Fined | Disciplinary Committee decision delivered February 25, 2022| View PDF DECISION OF THE DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE …
Findings — machine-extracted (anthropic-batch:claude-opus-4-8); verify against the decision
The Disciplinary Committee of the General Legal Council found Attorney Judith Pantry guilty of professional misconduct under Canon VII(b)(ii) for failing to account to complainant Dawn Matthews (acting as agent for her elderly parents, the clients) for proceeds of a property sale. The Attorney held the net sale proceeds, made currency conversions and disbursements but never substantiated exchange rates or bank charges, gave multiple inconsistent statements of account, improperly reversed a previously accepted discounted fee, and improperly charged GCT. The Panel found she failed to account for J$24,011,946.00 plus interest. No express finding of dishonesty was made, though the Panel found her evasive and not candid. The Panel rejected jurisdictional and locus standi objections. Sanction was deferred pending a mitigation hearing.
Duties found breached:
Aggravating factors:
- Attorney appeared cavalier, evasive and not candid during proceedings
- Attorney denied knowledge of an email sent from her own account on her firm's letterhead
- Attorney failed to provide exchange rate and bank charge documentation despite repeated client requests
- Multiple inconsistent statements of account provided to the client
- Attorney still owes money to the elderly clients (aged 91 and 93)
Duties engaged
Other decisions involving this respondent
Matched by respondent name — may include a different person with the same name.
Documents
- 📄 Appellate reference (relationship unverified)
- 📄 Appellate reference (relationship unverified)
- 📄 Appellate reference (relationship unverified)
- 📄 Appellate reference (relationship unverified)
- 📄 Appellate reference (relationship unverified)
- 📄 Appellate reference (relationship unverified)
- 📄 Appellate authority cited
- 📄 Appellate authority cited
- 📄 Decision / judgment
Source: https://www.generallegalcouncil.org/judgement/c-judith-pantry-complaint-no-56-of-2020/