Beriston Bryan

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

The Complainant retained the Respondent attorney (through his secretary) to handle the sale of her property. The Respondent delegated the transaction to his secretary without sufficient supervision; the Agreement for Sale was not stamped timeously, mortgagees were not promptly notified, the completion deadline was missed, and the transaction took about ten months instead of four, causing the vendors to incur extra mortgage interest of $170,849.50. The Respondent gave an unconditional written undertaking to pay $140,000 but failed to honour it. The Committee found him guilty of professional misconduct under Canons iv(r), iv(s) and vi(d). Allegations under Canons 1(b), vii(a) and vii(b) were not proved to the criminal standard. No express finding of dishonesty was made. Sanctions: restitution of $140,000 plus 12% interest, two fines of $50,000 each, and costs of $150,000.

Duties found breached:

• No taking unfair advantage
• No conflict between current clients
• Competence

Aggravating factors:

• Inordinate delay causing the Complainant and her husband to incur additional mortgage interest of $170,849.50
• Delegating conduct of the sale to his secretary without adequate supervision
• Respondent personally responsible for years of delay in the disciplinary hearing itself (over four years, nineteen sittings)

Mitigating factors:

• Respondent accepted some responsibility for the delay and gave an undertaking to pay $140,000
• Changed office practice after the complaint so deposits are now stamped promptly

⚠ figures not found verbatim in the source were dropped: ["unverified_fine_amount=100000"]