Audrey Heslop-Mendez

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

The Complainant engaged the Respondent in July 1997 to act on his behalf in purchasing property in West Bay, Portmore from the Respondent and Michael Mendez, paying J$980,000 and £4,000. The Complainant never obtained transfer of the property nor any accounting. The Panel found it improper for the Respondent to act for the purchaser while also being a vendor, and that she failed to advise him to obtain independent representation, and failed to account. The Panel proceeded under Rule 10 on the Complainant's affidavit as the Respondent did not respond. It found the conduct would warrant striking off, but as she was already struck off, ordered restitution and costs.

Duties found breached:

• No conflict between current clients
• Prompt accounting and return of money

Aggravating factors:

• Respondent acted while also being a vendor (conflict of interest)
• Failed to advise client to obtain independent legal representation
• Failed to account or transfer property
• No response to the complaint