Skip to main content
discipline 4 October 2026
‹ Browse decisions

Decision record

Lloyd O. Sheckleford

JurisdictionJamaica
BodyGeneral Legal Council — Disciplinary Committee (GLC)
Professionattorney
Case number163 of 2006
DateApril 26, 2014
OutcomeFined

Allegation / charges

Fined | Disciplinary Committee decision delivered April 26, 2014. View PDF JUDGEMENT OF THE DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE OF THE GENERAL LEGAL COUNCIL COMPLAINT NO: 163/2006 BETWEEN EILEEN BOXILL COMPLAINANT AND LLOYD SHECKLEFORD RESPONDENT PANEL: Pamela Benka-Coker, Q.C. Charles Piper David …

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

SanctionFine
FineJMD 350,000
CostsJMD 100,000
Dishonesty foundNo

Jamaican attorney Lloyd Sheckleford was found guilty of professional misconduct for practising for 22 years (1984-2006) without paying practising certificate fees, in breach of section 5(2) of the Legal Profession Act and Canons II(j), III(f), V(s) and I(b). The complaint was brought by a member of the General Legal Council. Proven beyond reasonable doubt largely through the evidence of the Council secretary Althea Richards, who confirmed non-payment and later partial payments made after the complaint was filed. No express finding of dishonesty was made. The panel imposed a fine of J$350,000 and costs of J$100,000, taking into account that the attorney had been allowed to practise for years and had made payments after the complaint was filed.

Duties found breached:

Aggravating factors:

  • Failure to pay practising fees for 22 years (1984 to 2006)
  • Continued to practise throughout the period without a practising certificate
  • Repeatedly failed to appear at hearings

Mitigating factors:

  • Attorney was permitted to practise for many years without his certificate before proceedings commenced
  • Made payments totalling J$135,000 towards outstanding practice fees after the complaint was laid

Duties engaged

Documents

Source: https://www.generallegalcouncil.org/judgement/lloyd-o-sheckleford-complaint-no-163-of-2006/