Chandra Soares

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

The appellant attorney was retained on the sale of the complainant's property (actual price J$35,500,000) but drafted the agreement for sale showing only J$25,500,000, knowing US$140,000 (≈J$10,000,000) had already been paid. She paid the complainant only J$14,000,000 of the J$21,985,424.76 due, leaving a shortfall of J$7,985,424.76, because between 2006 and 2008 she had used client funds to pay 'sow seed' money to her church. She later repaid the balance with interest and costs (J$8,373,774.77 cheque dated 19 December 2008). The complainant sought to withdraw the complaint, but the Disciplinary Committee refused, holding its duty was to protect the public and the profession. The Committee found the undisputed facts proven beyond reasonable doubt, found the complainant had not agreed to a loan, and found knowing conversion of client funds. It struck her from the roll. On appeal (against sanction only), the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and affirmed the strike-off, finding the sanction not plainly wrong given the course of conduct over years. The Committee found a knowing conversion but the decision does not record an express finding of 'dishonesty'.

Duties found breached:

• Uphold public trust in the profession
• No improper use of client money

Aggravating factors:

• Not an isolated incident but a course of conduct spanning at least two years using client funds
• Knowingly drafted agreement to understate purchase price, depriving the revenue
• Breach of trust reposed by a long-standing client
• Conduct described as egregious, unacceptable and inexcusable