Sean O’Neil Kinghorn
Allegation / charges
Fined | Disciplinary Committee decision delivered January 12, 2013. View PDF DECISION OF THE DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE OF THE GENERAL LEGAL COUNCIL COMPLAINT No. 173/2010 IN THE MATTER of a complaint by THOMAS ROSE against SEAN KINGHORN, an Attorney-at-Law AND …
Findings — machine-extracted (anthropic-batch:claude-opus-4-8); verify against the decision
Attorney Sean Kinghorn was retained around 2004 by Thomas Rose to bring a personal injury claim from a 2001 accident. The attorney filed the claim and it was served on the first defendant, but failed to keep the client informed of progress and showed a want of expedition between 2004 and 2008, when the client retrieved his papers. The Committee, proceeding in the attorney's absence (he never attended despite proper notice), found the complaint proved beyond reasonable doubt and a breach of Canon IV(r). No dishonesty was found. The attorney was fined JMD 600,000 (JMD 500,000 payable to the complainant as part satisfaction of damages under s.12(5)) and ordered to pay costs of JMD 6,000.
Duties found breached:
Aggravating factors:
- Egregious failure to communicate with the client
- Failure to provide a written explanation about the status of the case
- Failure to attend or respond to the complaint
Mitigating factors:
- Client retrieved his papers in 2008 and may still have salvaged some benefit from the claim filed
⚠ figures not found verbatim in the source were dropped: ["unverified_fine_amount=600000"]
Duties engaged
Other decisions involving this respondent
Matched by respondent name — may include a different person with the same name.
Documents
Source: https://www.generallegalcouncil.org/judgement/sean-o-neil-kinghorn-complaint-no-173-of-2010/