Raymond Clough

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

The Attorney was retained pro bono by the Phipps complainants to apply for modification of restrictive covenants on two parcels of land to allow condominium/residential development. The application became contested. The complainants instructed that R.N.A. Henriques QC appear at all court hearings. Instead, the Attorney allowed Donovan Rodriques, a law student never admitted to the Bar, to attend the 7 January 2003 chambers hearing and play a central role in settling a Consent Order, while holding himself out as an associate/partner of Clough Long & Company on letterheads and documents. The Consent Order as signed (with handwritten amendments and omitted agreed terms) was contrary to the complainants' instructions and interests, ultimately allowing the objector to obtain an injunction preventing the multi-unit development; attempts to vary/discharge the order failed in the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal. The Panel found the Attorney failed to exercise due care, failed to follow instructions on representation, and improperly allowed an unqualified person to act above his competence. Applying the criminal standard (beyond reasonable doubt) and the Witter v Forbes standard, the Panel found the Attorney guilty of professional misconduct contrary to Canon 4(s) for inexcusable and deplorable negligence. No express finding of dishonesty was made. The decision text contains only the guilty finding; no sanction, fine, or costs are stated.

Duties found breached:

• No taking unfair advantage