Lynden Wellesley

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

The Respondent attorney was found to have been retained by the Complainant to pursue a personal injury claim arising from a March 2000 workplace accident. Despite informal arrangements and a family relationship, correspondence repeatedly referring to the Complainant as 'my client' established a professional retainer. The tribunal rejected the Respondent's claim that he had advised the Complainant to obtain another attorney for court proceedings. The Respondent allowed the claim to become statute barred through inordinate delays and continued acting even after limitation expired. The Committee found breaches of Canons IV(r) and IV(s) but expressly stated this was not a matter of dishonesty or moral turpitude. It imposed a fine of J$2,000,000 (directed to be paid to the Complainant) and costs of J$60,000.

Duties found breached:

• Overriding duty to the court
• No conflict between current clients

Aggravating factors:

• Allowed the personal injury claim to become statute barred without filing action or warning the client
• Inordinate delay of approximately 3.5 years in submitting the claim and further delay regarding medical reports
• Continued to act and pursue medical reports even after the claim was statute barred, showing he had lost sight of the limitation date

Mitigating factors:

• No dishonesty or moral turpitude involved
• Acted without charging a retainer fee and paid for medical reports at his own expense
• Family relationship with the Complainant and willingness to assist