Skip to main content
discipline 3 October 2026
‹ Browse decisions

Decision record

Ramnath Hetram

JurisdictionJamaica
BodyGeneral Legal Council — Disciplinary Committee (GLC)
Professionattorney
Case number122 of 1994
DateNovember 13, 1998
OutcomeStruck off

Allegation / charges

Struck off | Disciplinary Committee decision delivered November 13, 1998. View PDF DECISION OF THE DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE OF THE GENERAL LEGAL COUNCIL SERAGH LAKASINGH AND PAULETTE THOMPSON COMPLAINANTS AND RAMNATH HETRAM DEFENDANT PANEL PAMELA E. BENKA-COKER Q.C. CHAIRMANLEILA PARKERBERYL …

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

SanctionStrike Off
Dishonesty foundNo

The Disciplinary Committee of the General Legal Council of Jamaica found attorney Ramnath Hetram guilty of professional misconduct after he was retained to administer the estate of Aston Thompson, sell two properties, and liquidate a mortgage. Applying the criminal standard of proof, the Committee found he received the full $1 million purchase price for one property but left $294,889.93 unaccounted for, failed to account for $5,000 on another sale, kept no proper accounts, took fees without billing the client, never responded to inquiries, and caused inexcusable delay. He was found in breach of Canons IV(r), IV(s), VII(b)(i), VII(b)(ii), I(b) and VIII(b). The Committee did not make an express finding of dishonesty but found misconduct of the gravest kind and ordered his name struck from the roll under section 12(4) of the Legal Profession Act. No fine or costs were ordered.

Duties found breached:

Aggravating factors:

  • Received the full purchase price of $1 million for 5 Cherry View, with a balance of $294,889.93 unaccounted for
  • Failed to account for $5,000 of the $25,000 received on 64 Alexander Park
  • Failed to produce any statements of account or records of where estate funds were held
  • Took fees from estate funds without ever billing the client or obtaining agreement
  • Inexcusable delay in conduct of estate business over many years
  • Never responded in writing to numerous letters from the client and other attorneys
  • Never completed the work he was retained to do

Mitigating factors:

  • Attorney was a man of mature years
  • Profession was likely his only source of financial support
  • Did perform substantial work (obtained probate, registered transmissions, liquidated the mortgage)
  • Received no fees in advance

Duties engaged

Documents

Source: https://www.generallegalcouncil.org/judgement/ramnath-hetram-complaint-no-122-of-1994/