Lynden Wellesley

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

The Respondent attorney was retained (on an implied/25% contingency basis) to pursue the Complainant's personal injury claim arising from a March 2000 workplace accident. The tribunal rejected the Respondent's defence that he had limited his engagement to negotiation and had advised the Complainant to obtain another attorney for court, finding the correspondence showed he continued acting as attorney even after the claim became statute barred in March 2006. The Committee found breaches of Canons IV(r) and IV(s), amounting to inexcusable and deplorable negligence, but expressly found no dishonesty or moral turpitude. Applying the criminal standard of proof (Campbell v Hamlet), it imposed a fine of J$2,000,000 (directed to be paid to the Complainant as compensation) plus J$60,000 costs.

Duties found breached:

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

Aggravating factors:

• Allowed the personal injury claim to become statute barred
• Inordinate delays (approx 3.5 years to submit claim; 2 years for follow-up medical examination)
• Continued to act as if pursuing proceedings even after the claim was already statute barred