Skip to main content
discipline 3 October 2026
‹ Browse decisions

Decision record

Hugh Abel Levy

JurisdictionJamaica
BodyGeneral Legal Council — Disciplinary Committee (GLC)
Professionattorney
DateDecember 03, 2011
OutcomeFined

Allegation / charges

Fined | Disciplinary Committee decision delivered December 03, 2011. View PDF DECISION Complaints: 180/98 Mernel Cox vs. Hugh Levy 181/98 Yvonne Forbes vs. Hugh Levy 197/98 Pearl McLaren vs. Hugh Levy Mr. Donald Scharschmidt Q.C. for the Respondent Mr. …

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

SanctionFine
FineJMD 400,000
CostsJMD 400,000
Dishonesty foundNo

Three virtually identical complaints against conveyancing attorney Hugh Levy concerning the sale of premises at 227 Spanish Town Road inherited by three sisters. The Panel found Mr. Levy allowed the transaction to remain dormant for about five years, failed to keep his clients informed or seek their instructions, prepared and signed a new 1990 Agreement for Sale on the Vendors' behalf without authority (committing them to a 1984 price and omitting the 'time of the essence' term), and acted for both parties without obtaining the clients' informed consent. Breaches of Canons IV(s), IV(r), IV(l) and IV(k) were found. The Panel expressly found Mr. Levy did NOT act dishonestly. It imposed a fine of JMD $400,000 and costs of JMD $400,000, and ordered payment to the Complainants of the JMD $144,529.86 held on deposit plus interest.

Duties found breached:

Aggravating factors:

  • Signing a new 1990 Agreement for Sale on the Vendors' behalf without their authority, committing them to a 1984 price
  • Omitting the 'time of the essence' term in the new agreement
  • Failing to consult clients despite being alerted by Mrs. McGregor's 1990 visit
  • Failing to disburse the purchase money to clients even after liberalisation of Bank of Jamaica regulations, depriving them of use of funds for many years

Mitigating factors:

  • Found not to have acted dishonestly; no evidence he benefited from the delay
  • Failure to act was born of neglect/oversight rather than deliberate wrongdoing
  • The Complainants themselves showed no interest in the transaction for about five years
  • Mr. Levy candidly acknowledged the delay in correspondence with the General Legal Council

Duties engaged

Documents

Source: https://www.generallegalcouncil.org/judgement/hugh-abel-levy-complaint-no-180-181-197-of-1998/