Editorial | A reprimand for Buchanan

Isat Buchanan is worthy of redemption. He has done enough to earn it. Which is why the General Legal Council (GCL), the watchdog of ethics for Jamaica’s lawyers, should act with leniency when it decides on his punishment for his infraction four months ago.

At the same time, the legal profession, and people who believe in justice, might consider opening a serious debate of the appropriateness of one of the sanctions – being chucked out of the profession – the GLC could apply to Mr Buchanan. While that might be an extreme punishment, and unlikely to be rendered in this case, the fact that it exists, and could be imposed in the specific circumstance, ought to be a matter of concern. It can’t be assumed that a GLC disciplinary committee will always exercise its relatively wide powers with due reasonableness.

Mr Buchanan is a young, and seemingly gifted, attorney whose own brushes with the law appear to have made him empathetic to society’s underdogs. But there is a paradox, other than his seeming penchant for engaging most issues firstly with an open mouth. He is, on the face of it, given to bouts of misogyny. He has on public television, for instance, called women ugly.

The issue for which he is now in trouble has to do with he, in August, advised the director of public prosecutions (DPP), Paula Llewellyn, during the public controversy over the government’s Nicodemus-style amendment of the constitution, allowing Ms Llewellyn to stay in office for another two years, until she is 65. Invoking lines of a song by the popular dancehall deejay, Vybz Kartel, Mr Buchanan suggested an oral sexual act she might perform to a part of the male anatomy. Mr Buchanan is one of the lawyers pursuing an appeal against Kartel’s conviction for murder and Ms Llewellyn was the lead prosecutor in that case nearly nine years ago.

PLEADED GUILTY

Mr Buchanan pleaded guilty last week to breaching the canons of his profession for behaviour that discredited its honour.

“I would not even attempt to justify descending into that arena,” Mr Buchanan told this newspaper, explaining his guilty plea. “I would never try to conjure up an excuse and be cute with the legalities of conduct that is just … I can’t even find the word for it.”

He added, “I disappointed myself. One cannot defend the indefensible.”

Mr Buchanan has shown contrition. He didn’t, as he said, attempt to be “cute with the legalities”, notwithstanding that some might have considered a free-speech defence, and/or made an assault on the frumpiness of some of the profession’s cannons.

Further, in the immediate aftermath of his crude remarks, Mr Buchanan publicly apologised. He also resigned his chairmanship of the human rights commission of the Opposition People’s National Party (PNP). There were consequences for his indiscretion.

While the rules do not specifically address language of the kind used by Mr Buchanan, Canon VIII (b) – one of those under which he was charged – says that when “explicit ethical guidance does not exist, an attorney shall determine his conduct by acting in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and efficiency of the legal system and the legal profession”.

STRUCK OFF

Breaching this rule, under the Legal Profession Act, can result in being struck from the roll of lawyers; suspension from practice; a fine; a reprimand; or in a requirement to attend continuing courses in legal education.

On the face of it, the possibility that Mr Buchanan could be kicked out of the profession for the offence he committed seems reason enough for a review of these penalties to tighten, and to bring greater specificity, to the circumstances in which a lawyer could be made to lose his/her source of livelihood. The GLC should perhaps also be allowed, in cases such as Mr Buchanan’s, to require that lawyers attend sensitivity training.

Since the latter option seems to be out, Mr Buchanan should therefore receive a sharp reprimand and censure.

It might also be time for the profession to have a look at others of its more musty rules, such as limits on the ability of lawyers to advertise, including how they hang their shingles.