GLC seeking to have attorney Michael Lorne disbarred

The General Legal Council (GLC) is going to the United Kingdom-based Privy Council in a bid to get an order to overturn a Court of Appeal ruling that attorney-at-law Michael Lorne should not be disbarred.

The Court of Appeal had ruled in March 2021 that Lorne should instead be suspended for five years.

The suspension ends in June and Lorne said today that he plans to practise again as soon as the suspension is over.

Lorne, a Rastafarian, was disbarred in June 2017 by a disciplinary committee of the General Legal Council for professional misconduct following a complaint into the alleged handling of the sale of a property in eastern Kingston.

The complainant had reported in October 2012 that Lorne was retained to sell a property to which she and her brother were beneficiaries in a will but she received no benefit from the sale.

The disciplinary committee found that the property was transferred in November 2011 and the complainant was not paid any of the proceeds up to the time the report was made.

Lorne contended before the committee that the complainant's brother had instructed him to give the proceeds of the sale to him because the complainant had used other funds from the estate.

Lorne said he complied with the instructions.

Lorne eventually agreed that he ought to have paid the proceeds in equal shares to both of them.

Lorne, who is being represented by attorney-at-law Bianca Samuels, had appealed the ruling and the Court of Appeal set aside the disbarment and ruled that he should be suspended for five years commencing June 24, 2017.

Last week Friday, the Court of Appeal granted the GLC leave to appeal to the Privy Council to challenge the suspension order after hearing legal arguments from Sandra Minott-Phillips, Q.C and attorney-at-law Jahmar Clarke, who are representing the council.

The GLC will be asking the Privy Council to determine “whether the sanction imposed by the disciplinary committee, striking-off the respondent from the Roll of attorneys-at-law entitled to practise law in Jamaica, was unquestionably an error of law or clearly inappropriate, unnecessary in the public interest, disproportionate or excessive to warrant the intervention of the Court of Appeal in setting aside the  order and imposing lesser sanctions.”

The other question is “whether, in the circumstances of the case, the Court of Appeal ought to have deferred to the decision of the disciplinary committee, as an expert and informed tribunal, to determine the measures required to deal with the defaulting attorney-at-law and to protect the public interest.”

- Barbara Gayle

Follow The Gleaner on Twitter and Instagram @JamaicaGleaner and on Facebook @GleanerJamaica. Send us a message on WhatsApp at 1-876-499-0169 or email us at onlinefeedback@gleanerjm.com or editors@gleanerjm.com.