Switching hats on a whim

The Editor, Sir:

When asked why Harold Brady wasn't reported to the General Legal Council, the prime minister said "One has to do with what capacity was Mr Brady acting in. Was he acting as a lawyer or was he acting as a party supporter and former member of the party?"

I found this response (as reported by Ingrid Brown in the September 15th edition of the Observer) both hilarious and interesting. Hilarious, because it appears that all JLP members can switch between professional and political hats, as necessary, to reduce the impact of this Manatt affair. Interesting, because the prime minister seems to be acting as Mr Brady's attorney, even while attempting to 'discipline' him.

Violation of the code

I am a final-year law student, and no expert in Jamaica's code of professional conduct. However, having glanced at it a few times, the code seems consistent with the United States' code of professional responsibility. Neither of the codes seem to make a distinction between what an attorney does in their personal and professional lives. The Jamaican code says, if an attorney commits a crime, (which is usually a personal matter) he/she can be reported.

Reporting someone to the GLC does not impute guilt on that person. It merely says the person acted in an 'unlawyerly' manner which, in 'my' opinion, is a violation of the code. The GLC would ultimately decide whether the act was, in fact, a violation.

Having said all of that, the PM was being disingenuous in his response to the reporter. To suggest "Mr Brady was acting in his capacity as a former party member" is incorrect. The truth is, if the PM's earlier utterances are to be believed, attorney-at-law Harold Brady, esq, of Brady and Company has acted. That he is or was a member of the party is beside the point.

I guess the bigger question is: can the prime minister be believed?

I am, etc.,

O. ANTHONY NEWELL

o-newell2011@nlaw.northwestern.edu

Chicago