The Tribune

By NEIL HARTNELL

Tribune Business Editor

nhartnell@tribunemedia.net

The Bahamas Bar Council’s ethics committee has been blasted by the Court of Appeal for “woefully failing” to explain its decision to reprimand a prominent QC.

Sir Michael Barnett, the court’s president, in a unanimous verdict ruled that the committee’s inability to provide reasons for its findings against Wayne Munroe QC, pictured, and one of his associates, Donovan Gibson, was “sufficient” by itself to grant the two attorneys’ appeal.

And he found that “natural justice” had been breached because Messrs Munroe and Gibson were not given an opportunity to respond before the ethics committee censured them - a verdict that resulted in the Court of Appeal setting aside the earlier findings against them.

The ethics committee had reprimanded the duo, using the powers available under the Legal Profession Act, after finding they had allegedly breached The Bahamas Bar (Code of Professional Conduct) regulations in their handling of a client’s case.

Millicent Gertrude Smith had submitted a complaint against Mr Munroe on January 3, 2019, alleging that his law firm had failed to file the necessary documents or appear in court in relation to a matter he was consulted on eight years before.

The late Anthony Smith had approached the well-known QC about taking legal action against Doctor’s Hospital and Dr Dane Bowe over how they treated his leg injury. The doctor had allegedly left something in his leg and also used “the wrong type of steel” for Mr Smith’s diabetes.

The ethics committee subsequently forwarded the complaint to Mr Munroe on January 7, 2019, seeking his response. The QC replied 14 days later stating that he did not have the file on the case as it had been forwarded to another attorney upon request.

Mr Munroe was ultimately summoned on June 5, 2019, for an “inquisitorial hearing” that took place one month later featuring himself, Mrs Smith, her daughter and son-in-law. Mr Gibson attended even though he was not named in the complaint, yet the committee found he - as well as Mr Munroe - to be at fault and reprimanded the pair of them.

The Court of Appeal swiftly found that “the reprimand against Mr Gibson cannot stand” because he was never the subject of the complaint, and it agreed with Mr Munroe that the decision against him was “materially defective” because it never explained which allegations had been proven.

The ethics committee hearing’s transcript showed that it found against Mr Munroe despite establishing that he, and his Munroe & Associates law firm, had filed a valid writ of summons initiating legal action against Dr Bowe on Mrs Smith’s behalf as her late husband’s representative.

The writ was filed on November 30, 2015, and had kept Mrs Smith’s action alive. In addition, Mr Munroe and his firm had also entered a default judgment against Dr Bowe after he failed to respond to legal papers served on him.

The ethics committee noted that these actions had enabled Mrs Smith’s new attorney, Christina Galanos, to apply for a damages assessment to build on the work done by Mr Munroe.

“In this case the ethics committee has woefully failed to explain the reasons why it made the decision to reprimand Mr Munroe,” Sir Michael wrote. “It has said that he is in breach of Rule II but does not say how he is in breach of that Rule.

“It has said that Mrs Smith has proved her allegations against Mr Munroe but has not identified what evidence it has accepted to show that the complaint has been proved. This, in and of itself, is sufficient to allow this appeal and set aside the decision.”

Sir Michael also found that Mr Munroe had not been given an opportunity to be heard after he was found to be at fault, and before the reprimand was issued.

“In our judgment, it is a fundamental breach of natural justice to impose a punishment on an attorney without giving an opportunity to make representation as to what, if any, punishment should be imposed upon him,” the appeal court president added. “This [is] certainly the case in criminal proceedings.

“Although said in the context of criminal proceedings, the principle in our judgment applies equally to disciplinary proceedings where an attorney is in jeopardy of a punishment which may adversely affect him professionally. This was not done in this case.”