The Tribune

By NEIL HARTNELL

Tribune Business Editor

nhartnell@tribunemedia.net

A Bahamian attorney has failed in his bid to overturn Supreme Court-imposed sanctions relating to his management of a $30m estate despite arguing he is "legally blind".

Justice Indra Charles, in a December 29, 2020, ruling, blasted Gregory Cottis' "brazen and consistent non-compliance" with Orders to turn over all records relating to Raymond Adams' estate to the court-appointed judicial trustee.

Attorneys for Robert Adams, Mr Adams' son and one of the estate's beneficiaries, cited 11 alleged breaches of the Supreme Court's Orders by Mr Cottis as they accused him of deliberately "obstructing" the work of the successor trustee to cover-up his "incompetence.... and hold the estate hostage to his own illegitimate attempts to recover more than his legally entitled compensation".

Mr Cottis had been administering Mr Adams' estate for 15 years, after the Canadian resident of Cable Beach's Sulgrave Manor passed away at the age of 73 in 2004. However, his son, Robert, has launched legal action against the attorney, who resigned from his role on May 10, 2019, and was replaced by EY accountant, Igal Wizman, as court-appointed Judicial Trustee.

The matter has been set for trial over a four-day period from March 2-March 5, 2021, but Robert Adams and his attorney, Christopher Jenkins of Lennox Paton, argued "there would no longer be any prospect of that trial date being met" if Mr Cottis was freed from the court's sanctions.

This, they argued, would remove all leverage over Mr Cottis when it came to complying with multiple Supreme Court Orders to hand over documents related to his administration of Raymond Adams' estate.

Previous non-compliance, Robert Adams and his attorneys argued, had occurred despite Mr Cottis being represented over the course of the action by two QCs, one of whom, Sir Brian Moree, is now Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, the other being Damian Gomez, former minister of state for legal affairs. Another attorney who acted for him is now-Supreme Court justice, Loren Klein.

Mr Cottis' bid to overturn the sanctions was supported by a November 22, 2020, affidavit from Anthony McKinney QC, who exhibited a letter from Dr William Smiddy, from the Miami-based Bascom Palmer Eye Institute, asserting that the attorney was "legally blind" due to retinal detachments and surgeries in both eyes.

As a result, Mr Cottis was "unable to perform his usual duties" with the restoration of at least some vision likely to "take at least another month", leading to his application for sanctions relief that did not go down well with the other side.

"The plaintiff (Mr Adams) vehemently opposes the application and asserts, in a nutshell, that Mr Cottis, a member of the Bahamas Bar and no stranger to litigation, has failed to give a good reason for the failure to comply when he has a legal team and administrative staff," Justice Charles recorded. "In addition, Mr Cottis has intentionally and consistently breached orders of the court."

Noting that Mr Cottis had consistently failed to "file and exchange" documents relating to Robert Adams' complaint, despite the other side being in full compliance, Justice Charles noted: "Mr Cottis has been ordered to provide disclosure of the documents relating to the administration of the estate on three separate occasions and has not complied with any of those orders."

The first Order, made on August 22, 2018, required Mr Cottis - some two years before the blindness issue arose - to hand over all books and records relating to the estate's administration to Mr Wizman in his capacity as judicial trustee.

Mr Cottis subsequently resigned from his position on May 10, 2019, but Mr Wizman complained in his report to the Supreme Court about the attorney's non-compliance. Mr Gomez, acting for Mr Cottis, argued that his client has been experiencing eye problems since December 2019 and that this had prevented him from complying with the Supreme Court orders.

But, using the arguments put forward by Mr Jenkins, Justice Charles' judgment said: "As is detailed in the numerous judicial trustee’s reports, Mr Cottis has continually obstructed, delayed and complicated the work of the judicial trustee in administering the estate, a process itself only necessary because of the incompetence displayed by Mr Cottis and his late co-executor, Mr Manzi, and Mr Cottis’ conduct in holding the estate hostage to his own illegitimate attempts to recover more than his statutory entitlement for remuneration over the course of the administration of the estate of Mr Adams’ father, which administration has been ongoing since 2004."

Mr Jenkins "asserts that the inevitable conclusion that must be drawn from Mr Cottis’ consistent misconduct in these proceedings (not to mention the conduct that caused these proceedings to arise) is that Mr Cottis’ non-compliance is intentional", Justice Charles added.

"Mr Jenkins submits that Mr Cottis has brazenly and continuously ignored the directions of the court. He submits that to grant relief in such circumstances would undermine the administration of justice, as Mr Cottis has provided no good reasons for failing to adhere to the orders of the court, and would encourage litigants to disregard both general orders of the court and one of the most serious sanctions of the court....

"Mr Jenkins further submits that it is a fair conclusion to reach that Mr Cottis has no confidence in his case and seeks to delay the litigation indefinitely." Agreeing with these assertions, Justice Charles ruled: "As the evidence unfolded, it is plain that Mr Cottis has had a long and blemished history of non-compliance with court orders, as well as non-cooperation with the judicial trustee.

"As Mr Jenkins correctly submits, there is no reason to suppose that this conduct may change and every reason to surmise that this conduct is part of an intentional strategy to delay the action from proceeding......

"I therefore agree with Mr Jenkins that to grant the relief from sanctions in the face of such brazen and consistent non-compliance would not be in the interests of the administration of justice. Orders must be obeyed, otherwise the rule of law tends to be undermined," Justice Charles added.

"The breaches have not - and cannot - be blamed on Mr Cottis’ legal team. Were relief to be granted, the March 2021 trial dates would be compromised and any extended deadline would, in all likelihood, also be compromised, given Mr Cottis’ past conduct. Another trial date in 2021 (of four days) would be an impossibility."