Tariq Khan

Barbados Bar Association and the Useless $2,000,000.00 Compensation Fund

barbadosbarassociationBU continues our spotlight on the Barbados Bar Association (BA) and the Disciplinary Committee (DC), in particular the little known Compensation Fund (CF). The CF can easily be compared to the useless Catastrophe Fund (CF#2), government recently made a decision to transfer the balance outstanding of 35 million dollars to the Consolidated Fund (CF#3). The BA’s website provides the following information on practicing certificates. There are only two references to the CF.

FEES PAYABLE TO THE REGISTRAR OF THE SUPREME COURT:

Practising Certificate-$ 2500.00

Practising Certificate – (Queen’s Counsel)- $ 2500.00

Compensation Fund- $ 200.00

AND:

Q. What are the fees payable prior to admission?

A. (a) Cheque (or cash) payable to Barbados Bar Association.

Less than 5 years $293.75

5 years and over $440.63

10 years and over $625.10

15 years and over $625.10

20 years and over $1175.00

Queens Counsel $1562.75

(b)Separate Cheques (or cash) payable to The Registrar of the Supreme Court

$200.00 – Compensation Fund – mandatory.

$2500.00 – Professional Registration Fee – [manadatory].

N.B. we only accept cash or cheque no debit or credit cards

NOTE: The standards of professional competence of the BA seems to exclude a spell-check that allows it to spell “mandatory” correctly. This is very encouraging if we consider competency as a measure.

Apart from that, there is no part of the BA’s website that explains the CF. See BU’s search string. There is absolutely nothing in a Google search from the BA to explain the CF. The Legal Professions Act states, inter alia:

50. (1) Where it is proved to the satisfaction of the Bar Association that any person has sustained loss in consequence of dishonesty on the part of an attorney-at-law or any clerk or servant of an attorney-at-law in connection with that attorney- at-law’s practice as an attorney-at-law or in connection with any trust of which that attorney-at-law is a trustee, then, subject to the provisions of this section, the Association may, if it thinks fit, make a grant to that person out of the Fund for the purpose of relieving or mitigating that loss.

(2) A grant may be made under this section whether or not the attorney-at-law had a Practising Certificate in force when the act of dishonesty was committed, and notwithstanding that after the commission of that act the attorney-at-law has died or had his name removed from the Roll, or has ceased to practise or been suspended from practice.

(3) On the making by the Bar Association of any grant under this section to any person in respect of any loss-

(a) the Association shall to the amount of that grant be subrogated to any rights and remedies in respect of that loss of the person to whom the grant is made or of the attorney-at-law, clerk or servant; and the person to whom the grant is made shall have no right under bankruptcy or other legal proceedings or otherwise to receive any sum out of the assets of the attorney-at-law, clerk or servant in respect of the loss until the Association has been reimbursed the full amount of its grant, and in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this subsection reference to the person to whom the grant is made or to the attorney-at-law, clerk or servant includes, in the event of his death, insolvency or other disability, a reference to his personal representative or any other person having authority to administer his estate.

(4) The Bar Association may make rules with respect to the procedure to be followed in giving effect to the provisions of this section and of the Sixth Schedule and with respect to any matters incidental, ancillary or supplemental to those provisions or concerning the administration or protection of the Fund.

(5) No grant shall be made under this section in respect of any loss unless notice of the loss is received by the Bar Association in such manner and within such time after the loss first came to the knowledge of the loser as may be prescribed by rules made under subsection (4).

(6) For the purposes of enquiring into any matters which may affect the making or refusal of a grant under this section, the Bar Association or any committee appointed by the Association and authorised by it to exercise any of its functions under this section or to assist it in the exercise of any such functions may administer oaths.

In other words, the BA has the right to make a grant out of the CF, but if the complainant then is paid back the sum claimed from the attorney, they must refund the BA the amount the BA granted them out of the CF. This seems a fair position.

Note that in the Google search above, apart from the opaque reference to the CF on the BA’s website, the ONLY references to be found are to BU’s publications on the matter of the CF. The only substantive explanation BU can offer comes from Mrs Woodford-Riley QC, head off the DC which states, inter alia:

“I recall you had raised the issue of the compensation fund. In my opinion the existing provisions do allow the compensation fund to make payments with the provisos that it may require the applicant to pursue civil or criminal or disciplinary proceedings. It does then have something to do with our committee and we do give priority hearings to complaints involving funds. However the legislation limits our powers to a finding of professional misconduct and the ability to recommend removal, suspension, fine, reprimand, order for payment of costs. An Order by the Court of Appeal supporting our finding of professional misconduct would then be supportive of a claim to the fund. Action through civil proceedings is also an effective way to obtain a resolution and support a claim to the fund.”

We reflect on: “In my opinion the existing provisions do allow the compensation fund to make payments with the provisos that it may require the applicant to pursue civil or criminal or disciplinary proceedings.” What if the attorney is impecunious? Is it being suggested that a complainant, already burdened by financial loss attributable to some dishonest lawyer be required, at the complainant’s expense, to bring civil proceedings, with the legal costs, delays etc. to further screw up their lives? As for bringing a criminal action, surely that is a matter for the DPP to decide and prosecute, not the victim of a theft and breach of trust by a ‘teefing’ lawyer and, often, member of the BA?  What makes their crime of theft different from those incarcerated at Dodds? read Speaker Michael Carrington.  That they are lawyers and therefore must be deemed to have known what they were doing was criminal? Surely that makes it worse and even more deserving of a custodial sentence? What the hell are the Police and the DPP doing? Creating an immunity to prosecution to which only the Queen is lawfully entitled? Should we start addressing lawyers as “Your Majesty”?

We accept that the DC cannot order payment out of the CF, but what prevents it, in cases of hardship, from recommending it in its findings to the Court of Appeal and what prevents the Court of Appeal from passing on the recommendation in its judgement.

BOTTOM LINE: Due to a lack of transparency on the part of the BA and the justice system, complainants have probably never realised that they could make a claim under the CF and their lawyers sure as hell are not telling them about it. This has allowed the BA to grow and maintain its nest egg of now well over $2 million without ever making any payment at all, except to advertise the estates of deceased attorneys.

We want to make it clear that, until she proves us wrong, we have the greatest respect for Mrs Woodford-Riley QC, the head of the DC and we are encouraged to look forward to far-reaching changes to the efficiency, speed, transparency and the way the DC operates under her (recently appointed) leadership. As always BU will be closely monitoring and sharing feedback to our readership.

Tags: , , ,

68 Comments on “Barbados Bar Association and the Useless $2,000,000.00 Compensation Fund”

  1. Violet C Beckles March 17, 2016 at 6:22 AM #

    Maybe they are the ones that paid back the money for the speaker of the House?
    was it 240,000 bds$?

    Like

  2. David March 17, 2016 at 6:38 AM #

    So far what BU has attempted is to show this issue is much bigger than shouting like idiots ‘look the teefing lawyers’. It is systemic.

    Like

  3. Sunshine Sunny Shine March 17, 2016 at 7:03 AM #

    The BAR association like the judiciary is all about keeping up appearances.

    Like

  4. pieter pieper March 17, 2016 at 7:37 AM #

    Keep at it BU ! Be relentless ! To date,you are the people’s only hope, especially since we are continuing to pay to send them to Cave Hill only to come out qualified to rob and steal !What difference is there between them and ‘the boys on the block’ except that they use fancy terminology and a pen whilst the latter may be less eloquent and use a gun ? It’s like the difference between excrement and faeces! Same jobby, ain’t it ?

    Liked by 1 person

  5. Bush Tea March 17, 2016 at 8:07 AM #

    It’s like the difference between excrement and faeces! Same jobby, ain’t it ?
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    No it ain’t!

    The ‘faeces’ is MUCH worse than the ‘jobby’ when you consider what we have paid in educational taxes to produce THAT shiite…
    …also, the jobby tends to remain on the blocks …while the damn faeces is in Parliament, in court, on every damn board and committee …. Everywhere …stinking up the damn place.

    Until lawyers clean up their act, ALL LAWYERS on national Boards should be placed under SPECIAL scrutiny to guarantee that they are squeaky clean….

    If not by government (and THAT will never happen), then by BU and other such bodies…

    Like

  6. Bush Tea March 17, 2016 at 8:09 AM #

    Who wunna think destroyed Barbados cricket?
    …not a bunch of damn lawyers…?

    Like

  7. pieceuhderockyeahright March 17, 2016 at 8:53 AM #

    With respect to ” manadatory ” I wish to advise that while they have studied the law a careful check at the UWI campus regarding their grades in Use of English and spelling competencies would make many a reader cringe.

    Even Mottley ‘s subject verb agreement is disturbingly bad at times when the subject is far from the verb in her dialogue rather monologue

    Like

  8. Violet C Beckles March 17, 2016 at 9:26 AM #

    Well ,on our end more than 63 lawyers for more than 20 years have been doing the dog, rat and the monkey, People now want to agree that they are crooks, liars and scumbags,now that the fire is at their doors , Early warnings seem not to work in Barbados,,, ”Not in Barbados these things cant happen” , ”We have the BEST this and the BEST that,” ,Well its a rerun for us . We hope you all enjoy your own show.
    More fraud to come by there hands ,, keep a TOP Eye open,

    Like

  9. de pedantic Dribbler March 17, 2016 at 9:49 AM #

    Ahhh, Bushie…”Who wunna think destroyed Barbados cricket?…not a bunch of damn lawyers…?

    WI cricket too…remember the Jamaican President who took us into our current business model wid incorporationand all that was a big time lawyer too…

    But in fairness to the lawyers tho, was it not the aggrieved cricket clubs – and folks like Jeff Broomes- who HIRED the lawyers, who then laid the suits which brek up de cricket??

    Ahhh…life !

    I gone.

    Like

  10. Well Well & Consequences March 17, 2016 at 10:24 AM #

    Ha-ha-ha…Woodstock-Riley must be laughing.

    Why did the supreme court, after disbarring Therold Field’s not refer the lady whose money he stole, to the committee so the fund could be accessed for her 600,000 thousand dollars, as a matter of fact, why did Woodstock-Riley and Tariq Khan not direct the lady to the fund before Fields was disbarred.

    We all know that fund has never been used to repay the thousands of clients/victims of thieving lawyers on the island or off the island….and that is the bottomline.

    All clints are seen as suckers.

    Like

  11. Well Well & Consequences March 17, 2016 at 10:25 AM #

    *clients…lol

    Like

  12. Amused March 17, 2016 at 11:57 AM #

    @Well well. The Compensation Fund would not refund the full amount that Fields or any other attorney has misappropriated/”teefed” from clients, merely a part of it. I have no real knowledge of how it operates and have to rely on the Act, since the BA has not seen fit to provide the general public with any information on the fund, far less guidelines about how to claim against it. Why are the rules and regulations about the fund not on the BA’s website and available to the general public? Is it because the BA wants any claimant to have to employ one of its own in order to make a claim? A kick-back to its members? We all know that the BA falls within the description of a trade union, but this is just ludicrous. As is the suggestion that a condition of relief from the fund is that civil and criminal proceedings may be required. Is the BA proposing to meet the legal costs of a civil action? Is the BA proposing to do the job of the Police and the DPP? Or is it being suggested that a person from whom a member of the BA has stolen and defrauded ought to undertake these costs? I respectfully suggest that Ms Woodstock-Riley provide BU with the documentary source from which she obtained her information – hearsay is not satisfactory at all. Document it. Let the general public read it for themselves. The BA’s own website is the appropriate place to post this information. So, BA, do it!!!!

    Like

  13. Amused March 17, 2016 at 12:04 PM #

    @Well well. One other point. You say “why did Woodstock-Riley and Tariq Khan not direct the lady to the fund before Fields was disbarred”. If you read the Act as provided by David in his report, you will see that there is no requirement that Fields still be un-disbared for the fund to be accessed. So you need to rephrase. “why did Woodstock-Riley and Tariq Khan not direct the lady to the fund.” Hopefully the lady is reading this and will now make an application. AND provide David with a copy of it and any and all correspondence from the BA.

    Like

  14. TheGazer March 17, 2016 at 12:13 PM #

    $2M seem a paltry sum in light of the number of claims and the size the sums that are being quoted. The refund would have to be “pennies on the dollar”. In this case, not knowing of this fund may be more beneficial than harmful😉. Comedic.

    Like

  15. TheGazer March 17, 2016 at 12:14 PM #

    *size of

    Like

  16. David March 17, 2016 at 12:21 PM #

    Modification to the fund can only be assessed if there is draw down.

    Like

  17. Well Well & Consequences March 17, 2016 at 1:48 PM #

    Amused…I knew I could depend on you to set things straight.

    Dont be surpried that honest attorneys will also be kept in the dark about tbe fund and it’s functions, obviously, honest attorneys would or are supposed to, tell clients who seek redress via the fund, so therefore, neither bar association woild want that information to be public knowledge, it would have been a well kept secret for the next 20 years or more hsd social media not been so determined to grt answers…..Amused

    Like

  18. Well Well & Consequences March 17, 2016 at 2:17 PM #

    ” If small firms cease to have client accounts, will banks still lend to them?

    2 Would some form of escrow account in fact reduce fraud, and, if so, by how much? Law firms don’t really hold client money now: banks do, and fraudsters are adept at finding their way round systems.

    3 Could an alternative system handle the volume of Friday afternoon completions?

    4 Would an alternative system really cost less? There would still be an internal compliance cost ensuring the payment instructions were properly given in the right amount, and there would be a third party to pay.”

    Using this as a guide..the chief justice needs to come up with a way to reduce the attorneys on the island handling large amounts of client’s money.

    It’s a crying shame that no one, from the chief justices office back in the 80s told the public about the fund, it’s suppowed to be public knowledge, not some deep dark secret to benefit lawyers.

    Law firms should not be allowed to use client’s accounts as collateral to obtain loans, it’s too fickle a practice, which could see clients easily losing thrir money.

    Like

  19. Old Baje March 17, 2016 at 4:53 PM #

    @ Jeff

    Re: WW&C 2:17 PM

    Surely it must be illegal for a lawyer to pledge the funds in his clients’ account in order to secure a loan. Isn’t it?

    Like

  20. David March 17, 2016 at 5:14 PM #

    The Bank wouldn’t know that it is clients monies unless declared by the lawyer right? If this is a yes then the discovery must be part of BA governance.

    Like

  21. Old Baje March 17, 2016 at 5:26 PM #

    @ David

    My understanding is that money held in escrow has to be in a separate bank account clearly described as Clents’ Account. Can such an account be pledged?

    Like

  22. Well Well & Consequences March 17, 2016 at 5:30 PM #

    David said it well…the bank does not know it’s client’s funds, neither do they care, collateral is collateral, the clients dont know their funds are being used in that manner and the police cannot lock up the lawyer because not only is it not a criminal act but there is no proof that the lawyer plans to steal the money, because none of it has been criminalized through legislation.

    The authorities are all slack and careless when it comes to protecting clients.

    What I know is, financial institutions readily accept client accounts as collateral along with other proof of funds….and they should not.

    Maybe Jeff can explain the level of “illegal” if any, associated with this practice…lol

    Like

  23. Well Well & Consequences March 17, 2016 at 5:34 PM #

    BTW….client’s accounts, very clearly states…CLIENTS ACCOUNT…on the bank statement, it’s not like the lending institution can miss that.

    Like

  24. Old Baje March 17, 2016 at 6:02 PM #

    @ WW&C

    I just wanted to know if the banks were so slack that they would accept an account clearly marked CLIENTS ACCOUNT as collateral.

    Like

  25. de pedantic Dribbler March 17, 2016 at 6:07 PM #

    David, of course that is accurate at 5:14 PM. When I read the original query I shook my head in amazement at the naivety of the remark.

    So with all the sterling work you have done on this matter it is time for an activist Consumer Lawyer Protection Group….

    A non-profit that provides the hand-holding and guidance (virtually!) to those being victimized by the attorneys…

    You David with your technical nous can get that going with a new website offering the details where, how and what to do in crisp, clear guidance. Along with the bad egg lawyers you also publicize here.

    And of course I can think of the absolute perfect candidate to help you lead and guide consumers on that site…Unless of course he is too busy drafting another book!

    Because I am sure a man of Jeff’s stature would give some quiet behind the scenes assistance with such a site, if you asked…in fact borrowing (can I, Mr BT ) Bushie’s previous suggestion, maybe even UWI students could be incorporated to add data and info to the site to assist the process.

    Someone earlier said that the burden falls on us the client to be informed and take action against the lawyer’s malfeasance; that is very accurate. Yet, we must remember that everyone is not a Bushie who as he describes does not muck around when professionals mishandle his affairs or a Pieces who can sic his grandson on them electronically.

    Many folks see attorneys as wondrous people there to help them and save them…rather than as just another service provider selling a well tailored set of clothes..if you don’t pay ..you don’t get the clothes. Simple as 1-2-3.

    No ‘regular Bajan’ sees a lawyer is such stark terms…(no disrespect intended lawyers, all)

    So ….

    Liked by 1 person

  26. de pedantic Dribbler March 17, 2016 at 6:18 PM #

    BTW, a clear concern throughout these debates on legal matters is the ineffective, almost colluding nature of the BA. The attorney Amused bluntly suggested as much in his remarks.

    Why then do we continue to look there for guidance or real action?

    Liked by 1 person

  27. Amused March 17, 2016 at 6:44 PM #

    A clients account is under the control of the law firm and the bank is not in the position to do other than as instructed by the law firm. However, there is a legal requirement that there should be a yearly taking of account and that is down to the law firm to arrange for the firm as a whole and all which that implies. If we take the case of, for instance, Cottle Catford, these accounts were not taken as required for a number of years, including those of its senior partner turned author.

    But this point, while certainly relevant and related, takes us away from the intent and content of BU’s report. Compensation funds exist and work in common law jurisdictions such as the UK, Canada, the USA, Australia and New Zealand. They are even operated in countries like Finland, Denmark and Germany.

    Unfortunately, our compensation fund was simply cobbled together so that we could give the appearance of being able to play on the global stage and impress those who give us the most money and from whom the highest foreign investment comes/came. Cobbled together, rather like that fatally flawed document, the Legal Professions Act, that is in direct conflict with the Constitution. What is truly dismaying is the number of attorneys who only now are actually starting to smell the cawfee. What is even worse is to have a nose-dead CJ who still doesn’t get it and, frankly, never will.

    Until the Compensation Fund is properly used and administered, the actual policing of members of the BA is still going to be a serious problem, because the CF has to go hand-in-hand with the DC and its work. I note there is a limitation period in most jurisdictions on applications to the CFs, with England and Wales being 6 months and Ontario 2 years. But in both those cases, disciplinary measures do not have to be referred to the Court of Appeal and are handled expeditiously. It is common sense, therefore, that Barbados in setting its limitation period has to make it within a specified time AFTER the Court of Appeal has ruled. Either that, or we need to do away with the Act and start from scratch with a proper law society, instead of this global joke of a BA.

    Liked by 1 person

  28. David March 17, 2016 at 6:58 PM #

    Here are two more sites. Be sure to check the second link and report for 10 points why it is the more important.

    https://www.lsuc.on.ca/with.aspx?id=1143

    https://www.google.co.uk/#q=australia+bar+association+compensation+fund

    Like

  29. Well Well & Consequences March 17, 2016 at 7:22 PM #

    Yeah Amused….I am starting to see your point with the current CJ….he is not even new anymore…7 to 8 years to reach the court of appeals to have something done about an attorney who was recommended by the bar association and disciplinary committee to be disbarred 3 or 4 years before…is crap.

    Even worse, the aggrieved client still has to wait many more years to get paid, if ever…something is very wrong with all of that.

    Like

  30. Well Well & Consequences March 17, 2016 at 7:42 PM #

    “Claimants need not be Canadian citizens. Eligible claimants include trusts and estates. The fund does not pay grants to banks or financial institutions in the business of lending money.”

    Bottomline as it relates to the 2 entities in Barbados.

    The bar association has responsibility…without power.

    The disciplinary committe e has poeer without responsibility

    The public is not protected.

    The banks and lending institutions on the island take a huge risk taking clients accounts as collateral forvloans from law firms, although it’s usually combined with other collateral.

    The BA and DC are pretending to be world class institutions while condoning, enabling and implementing dark ages practices..they ain’t ready yet.

    Like

  31. Well Well & Consequences March 17, 2016 at 7:44 PM #

    *the disciplinary committee has power….without responsibilty.

    Like

  32. Gabriel March 17, 2016 at 10:00 PM #

    No wonder we are having problems maintaining links with International Banks and their fear of money laundering in these buccaneer islands.Anything goes.Stupid politicians,thieving lawyers and no laws to protect citizens’rights.
    Amused,in my copy of his book,Nicholls was at pains to point out his difficulty in getting his senior partner Watson to have the books audited.I will have to read it more slowly the second time around.Maybe I missed something.

    Like

  33. Old Baje March 17, 2016 at 10:20 PM #

    And where is Mia in all of this? She couldn’t care less. Just waiting to stick her snout in the trough.

    Like

  34. David March 17, 2016 at 10:30 PM #

    @Gabriel

    PcW was prepared to audit but with a qualification. Such an action would have precipitated the collapse of CC much earlier in the game.

    Like

  35. millertheanunnaki March 18, 2016 at 1:14 AM #

    @ Gabriel March 17, 2016 at 10:00 PM #
    “No wonder we are having problems maintaining links with International Banks and their fear of money laundering in these buccaneer islands.Anything goes.Stupid politicians,thieving lawyers and no laws to protect citizens’ rights.”

    An excellent comment there, Gabriel.

    When one of the major international banks refuses to act as “Correspondent” to any locally-operating retail banking institution you are going hear all sorts of comments coming the politicians similar to those leveled at the credit rating agencies in downgrading Barbados to junk.

    From big countries taking advantage of small island states to the exploitation of ‘weak’ economies by international money predators and capitalist loan sharks. It is going to be the same attitude as that taken by the head-honcho in regard to the collapse of CLICO and the MoF in regard to the RBC female official’s comment on the pathologically weak state of the Bajan economy.

    What do politicians think would happen when they seek to sell economic citizenships to international criminals, backed the likes of the disgraced FIFA ex-officials and offer protection from justice to the likes of the CLICO fraudsters?

    Can you imagine what it looks like in the eyes of the international financial regulators when a C B guv can confess to not knowing the facts regarding the circumstances surrounding the disappearance of $300 million representing a very significant portion of foreign reserves in a small and vulnerable small-island economy despite the ‘fact’ the MoF is given a daily status report?
    Maybe he has a valid excuse of the books being “cooked” by hackers as in the case of his Bangladeshi opposite number.
    And to top it all off, openly allowing a tax evader and established fraud to park his laundry machine in the vault at the same church village green

    They have been warned (again, ad nauseam) by OSA about the seriousness of the threat.
    Let them downplay it like they did to those regarding the management of the uniquely vulnerable Bajan economy. Wild boys then, wild boys still.

    Like

  36. Sargeant March 18, 2016 at 6:43 AM #

    @Miller etc.
    When one of the major international banks refuses to act as “Correspondent” to any locally-operating retail banking institution you are going hear all sorts of comments coming the politicians similar to those leveled at the credit rating agencies in downgrading Barbados to junk.

    ++++++++++++++++
    Are they any such creatures as “locally-operating banking institution”?

    Like

  37. millertheanunnaki March 18, 2016 at 7:06 AM #

    @ Sargeant March 18, 2016 at 6:43 AM

    Yes there are! It was Not said there are locally-owned banks.
    If you think Republic Bank cannot be affected by such a move you better think again.

    Do you think that either Scotia or CIBC would not use the opportunity to divest themselves of retail operations with an ever increasing portfolio of non-performing loans in stagnant one-cylinder high risk economies like Barbados?
    Why risk the contamination of over 90% of your profits to keep 4% of business making up nearly 50% of your non-performing loans portfolio?

    Banks are in the business of lending money to make profits. Not to fritter away shareholders’ investment and run the risk of attracting heavy fines from regulatory bodies in more ‘enlightened’ and effective jurisdictions like Canada.

    Like

  38. Amused March 18, 2016 at 7:34 AM #

    Let us face it. The BA is confronting a major PR disaster, rather like the CJ is. It needs to go to the executive and discuss the means whereby matters can be corrected and the executive needs to correct constitutional breaches in a subservient piece of legislation. This may well mean:

    • amending the Legal Practitioners Act;
    • doing away with the BA completely and forming a law society that has the power and authority to determine who is admitted to the Bar;
    • the authority to discipline without needing to have the Court of Appeal do it on recommendation;
    • setting up a DC comprised of senior, retired silks and judges and paying them for their time; and
    • organizing a proper and functional compensation fund.

    For working templates, they can look to the Law Societies of England and Wales, Scotland and Upper Canada.

    Until and unless that is done, the practice and practitioners of law in Barbados will be seen as even lower than pimps and receive commensurate respect from the public – none, in other words. Unfortunately for the public, this, along with our disastrous justice system, will also deter foreign investment. It will continue to be the main reason why the country is impoverished and sliding (has slid) into bankruptcy.

    But, of course, the likelihood is that the executive, neither D nor B, for all their high words, will have the guts to take the matter on full force and will, instead, bury their heads in the sands of the closest beach and whisper their mantra, “This is Barbados and we are the best in the world.” And they will dish out financially based citizenships and, like St Lucia, diplomatic immunity to anyone who can pay, in other words, allow the criminals of the world to take over the country. By the way, I see that St Lucian diplomatic immunity was denied by the UK courts to this Arab gentleman who was trying to get out of massive alimony payments.

    Like

  39. Bush Tea March 18, 2016 at 7:37 AM #

    When Bushie says one thing, perhaps we need to also say the other…
    It COULD well be the situation that Owen realised that Bajans are so unrepentantly dishonest and incompetent … that our best bet is to hand anything of value over to foreigners…. where at least there is the chance of its survival…

    If the Central Bank could continue to be a loss-maker …while going through issues like disappearing FOREX, …money stolen from its vault, ..holding stolen CLICO money for the PM’s friend …and generally losing credibility ..even among its own staff …..
    …what the hell would have happened under a LOCAL BNB….?

    And all this under a near 100-year-old, clearly demented, fossil of a Governor….

    We must be under one SERIOUS curse….
    Sackcloth and Ashes for our asses…
    …or we will burn.

    Like

  40. Bush Tea March 18, 2016 at 7:42 AM #

    @ Amused
    Boss, you know full well that the BA cannot initiate any such move to regularise the legal framework …and for ONE SIMPLE REASON….
    Too many lawyers …own TOO MUCH money ..to the collective “Client – Fund- Ponzi” to open up that pandora’s box.

    It would be CLICO all over again…..

    Like

  41. Old Baje March 18, 2016 at 7:58 AM #

    It is too tempting to dip into the Clients’ Account with little chance of any repercussions. Lawyers have needs too. Why should they deny themselves an Alaskan cruise for the family or a Range Rover? And of course they will put back the money. Just as soon as that big case is completed. Common, have a heart.

    Like

  42. David March 18, 2016 at 8:13 AM #

    @Old Bajan

    To your question yesterday, unless the lawyer, law firm discloses that it is clients money in the bank account how will anyone know unless an oversight body has access to the ‘books’.

    Like

  43. Sargeant March 18, 2016 at 8:19 AM #

    @Miller etc.
    First I think that you are being a bit over dramatic, Correspondent Banking as I understand it is when a Bank in one country facilitates banking arrangements for a bank in another country that may not have access to the domestic or retail market in the first country. If I am in Barbados and want to purchase a draft in US or Canadian dollars then my Bank in Barbados would issue a draft drawn on a US or Canadian equivalent.

    For obvious reasons the Canadian Banks in Barbados would issue instruments drawn on their branches in Canada or the US, in the case of Republic Bank they would have to maintain an account at a Bank of their choice to issue foreign currency instruments and so long as Republic maintains deposits in that account the arrangement will continue. Banks will not cancel this arrangement easily unless there is a breakdown in relationship because it not only encompasses over the counter instruments but it may also include Letters of Credit, Letters of Sight etc.

    As for Scotia and CIBC divesting themselves of local operations, I’m sure they could if the price is right, but sometimes relationships overrides profit and many wealthy Canadians still maintain homes in Bim. The late Lord Thomson had a home in Bim don’t you think that whatever Bank he did business with was happy that he could walk into a local Branch and get his needs met?

    Like

  44. David March 18, 2016 at 8:25 AM #

    @Sargeant

    The issue has a lot to do with

    Like

  45. David March 18, 2016 at 8:27 AM #

    @Sargeant

    The issue has a lot to do with de risking strategies by big banks driven by Basel 3.

    Like

  46. Gabriel March 18, 2016 at 8:47 AM #

    Incompetence and recklessness reigneth in things legal,political and financial in the once fair and fearless isle of Barbados.
    Carlos Holder former economic and financial guru,a gentleman and a scholar was retired by the government of the day at age 59,in his prime,while the government of the day just renewed the tenure of a dinosaur and incompetent,nay ignorant and reckless 70 year old doddering,dribbling old fool to advise a bigger lot of fools on matters fiscal and monetary although informed by the IMF to cease and desist.Mark my word.Moves are afoot to relocate and consolidate controlling banks in the Eastern Caribbean, as a sine qua non.

    Like

  47. millertheanunnaki March 18, 2016 at 8:59 AM #

    @ Sargeant March 18, 2016 at 8:19 AM

    Overdramatic?? it is not the miller issuing the warning.. Check with OSA the wolf before trying to shoot the messenger called the miller. He would know what he is warning about.

    “As for Scotia and CIBC divesting themselves of local operations, I’m sure they could if the price is right, but sometimes relationships overrides profit and many wealthy Canadians still maintain homes in Bim. The late Lord Thomson had a home in Bim don’t you think that whatever Bank he did business with was happy that he could walk into a local Branch and get his needs met?”

    Sarg,. we are not talking about the likes of Lord Thomson. We are talking about international criminals who can easily control the local officials without fear of regulatory surveillance.

    I guess you are unaware of the activities of Allen Stanford and the CLICO Ponzi operators.
    Money laundering is not just a fear but a real activity taking place with the tacit support of corrupt politicians and officials. Just look what is happening at the local CB and Greenverbs’s deposit of millions of ill-gotten gains.

    Most rich people now do their banking internationally and online with their living expenses met through payment by plastic card. The need for so many retail banking outlets is fast becoming a thing of the past.

    BTW, if Barclays can ‘pull’ out of the region and is considering doing the same in Africa why not any Canadian-owned bank out of measly Barbados or those with similar potential risk in the region?

    Like

  48. Well Well & Consequences March 18, 2016 at 9:00 AM #

    “Juvenile justice is a major concern.
    Inconsistencies in the definition of a child,
    anachronistic laws and procedures, and a
    lack of appropriate facilities and training for
    the police, judiciary and legal profession all
    appear to be contributory factors.”

    When this kind of information can find itself in a UNICEF Reprt re Barbados and other Caribbean islands you know you have hit rock bottom…..and for the Paula”s and ACs who would want to justofy by saying it happens everywhere….please do not bother to make yourselves look any dumber…the issues are very real and are no longer hidden.

    Like

  49. Well Well & Consequences March 18, 2016 at 9:10 AM #

    “Owen Arthurz Barbados Today: ““I am not going to point fingers at anybody, but the Caribbean will not escape. It is the image that the Caribbean is soft on perpetrators of financial crimes. We have some interesting and well-written legislation in respect of combating money laundering and combating financial crime,” Arthur said.

    However, he argued that while existing legislation addressed issues such as the proceeds from money laundering, the region was considered a place where people were allowed to get away with major financial crimes.

    Arthur explained that international regulators had “the sense that the Caribbean is always ready to lock up a man for corned beef and sardines” but go easy “when fellows carry way $5 million”.

    “What I am saying is that the Caribbean does not have a wonderful record in dealing with issues in relation to bringing people swiftly to justice for financial fraud and things that may equate to money laundering.

    “Anything that stops the Caribbean from becoming a capital inflow driven economy and an export driven economy means that we do not have a good future. And this correspondent banking issue therefore strikes at the very development strategy, without which, we are not going to make it,” warned the former Minister of Finance.”

    Here is Owen with all his faults….telling it as it really is and not how the politicians are still pretending it should be……they better start locking up their corrupt business partners, bribers and yardfowls who are nothing but criminals.

    And Owen would know who the whute collar crikinals are in Barbados, he rubbed shoulders with them…so it’s time for politicians to choose….let’s see if they love corruption more.

    Like

  50. Well Well & Consequences March 18, 2016 at 9:15 AM #

    *And Owen would know who the white collar criminals are in Barbados, he rubbed shoulders with them and knows them all on a first name basis….now if he would do his civic duty to protect the island and people by giving the names of those breaking international financial laws…….I would start really looking at him in a very different light.

    Like

  51. Violet C Beckles March 18, 2016 at 9:40 AM #

    Laundering money and building supplies in Barbados along to bypass American laws on money movement , Invest in BIM and collect your money on the other end ,, Using FIRST CARIBBEAN BANK, Coming out of Florida in to Barbados at better prices than HOME DEPOT,Then ripping off the Bajan’s in the middle , Hit over the head with VAT and adding cost and taxes to very small home building,Then the taxes oh me oh my.

    Like

  52. Alvin Cummins March 18, 2016 at 4:38 PM #

    @Well Well,
    Is anybody looking at what Banks do with “Client accounts” the money from deposits? Miller says:”…Banks are in the business of lending money to make profits. Not to fritter away shareholders’ investment and run the risk of attracting heavy fines from regulatory bodies in more ‘enlightened’ and effective jurisdictions like Canada.” That is what they do with deposits. Remember the case of Barrings in Singapore a couple of years ago when the Bank’s Investor; a young trader, made unwise investments and ended up losing the bank Billions of dollars? Whose funds were they ?”Client (depositors) funds. fortunately, or unfortunately, Barrings had the funds (other depositors’ funds) to make up the loss.In the case of local attorneys, and CLICO, they were not able to make up the losses in time.Ergo major scandal and exposure. Remember that letter I wrote about, the one written by Mc Hale. Another exposure of how Banks too are as guilty as the attorneys, except that the Banks;not forgetting Insurance companies also, are able to take preemptive action; like labeling Mc Hale as a madman and everybody thus dismissing his claims, however legitimate.. They all use Clients’ funds from their accounts for their own purposes.

    Like

  53. Well Well & Consequences March 18, 2016 at 5:13 PM #

    Why cant the Prime Minister and Attorney Generals office ever start by doing things the right way, why, why, why.

    “Fingerprinting delayed
    Added by Barbados Today on March 18, 2016.
    Saved under Local News

    inShare
    3

    The Immigration Department has deferred plans to introduce fingerprinting at Barbados’ ports of entry from April 1. Accordingly, until further notice, no passengers, whether Barbadian or non-national, will be required to be fingerprinted.

    This was announced in a statement issued by the Government Information Service a short while ago in which it quoted the Acting Chief Immigration Officer, Wayne Marshall, as saying the decision to defer the start of the biometrics screening programme was taken to allow the department more time to re-examine some of the issues, especially the legal issues, raised in the public arena, both orally and in writing, and to increase public awareness about the initiative.

    gaia airport
    Marshall made it clear that all legal procedures previously undertaken in adopting the Immigration (Biometric) Regulations, 2015, will be revisited, and any irregularities found corrected. This review is taking place in collaboration with the Solicitor General’s Chambers and the Office of the Chief Parliamentary Counsel.

    Marshall noted that the benefits of fingerprinting were national in scope and included enhancing the level of national security; identifying individuals travelling with fraudulent identification documents; strengthening border control; reducing crime; improving investigation of crime; and preserving the high international ranking of the Barbados passport.

    He also revealed that, to date, fingerprint readers have been installed at 20 desks in the Arrivals Hall at the airport. Special arrangements are also being put in place to ensure easy accessibility to the readers by wheelchair-bound passengers.

    Additionally, kiosks are being installed to permit Barbadians and other select categories of persons to benefit from easier, smoother and faster passage through Immigration at the Grantley Adams International Airport. (BGIS)”

    Liked by 1 person

  54. Well Well & Consequences March 18, 2016 at 5:18 PM #

    Alvin…that is why they all ultimately fail….but law firms are not investment institutions and I will not give a lawyer my money to invest.

    Besides, banks in Barbados are foreign owned and regulated by FDIC.

    Alvin…why were you trying to make us believe the US was involved in Fruendel and Adriel’s big brain scheme to fingerprint Bajans leaving and entering the island you know that was not true right…read the abive and weep.

    Like

  55. Well Well & Consequences March 18, 2016 at 5:21 PM #

    Correction….Canadian banks would be regulated by FDIC.

    Trini banks would have to also follow guidelines, but I am not familiar with who regulates and monitor Caribbean banks.

    Like

  56. Due Diligence March 18, 2016 at 5:29 PM #

    AC – the one from Canada

    Get your Barings story straight.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/11427501/Barings-the-collapse-that-erased-232-years-of-history.html

    Thankfully that could never happen in Barbados, because CBB and Financial Services Commission are keeping a watchful eye on the banks.

    Leeson escaped the eye of the Singaporean bank supervisors – but never in Barbados.

    Like

  57. Due Diligence March 18, 2016 at 5:49 PM #

    millertheanunnaki March 18, 2016 at 8:59 AM #

    “BTW, if Barclays can ‘pull’ out of the region and is considering doing the same in Africa why not any Canadian-owned bank out of measly Barbados or those with similar potential risk in the region?”

    Not so sure.

    CIBC bought Barclays Caribbean operations and subsequently wrote off over $100 million of Goodwill

    If BNS, RBC and CIBC can’t find buyer, as Barclays found in CIBC, how are they going to “pull out”?

    So they will have to extra diligent in managing their risks.

    Like

  58. David March 18, 2016 at 7:25 PM #

    If we hear what the PM and AG are saying correctly, they both agree the judiciary is not functioning efficiently to deliver justice in Barbados. Now what will they be doing about it!

    Like

  59. pieceuhderockyeahright March 18, 2016 at 8:09 PM #

    @ Well Well and Consequences

    “…Accordingly, until further notice, no passengers, whether Barbadian or non-national, will be required to be fingerprinted…”

    The Immigration Department, The Office of the Attorney General and the Solicitor General inter alia, have absolutely embar-assed the GoB in the eyes of the United States.

    Rather, we have again confirmed to the United States that we are nothing more than monkeys that can talk.

    Any illiterate a-hole at the BGIS could ask a university student to put up a blogspace where any and all ideas that the illiterates want to try out pun de Bajans cud be dry run in cyberspace.

    Look how de as8(%#$es had to come to BU and find out that they are doing sh&%$e and backtrack when a simple blogpage could have achieved this.

    In fact BECUASE NEITHER ADMINISTRATION IS TRUSTED TO SAFEGUARD OUR IPs why not approach David King and pay him a fee to host wunna ingrunt interactive Blog Site where the common man and woman can come and remark on wunna stupid ideas?

    Use the bona fides of BU and start a differenct social revolution where the best Bajan minds can come and express themselves albeit anonymously, and give wunna idea CAUSE IT IS OBVIOUS THAT WUNNA IS BEREFT OF ANY INTELLIGENCE

    Now that wunna is in election mode again show wunna selves to be converted from Saul to Paul and inteested in the ideas of the common man A LA ERROL BARROW dat wunna got spinning in he grave.

    The sole achievement of this DLP government has been the burial of David the Fatted Claf Thompson.

    One cannot fault the funeral with all of its act of pomp and majesty for the King but it fast becomes evident that the DLP seems only skilled in orchestrating funerals and is now embarked to bury the economy of the island in similar pomp and acts of ostentation

    Like

  60. Hants March 18, 2016 at 8:27 PM #

    @ pieceuhderockyeahright,

    Danger in the Diaspora corner.

    Like

  61. Well Well & Consequences March 19, 2016 at 9:20 PM #

    http://ow.ly/ZI6h9

    Law schools may very well be going the wsy of the doh-doh bird in the next 5-10 years….oh well.

    Like

  62. Tron March 19, 2016 at 9:37 PM #

    The fees in Bim for being a lawyer are amongst the highest in the world. As usual you get in Bim very low quality for very, very high prices.

    Wake up, Bim! The economy is shrinking since the figure from London seized power in 2008. We need to reduce costs.

    Make Barbados great again!

    Like

  63. Hal Austin March 20, 2016 at 2:38 PM #

    The compensation fund I fine, but every practising lawyer should have indeminity insurance, if not s/he should be barred from practising.

    Like

  64. Monica (@Em47Dr) March 23, 2016 at 4:46 AM #

    When these dishonest and unethical lawyers are caught they also need to be made to reimburse the government for their free tuition…That would be a start! The decision must be made by a reputable citizens committee not by their peers as with the Disciplinary Committee… I am ready to volunteer.

    Like

  65. Monica (@Em47Dr) March 23, 2016 at 4:55 AM #

    Just a reminder that there is a code for practicing as an attorney…Who is responsible for holding them accountable? Isn’t it about time that someone was?

    Code Of Ethics  
    

    BRIEF OVERVIEW OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION CODE OF ETHICS The conduct of the legal profession is governed by the LEGAL PROFESSION CODE OF ETHICS, 1988AUTHORITY

    This Code of Ethics was made on the 12th December, 1988 by the Disciplinary Committee under section 18 of the Legal Profession Act.PURPOSETo ensure that every attorney-at-law shall uphold at all time the standards set out in the Code.
    A breach of the rules set out in the Code may constitute professional misconduct. RULES The Code provides a number of rules for legal professionals which are listed as follows: RULES: In Relation to the Profession and Himself- Part 11 of the Code- An attorney-at-law must maintain his integrity and the honour and dignity of the legal profession and of his own standing. RULES: In Relation to the State and the Public- Part 111 of the Code- An attorney-at-law owes a duty to the state to protect its laws and its Constitution. RULES: In Relation to Clients- Part 1V of the Code- An attorney-at-law shall act in the best interest of his client, to obtain every remedy while exercising his responsibilities within the bounds of the law. RULES: In Relation to the Courts and the Administration of Justice-Part V of the Code- An attorney-at-law shall maintain a respectful attitude towards the court and shall encourage others in this respect. RULES: In Relation to his Fellow Attorneys-at-Law-Part V1 of the Code- An attorney-at-law shall engage in courteous, honest and fair conduct to other fellow attorneys-at-law. RULES: General –Part V11 of the Code- where in any matter explicit ethical guidance does not exists, an attorney-at- law must act in a manner that promotes public confidence in the legal system. RULES: Mandatory Provisions and Specific Prohibitions- Part V111 of the Code- An attorney-at-law shall not practice unless he has been issued a practicing certificate in accordance with the Act. Click here to access the full text of the Legal Profession Code of Ethics in PDF format. Users may need to download adobe acrobat reader to view the file from http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html

    Like

  66. Well Well & Consequences March 23, 2016 at 10:46 AM #

    Thanks Monica…some attorneys need to pin these codes up in their offices…as a reminder.

    Like

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Donville Inniss is Correct, Barbados Bar Association Part of the Problem | Barbados Underground - July 31, 2016

    […] Barbados Bar Association and the Useless $2,000,000.00 Compensation Fund […]

    Like

Join in the discussion, you never know how expressing your view may make a difference.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: