Arlean D. Moreta Beckford: Complaint No. 77 of 2013 – Sanction Hearing

Posted on by July 5, 2024

RESULT: Struck off | Disciplinary Committee decision delivered February 15, 2020. || Guilty of Professional Misconduct | Disciplinary Committee decision delivered November 27, 2019. || Formal Order

View PDF of Decision
View PDF of Formal Order

DECISION ON SANCTION
DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE OF THE GENERAL LEGAL COUNCIL

COMPLAINT NO: 77/2013

BETWEEN ADOLPH FOWLER COMPLAINANT
AND ARLEAN BECKFORD RESPONDENT

PANEL:
Walter H. Scott Q.C.
Charles E. Piper Q.C.
Michael Thomas

HEARING DATES:
18 DECEMBER 2019 & 23 JANUARY 2020

BACKGROUND

  1. By its Decision dated 29th day of November 2019, the Disciplinary Committee made the following Order
    “Having heard the evidence of the Complainant and the Attorney having not appeared to challenge same we find that the following facts have been proven.

    1. The Attorney borrowed $4,000,000.00 from the Complainant. This sum was made by two payments one for $2,600,000.00 which was evidenced by the Promissory Note and the sum of $1,400,000.00. Of this sum, the Attorney repaid $1,400,000.00 to the Complainant about six months after he lent her the money.
    2. The Promissory Note signed by the Attorney on 8 February 2011 speaks to a sum of $2,600,000.00 to be repaid on or before 18th February 2011. We find that of the sum of $4,000,000.00 borrowed from the Complainant, $2,600,000.00 remains unpaid.
    3. We also find that the Attorney failed to advise the Complainant to seek independent legal advice either in respect of him lending her the money or the effect of the Promissory Note

——————–

SANCTION HEARING

  1. The Sanction Hearing was fixed for the 18th day of December, 2019. The Complainant was present. The Respondent was absent.
  2. The Panel satisfied itself that the Respondent was properly served. The Panel noted the Affidavit of Service of Juliana Findlay dated 16 December 2019, to which was exhibited (i) Notice of Hearing dated 02 December 2019 (ii) Registered Slip No.0996728-76.
  3. The Panel noted that there was neither an Attorney-at-Law representing the Respondent nor any excuses for her absence. The Panel was satisfied that the Notice of Hearing was properly served.
  4. In the circumstances, the Panel concluded the Sanction Hearing without the benefit of either evidence from the Respondent nor Submissions in mitigation.

DISCUSSIONS AND ANALYSIS

  1. Once again the Respondent has demonstrated her callous disdain for the Profession and the General Legal Council.
  2. The Panel finds that there are no mitigating factors in this matter.
  3. The Panel is reminded of the judgement in Bolton v Law Society (1994) 2 All ER 486.

    “It is required of Lawyers practicing in this country that they should discharge their professional duties with integrity, probity and complete trustworthiness. That requirement applies as much to barristers as it does to solicitors. If I make no further reference to barristers it is because this appeal concerns a solicitor, and where a client’s moneys have been misappropriated the complaint is inevitably made against a solicitor, since solicitors receive and handle clients’ moneys and barristers do not. Any Solicitor who is shown to have discharged his professional duties with anything less than complete integrity, probity and trustworthiness must expect severe sanctions to be imposed upon him by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal. Lapses from the required high standard may, of course, take different forms and be of varying degrees. The most serious involves proven dishonesty, whether or not leading to criminal proceedings and criminal penalties. In such cases the tribunal has almost invariably, no matter how strong the mitigation advanced for the solicitor, ordered that he be of the reasons why the tribunal makes orders which might otherwise seem harsh. There is, in some of these orders, a punitive element; a penalty may be visited on a solicitor who has fallen below the standards required of his profession in order…

 

———————-

 

  1. The Respondent Arlean Beckford is struck from the Roll of Attorneys-at-Law entitled to practice in the several Courts of the Island.

DATED THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020.

Walter H. Scott Q.C.
Charles E. Piper Q.C.
Michael Thomas

Back to top

View PDF of Formal Order

FORMAL ORDER OF THE DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE
OF THE GENERAL LEGAL COUNCIL

COMPLAINT NO: 77/2013

IN THE MATTER OF ADOLPH FOWLER and ARLEAN D MORETA BECKFORD an Attorney-at-­Law

AND

IN THE MATTER OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION ACT, 1971

PANEL:
Mr. Walter Scott Q.C.
Mr. Charles Piper Q.C.
Mr. Michael Thomas

DECISION DELIVERED 15TH FEBRUARY 2020

UPON THE APPLICATION made under section 12 (1) (a) of the Legal Profession Act and dated the 4th April, 2013 and sworn to on the 4th April, 2013 and coming on for hearing before the Disciplinary Committee on the 7th December 2013, 17th May, 2014, 8th November 2014 and 14th January, 2015

AND UPON the Respondent Attorney-at-law Arlene D. Beckford not appearing

AND UPON the Complainant Adolph Fowler appearing and having given evidence on oath

AND UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of the sworn evidence of the Complainant

AND UPON the Committee having found the Attorney-at-law Arlean D. Beckford guilty of professional misconduct on the 27th November 2019

AND UPON the Attorney having been given the opportunity to make submissions in mitigation of sanction on the 18th December 2019 to no avail

THE COMMITTEE FINDS THAT:

The Attorney Arlean Beckford is guilty of professional misconduct in that, the Attorney borrowed $4,000,000.00 from the Complainant.

The sum was made by two payments of $2,600,000.00 which was evidenced by a Promissory Note and the sum of $1,400,000.00. Of this sum, the Attorney repaid $1,400,000.00 to the complainant six months after he lent her the money. The Promissory Note signed by the Attorney on the 8th February 2011 speaks to a sum of $2,600,000.00 to be repaid on or before the 18th February 2011.

The Panel finds that of the sum of $4,000,000.00 borrowed from the Complainant, $2,600,000.00 remains unpaid. The Panel finds also that the Attorney failed to advise the Complainant to seek independent legal advice either in respect of him lending her the money or the effect of the Promissory note.

In the circumstances the Panel finds that the Attorney acted in contravention of Canon I (b) of the Legal Profession (Canons of Professional Ethics) Rules and in arriving at their decision they referred to and considered Canon VIII (b) which states that:

“Where in any particular matter explicit ethical guidance does not exist, an Attorney shall determine his conduct by acting in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and efficiency of the legal system and the legal profession.”

The Attorney’s act of borrowing money from a client was an abuse of the Attorney client relationship. he panel relied on the decision of the Committee in Luneth Oram and Ransford Oram vs Lorraine Earle – 87/2003

PURSUANT TO THE FOREGOING FINDINGS THE COMMITTEE UNANIMOUSLY HEREBY ORDERS THAT: –

Pursuant to section 12 (4) (a) of the Legal Profession Act as amended:

  1. The Attorney Arlean Beckford is fined the sum of $2,600,000 which fine is to be paid to the Complainant within 30 days of the date hereof.
  2. The Attorney is ordered to pay costs in the sum of $400,000.00 of which $200,000.00 is to be paid to the Complainant and $200,000.00 is to be paid to the General Legal Council.
  3. The Respondent Arlean Beckford is struck from the Roll of Attorneys-at-law entitled to practice in the several courts of the Island of Jamaica.

Mr. Walter Scott Q.C.
CHAIRMAN OF PANEL

DATED THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020.

Back to top

Your comments...