Oliver W. Llewellyn: Complaint No. 59 of 2013 – Formal Order

Posted on by July 5, 2024

RESULT: Fined | Disciplinary Committee decision delivered June 30, 2022.

View PDF

FORMAL ORDER OF THE DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE OF
THE GENERAL LEGAL COUNCIL

COMPLAINT NO: 59/2013

IN THE MATTER OF MICHAEL MARK ANTHONY IRVING and OLIVER LLEWELLYN an Attorney-at-­Law

AND

IN THE MATTER OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION ACT, 1971

PANEL:
Mr. Walter Scott Q.C. – Chairman
Mr. Michael Thomas
Mr. Peter Champagnie, Q.C.

DECISION DELIVERED ON THE 30TH JUNE 2022.

UPON THE APPLICATION made under section 12 (1) (a) of the Legal Profession Act and dated the 28th March, 2013 along with supporting Affidavit sworn to on the 12th April 2013 and coming on for hearing before the Disciplinary Committee on the 29th November 2014, 21st March 2015, 22nd July 2015, 10th October 2015, 12th March 2016, 9th July 2016, 21st January 2017, 29th July 2017, 11th February 2019, 15th April 2019, 5th December 2020 and 14th January 2021.

AND UPON the Complainant Michael Mark Anthony Irving, (herein-after called “the Complainant”) appearing and having given evidence on oath,

AND UPON the Attorney-at-law Oliver Llewellyn, (herein-after called “the Attorney”) appearing with Counsel Ian Wilkinson, Q.C. and Lenroy Stewart and having given evidence on oath,

AND UPON the Attorney’s witness appearing and having given evidence on oath,

AND UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of the sworn evidence of the Complainant, the Attorney and the witness coupled with documentary evidence,

AND UPON the Committee finding the Attorney guilty of professional misconduct pursuant to section 12(1) (a) of the Legal Profession Act on 5th December 2020,

AND UPON the Attorney making submissions to the Panel in mitigation,

THE COMMITTEE FINDS THAT:

  1. The attorney agreed to represent the Complainant in a divorce matter.
  2. The attorney filed two petitions for divorce on behalf of the Complainant. The first petition was discontinued after the ex-wife filed an Answer and Cross Petition challenging the date of separation.
  3. The second petition was discontinued following the case management conference on the 10th July 2010.
  4. It is agreed by all parties that the relationship between the Complainant and the attorney soured after the case management conference.
  5. The fees paid by the Complainant were returned to him.
  6. At the time of engagement, the attorney was informed that there was a child of the marriage and property to be determined. Miss Bent inquired about the details of the child in email correspondence dated 17th December 2008.
  7. None of the petitions filed by the attorney dealt with the issue of the child or the property.
  8. The Complainant’s ex-wife filed her Answer and Cross Petition on the 13th July 2011 and divorce was granted on that petition. The Complainant was represented by another attorney in these proceedings.
  9. The Attorney did not formally inform the Complainant that he was going to discontinue his Petition, and the Attorney had no written instructions to do so.
  10. The Attorney failed to file for the Decree Nisi in a timely manner because of the non-payment of his fees.

The finding of guilt that the Attorney has acted with inexcusable and deplorable negligence is the underpinning of the Panels finding that the Attorney has acted improperly and dishonorable in his dealings with the Complainant. The Panel therefore find that there has been a breach of Canon 1 (b) by the Attorney.

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

  1. The Attorney, Oliver Llewellyn, is fined the sum of One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000.00), to be paid to the General Legal Council.
  2. The Attorney, Oliver Llewellyn, is to pay costs in the sum of Two Hundred Thousand ($200,000.00) of which One Hundred Thousand ($100,000.00) is to be paid to the General Legal Council.
  3. All sums (fines & costs) to be paid on or before 29th July 2022.

Walter Scott Q.C.
CHAIRMAN OF PANEL

Dated 30th June 2022

Back to top

Your comments...