Carleen McFarlane (Appellant) v General Legal Council (Respondent) (Jamaica)

Hearing listed

Case summary
Appeal

Case summary

Case ID

JCPC/2024/0075

Jurisdiction

Jamaica

Parties

Appellant(s)

Carleen McFarlane

Respondent(s)

General Legal Council

Issue

Did an attorney’s conduct of refunding the deposit in full solely to a co-client as co-purchaser following the cancellation of a sale agreement amount to a breach of Canon IV(s) of the Legal Profession (Canons of Professional Ethics) Rules 1978? If so, what is the appropriate sanction and what rules of due process apply to disciplinary proceedings?

Facts

The Appellant, Carleen McFarlane, is an attorney at law of the Jamaican Bar and the Respondent is the disciplinary committee of the General Legal Council of Jamaica. The co-clients as co-purchasers, Kayon Thompson and Carl Benjamin (the complainant in the disciplinary proceedings), attended the Appellant’s law offices in July 2012 and informed the Appellant of their intention to purchase property. The Appellant explained the procedure for the purchase of land to them both and they confirmed their answers in the standard questionnaire and the terms of the purchase agreement. The sale was cancelled because of multiple breaches revealed by the surveyor’s report following which the Appellant paid over a cheque in the sum of JMD$379,100 inclusive of a refund to Ms Thompson in October 2012. The complainant brought a complaint against the Appellant by way of a letter dated 15 October 2013 lodged with the Respondent alleging, among other things, that the Appellant had not safeguarded the client’s monetary funds and misplaced client’s funds. The Respondent held a disciplinary hearing over several days between 2014 and 2020. On 17 July 2020 the disciplinary committee delivered its judgment and findings. It was satisfied that the Appellant had not failed in her duty to account for all monies held in her possession for the account of the complainant. However, it found that the Appellant had breached Canon IV(s) in that by refunding the deposit solely to Ms Thompson she acted with inexcusable and deplorable negligence. The Appellant was ordered to make restitution of JMD$350,000 to the complainant and to pay costs of JMD$300,000. The Court of Appeal dismissed the Appellant’s appeal but granted final leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council.