Don Foote (Appellant) v General Legal Council (Respondent) (Jamaica)

Case summary

Case ID

JCPC/2025/0006

Jurisdiction

Jamaica

Parties

Appellant(s)

Don Foote

Respondent(s)

The General Legal Council

Issue

Was the Court of Appeal wrong to uphold the decision of the General Legal Council, finding Mr Foote guilty of professional negligence and ordering him to pay restitution to his former client?

Facts

The Appellant is an attorney-at-law of the Jamaican Bar. Mr Foote was acting as attorney for Ms Russell in a negligence claim against her former dentist. Ms Russell signed a contingency agreement with Mr Foote, agreeing that he was entitled to a one-third contingency fee of any settlement sum arrived at on her behalf. Mr Foote negotiated a settlement for $23,000,000. However, Mr Foote claimed that he gave Ms Russell two release and discharge documents to sign: one stating that the settlement figure was $16,000,000 and one stating that the settlement figure was $23,000,000. Mr Foote alleged that Mr Russell signed both before the same Justice of the Peace. Ms Russell denied knowing anything about a $23,000,000 settlement. According to Ms Russell, she received a letter from Mr Foote stating that a settlement of $16,000,000 had been reached and enclosing a cheque of her share ($10,666,666.70). Ms Russell requested a copy of the settlement agreement and a document she had signed before the Justice of the Peace. Various discrepancies led her to filing a complaint to the GLC. The Disciplinary Committee of the General Legal Council found him guilty of failing to account when reasonably required to do so and of professional misconduct in the performance of his duties to Ms Russell, in breach of Canons VII(b)(ii) and I(b) of The Legal Profession (Canons of Professional Ethics) Rules 1978. The Disciplinary Committee ordered that Mr Foote pay restitution of JMD$2,333,333.33 and costs of $100,000. The Court of Appeal upheld this. The Appellant has been granted leave as of right to the JCPC.

Date of issue

17 January 2025

Case origin

Appeal As of Right

Back to top