Gillian in strange position
THE EDITOR: Gillian Lucky’s decision to act as a defence attorney for Franklin Khan in his criminal charges does raise some interesting questions of ethics in relation to her capacity as an attorney-at-law and in her capacity as a representative of the people for the Pointe-a-Pierre Constituency. I refer in particular to a recent letter written by L N Harracksingh who supports fully Ms Lucky’s decision to defend Mr Khan on the basis that the Legal Profession Act states "an attorney-at-law shall defend the interest of his client without fear of judicial disfavour or public unpopularity and without regard to any unpleasant consequences to himself or to any other person." Mr Harracksingh must be mindful that Ms Lucky is also a Member of Parliament opposed to the PNM. She has a duty to represent her constituents and reveal everything she knows of the PNM. It is distinctly possible that Ms Lucky in defending Mr Khan may come across information damaging to the PNM. Ms Lucky has a duty to keep this information confidential based on the attorney-client confidentiality principle. Ms Lucky not being able to reveal this information to the public or in the Parliament would then fall short as a Member of Parliament and would not be able to fulfil her role fully as a representative of the people. This is a clear conflict between Ms Lucky’s roles as an attorney representing Mr Khan and as a Member of Parliament opposed to the PNM. It is difficult to see how Ms Lucky could extricate herself from this dilemma. In making these observations, I mean no offence to Ms Lucky. I am just trying to contribute to this interesting debate. LENNOX SANKARSINGH Couva
Comments
"Gillian in strange position"