South lawyer guilty of professional misconduct

The British Law Lords ordered that he repay $29,400 to a former client along with interest dating back to 1996. The Lords were surprised that Campbell was not fined or reprimanded.

That client, Simon Alexander, died while the matter was pending, but the money will be repaid to the administrator of Alexander’s estate, Davida Hamlet. The money was paid to Campbell for two parcels of land in Sangre Grande. But the land was never given to Alexander, and the money was not returned.

The complaint of professional misconduct was lodged against Campbell since 1987. He was found guilty before the Disciplinary Committee of the Law Association in 1996. He appealed but the Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal in 2000. He then appealed to the Privy Council which unanimously rejected his appeal.

The Privy Council comprised Lords Hope, Scott, Brown, Baroness Hale, and Sir Swinton Thomas.

When contacted yesterday, Campbell said he was displeased about the judgment. He said the allegation made by Alexander was totally untrue. "Heaven knows the truth about this. If I thought I was guilty, I would never have gone through all of this to prove my innocence. It hurt every part of me. The finding of the Disciplinary Committee was wrong in law and will always be so."

In February 1987, a complaint of professional misconduct was made against Campbell by Simon Alexander to the Disciplinary Committee. Nine months later, Campbell raised a preliminary objection, contending that the complaint failed to disclose any professional misconduct within the meaning of the Legal Profession Act 1986.

In December 1987, the committee ruled against the objection and two months later embarked on hearing the complaint. The hearing ended in December 1988, but it was not until October 29, 1996 — eight years later — that the committee found the allegation of misconduct substantiated and ordered Campbell to pay Alexander compensation in the sum of $29,400 together with interest and costs.

Campbell appealed, but the Court of Appeal comprising Justices Roger Hamel-Smith, Lionel Jones, and Rolston Nelson, dismissed the appeal on May 22, 2000.

Campbell appealed to the Privy Council, citing two grounds — that the Disciplinary Committee should have applied the criminal standard of proof in the determination of Alexander’s complaint; and the eight-year delay in the delivery of the judgment was unfair.

Lord Brown, in his judgment, pointed out that Alexander paid $29,400 in 1985 to Campbell, through an agent, for two parcels of land at George Karim Avenue, Sangre Grande. On February 12, 1986, Alexander went to Campbell’s office to obtain a deed for the land. But Campbell changed his mind and promised to repay the money within a month.

He explained that he had a shipment of tyres on the docks and as soon as he cleared and sold the goods, he would repay the money to Alexander. The money was never repaid.

The Privy Council described the eight-year delay as highly reprehensible and unforgivable. But the Law Lords did not find that Campbell was prejudiced in any way.

Lord Brown said the delay was to campbell’s benefit. "The evidence against him was, as already noted, overwhelming and the complaint was likely therefore to be found proved. He was able to retain and make use of the disputed monies. Even when judgment was eventually given, indeed, so far from the appellant being penalised for his professional misconduct, all that was ordered was that he should at last refund the respondent’s monies, with no back interest at all, merely interest from that day forward until payment."

Lord Brown said no sanction was ever imposed on Campbell despite Parliament’s apparent assumption that an attorney found guilty of professional misconduct should be fined or reprimanded besides being ordered to pay costs and compensation.