Dear Editor,

As I have come to understand it, the legal profession maintains codes of conduct which respect tribunals, seniority in the profession, and one’s peers.

In his appearance before the Dudus/Manatt Commission of Enquiry and subsequently, Queen’s Counsel KD Knight has shown scant regard for observing any of these cherished principles.

Mr Knight made no attempt to veil his contempt for the commissioners while appearing at the proceedings. On more than one occasion he shouted down the chairman of the Commission who incidentally is said to be the most senior Queen’s Counsel in the country. His discourtesies to a number of his fellow attorneys were numerous.

One well remembers his reference to one of his colleagues early in the proceedings as a “babbler”, only to offer a half-hearted apology later.

What must take the cake, however, is that after the proceedings and before the commissioners presented their findings, Mr Knight took to political platforms inciting supporters to get ready for action if the findings do not accord with their own judgement.

Mr Knight has been a lawyer long enough to know that respect for judicial and quasi-judicial processes is the watchword of the lawyer. You may disagree with a tribunal, but you show respect for its members, its processes and deliberations. It is unacceptable for one of the most senior lawyers in the country to be engaging in behaviour that can be easily interpreted as an attempt to influence the outcome of a quasi-judicial process through intimidation.

Given what is known of Mr KD Knight’s antecedence, his behaviour may not have come as a surprise to many. What is a surprise (at least to this writer) is the almost deafening silence from the usual vocal quarters regarding Mr Knight’s conduct. Apart from criticisms from the JLP which can be easily dismissed as the usual self-serving partisans carping, there have been very few, if any adverse comments.

His peers and the legal organisations that he is a part of have not seen fit to offer a word of rebuke. The loquacious Mr AJ Nicholson, former attorney general and his political colleague, who only a few weeks ago scolded the governing party (and rightly so) for pursuing a censure motion against Dr Peter Phillips on a matter that was under consideration by the Commission, has kept his counsel on Mr Knight’s latest utterance. Newspaper editors, columnists, talk-show hosts and public commentators who often trumpet the virtues of proper conduct and respect for processes have steered clear of this one.

Whether the muteness on Mr Knight’s behaviour, particularly from members of his profession, has been occasioned by malice, complicity or gutlessness, it does not augur well. We run the risk of young aspirants to the legal profession believing that this behaviour is to be emulated; that if they are able to conduct incisive cross-examination, put on a good show, and display a good turn of phrase, lack of respect for judicial and quasi-judicial processes and discourtesies to seniors and peers can easily be excused.

Ansord E Hewitt

Kingston 19

ansord1@yahoo.com