The General Legal Council (GLC) said its decision to strike Harold Brady off the roll of attorneys-at-law entitled to practise in Jamaica was not only meant to punish him and deter others, but to also protect the public and maintain the reputation of the profession in circumstances where serious dishonesty has been committed.

“The reputation of the profession is based on the maintenance of standards of honesty and integrity which members of the public should rightly and confidently expect to be observed by attorneys in their dealings with them,” the GLC Disciplinary Committee said in its ruling.

The case arose out of a complaint by the Factories Corporation of Jamaica Limited against Brady in relation to the sale of a property in 2006.

According to the complainant, Brady, who had acted on its behalf, had not accounted to it for all monies in his hands for its account or credit, although it had reasonably required him to do so.

The complainant argued that Brady had breached Canon I (b) which states that ‘An attorney shall at all times maintain the honour and dignity of the profession and shall abstain from behaviour which may tend to discredit the profession of which he is a member; had failed to deliver up the file with due expedition after being requested so to do in breach of Canon IV (r); and had failed to submit the agreement for sale within 30 days of the date of the agreement or at all and to pay the relevant duties causing 100 per cent penalty to be incurred in breach of Canons IV (r) and IV (s).

The GLC said that on February 25, Brady attended a hearing after being given notice that the decision would be handed down and a sanction hearing would be permitted if necessary.

It said that prior to the decision being handed down, Brady asked to be heard and the panel allowed his request.

Brady, the GLC said, told the panel that he has been suffering from hypertension, which has affected his eyes, and that was the reason why he did not attend previous hearings.

He also admitted to owing the moneys claimed by the complainant and that his accountant did something wrong but he accepted that he is responsible.

He said he was willing to repay the moneys to the Factories Corporation, and in fact wrote to the complainant for their bank account number so that he could wire the funds into the account.

“He recently received a letter from the complainant with its account number. He has not yet lodged any money to the complainant’s account but he intends to do so although it would not be the full amount immediately,” the GLC stated.

The GLC concluded that Brady’s admission to owing the money “cannot excuse his betrayal of the trust and confidence placed in him by his client”.

Added the GLC: “The attorney’s expression of a willingness to now repay the moneys misappropriated cannot obviate his dishonest behaviour. Even if the moneys were now to be paid this cannot justify such a gross act of dishonesty in failing to pay over his client’s money when it was due.

“Further, not only did the attorney deprive his client of the full purchase price of its property but he failed to have the agreement for sale stamped as a consequence of which the complainant was obliged to pay penalties in the amount of $12,600,020.00. They were therefore forced to incur further expenses. This misappropriation by the attorney of the complainant’s purchase price for its property and costs is dishonesty which we view quite seriously.”

The panel noted that Brady has indicated that he has made steps to satisfy the debt by sending to the complainant’s attorneys a title, transfer of land, mortgage, and promissory note.

The GLC also said that Brady apologised to the complainant and asked the panel “that the worse not be visited upon him in terms of a sanction”.

However, it said that nothing has been stated byBrady in mitigation, whether verbally or in his affidavit, to warrant the imposition of a lesser sanction than striking off.

In addition, the panel ruled that Brady should pay the Factories Corporation the sum of $111,380,364.62 with interest on the sum of $102,302,061.56 at the rate of 4½ per cent per annum from October 1, 2016 until payment.

The panel also awarded costs, in the amount of $80,000, against Brady.