Barbara Gayle, Staff ReporterTHE COURT of Appeal has granted final leave for the General Legal Council (GLC) to go to the United Kingdom Privy Council to challenge a ruling that had ordered a re-hearing for a Kingston attorney-at-law who was disbarred in May 1999.
Lawyers representing Barrington Frankson had opposed the application on the grounds that the GLC, the governing body of the legal profession, was not the proper party before the court.
Attorney-at-law Earl Witter, one of the lawyers representing Frankson, argued that the hearing before the disciplinary committee of the GLC was an inquiry and not a civil proceeding, therefore, leave should not be granted for the matter to go to the Privy Council.
Dennis Morrison, Q.C., who represented the GLC, argued that the proceedings were civil and cited authorities to support his submissions. He also pointed out that costs were awarded against the GLC when the appeal was handed down in March this year.
CIVIL PROCEEDING
In granting the application, the court held that the GLC was the proper party before the court and the matter was a civil proceeding which was in excess of $1,000. The court said the point of law that the GLC was seeking to have clarified by the Privy Council was also a basis for granting leave to appeal.
The GLC will be asking the Privy Council to determine whether an aggrieved party can appoint an agent to institute proceedings before the disciplinary committee of the GLC.
Mr. Frankson was disbarred in May 1999 by the GLC for professional misconduct involving a former client, Monica Whitter. Frankson had collected a cheque for $8 million but allegedly failed to account for, or to make any payment to Mrs. Whitter.
The complaint was filed by Mrs. Whitter's son on her instructions. Frankson's lawyers had argued before the Court of Appeal that the complainant's son was the wrong party to file legal action against him.
By a majority decision, the court ruled in March this year that it had allowed the appeal on a jurisdictional point. The court said that under Section 12 of the Legal Profession Act, only the aggrieved party, a member of the disciplinary committee or the registrar of the Supreme Court could institute proceedings against an attorney-at-law for professional misconduct.
