Appeal Court rejects Jennifer Housen’s bid to delay disciplinary sanction

Former politician and attorney, Jennifer Housen, has lost her bid to delay her six-month suspension arising from a land transaction, after the Court of Appeal rejected her application to put the disciplinary sanction on hold pending an appeal.

The ruling, delivered by Justice Kissock Laing last month, comes after Housen sought to stay the suspension while she pursues her appeal against findings of professional misconduct by the General Legal Council’s Disciplinary Committee.

The committee, on April 25 of this year, suspended the former People’s National Party (PNP) caretaker for West Rural St Andrew from practising law for six months and ordered her to pay $400,000 within 60 days. Of this sum, $150,000 was to be paid to the GLC and $250,000 to the complainant.

Rejecting the application, Laing said, “Having assessed the applicant’s chances of success on appeal … the appeal lacks merit, save for the very limited ground I have identified. I was, therefore, constrained to refuse the application for a stay of execution as prayed for in the application.”

He added, “It cannot be gainsaid that the applicant’s conduct was egregious. There was no dishonesty involved, but it is well settled that there is no necessity for there to be any moral turpitude for Canon I(b) to be engaged … In my view, there is ample evidence to support the committee’s conclusion that the applicant has breached Canons I(b) and IV(s).”

Property transaction

The case stems from a 2018 property transaction in which the complainant, Carol Jackson, engaged Housen to handle the sale of two parcels of land to Tanglewood Limited for £100,000. The agreement stipulated that the purchaser would pay a deposit of £60,000 upon signing, with the remaining £40,000 due three months after the title was transferred. If the balance were not paid, the purchaser would provide a unit in the development valued at no less than J$10 million and incur interest at 10 per cent per month until full payment.

A legal dispute, however, arose after the purchaser paid only a portion of the balance directly to Housen in the sum of £21,874.00. Jackson alleged that Housen failed to ensure she received the full purchase price and did not fully explain the agreement’s terms, leaving her financially disadvantaged.

The GLC’s Disciplinary Committee found that Housen’s handling of the transaction was materially deficient, particularly in representing both parties without ensuring adequate safeguards for the vendor.

The committee highlighted that while lawyers may represent multiple clients if they can adequately protect each client’s interests, representing two parties in a land transaction is “notoriously ill-advised”, especially where the deal is complex.

The panel also found upon review of the evidence that “there were glaring shortcomings the attorney’s handling of the transaction, which deviated materially from what would is [sic] expected of an attorney exercising reasonable competence and due diligence in the handling of a conveyancing transaction between the parties for value and at arm’s length”.

Laing acknowledged the potential prejudice to Housen but concluded that it was insufficient to halt the disciplinary order. While recognising that her temporary inability to practise law could cause harm, he noted there was a “theoretical possibility that the applicant might serve the period of suspension and be successful on the appeal, which would amount to prejudice”.

He also added that “Her other assertion that a suspension would result in her ruin does require additional support, especially given that the period of suspension is six months.”

Housen’s lawyer, Lemar Neale, had argued that enforcing the suspension and $400,000 in costs would prevent her from practising law, damage her reputation, and cause significant emotional and financial hardship.

He contended that the committee had made several findings of fact not supported by evidence, particularly regarding whether Housen had adequately explained the consequences of the property sale agreement.

Neale also argued that the agreement provided sufficient protection for the client and that Housen’s conduct did not amount to professional negligence.

‘Correct approach’

In response, Neco Pagon, representing the GLC, argued that the appeal lacked merit and that Housen failed to maintain professional standards in a complex property transaction.

He said the committee’s findings were supported by evidence, including that Housen did not adequately explain key terms and allowed the property to transfer before full payment was made. Pagon emphasised that “the committee employed the correct approach to determining the appellant’s liability for professional misconduct” and that the sanctions were consistent with legal precedent.

The Court of Appeal, in the meantime, has directed the registrar to set a date for an expedited hearing of Housen’s substantive appeal, which will proceed while the suspension remains in effect.

tanesha.mundle@gleanerjm.com