Attorney at law Hal Gollop, one of six top lawyers in Barbados not registered
Earlier this month BU posted the blog Registrar And Registry Exposed To Action For Defamation By Senior Lawyers. Several prominent attorneys-at-law saw their names omitted from the Official Gazette of December 29, 2011, proof that they are registered to practice their profession in Barbados. Among them: Sir Frederick Smith Q.C., Mr Edmund King Q.C., Mr Maurice King Q.C., Mrs Beverley Walrond Q.C., Mr Hal Gollop, Mr Vernon Smith Q.C. BU sources advised then that letters were dispatched to the Registrar demanding immediate redress.
Again usual BU sources have advised that the affected lawyers – their silk and prominence notwithstanding – have not been able to provoke a response from the Registrar. To those who are forced to deal with the Registrar a lack of response is not a surprise. As a consequence several of the lawyers affected are drafting proceedings against the Registrar and the damages lodged will likely be significant. Why the Registrar would be lethargic in dealing with correcting the error and or responding to the learned counsel appears to be just plain ignorant. The inaction is likely to burden and already congested court system.
As to why this is happening despite the best effort of the previous government to implement public sector reform? The answer may be found in a public sector ‘reacting’ to no wage increases in recent years. Yet another disaffected segment of the electorate which the government will have to confront with a general election looming. When the Eager 11 issue broke BU proffered the explanation that one of the reasons of dissatisfaction targeted Prime Minister Stuart’s inaction at dealing with the sloth of the civil service. Prime Minister Stuart has ministerial portfolio with the civil service. It is insightful that Minister Donville Inniss has been stridently echoing a similar view of late which was highlighted in todays Nation editorial.
For those who view what is happening in Barbados through politically non partisan lenses, the governance system which has served us well is imploding right before our eyes.
It never ceases to amaze me , that people continue to focus the incompetence of the Civil Service as if it can only be found in the public service. Let’s understand that because of our guaranteed education up to tertiary level, most of our population has gone through the same school system. This so call incompetence in the public service I have experienced in lawyers offices, in banks, in Bridgetown companies. example; I have gone to lawyers on at least two occasions to have some work done , in one case it is poorly done costing me in excess of $5000 and yet the situation wasn’t remedied and in another case after having paid for consultation and the writing of a letter the secretary was unable to even find any record of the referral. and I can give examples about banks,, come on! the things we complain about in the public service can also be found in the “efficient private sector” to a greater degree.
Before passing judgement about the functions of an office one should seek to find out how the list is prepared and sent to be gazetted and i am sure that the affected attorneys received correspondence regarding same. There is more in the mortar than the pester. The Registrar is the head of the Registration Department and not the Chief Justice he is responsible for the Judges. Get the facts before placing blame where it should not be.And how many times were clients told by attorneys that it is the fault of the registry when they may have not completed what they should have. Check before you take sides.
Justice is not only for the lawyers when they are affected think on that ……………………………………..
Quoting Amused “Then, put the letters in an envelope and either send them by hand, or stick them in the post.”
Ah this business of using an 18th century technology (writing letters and sending them by hand or post) in the 21st century is a large part of the problem.
Why can’t Barbados’ attorneys and Barbados’s courts use 21st century social media such as email, Twitter, Facebook BB messenger etc.
Actually I am surprised that some attorneys are still not using quills and ink as they did in the 1930′s (what!!! use something as modern as a typewriter in 1930′s Barbados, never mind that at that time typewriters were about 100 years old)
The first thing I did when I consulted an attorney was to ask him for his email address and thereafter I communicated with him entirely by that means and only showed up at his office or the court if I needed to sign something. And since email tracks exactly when a document is sent, if I do not hear from him in good time I resend the same email with a nice note: Dear Mr. Big Shot Attorney, On January 3 at 9:30:23 I sent you this email enquiring about the status of X. since I have not heard from you etc.
I think that we need to amend al necessary laws to give electronic communications legal status, and UWI needs to develop and teach a compulsory course, they may want to law it “Electronic communications and the law” All law firms and lawyers in private practice need to get up to speed in the everyday use of modern social media. BCC needs to do this too for thieir legal clerks course.
It is a disgrace that elderly couples still feel the need to travel thousands of miles to do that which can be done remotely.
For example a few yeas ago I had a piece of land surveryed for a sister in law who lives abroad and questions were asked about how I would get the original documents to her and whether it should be given to a local lawyer for safekeeping. I sent it by Fedex and 23 hours later I checked on line and saw that her husband had signed for it.
Business fixed.
My feeling is that the best place for an important document is in the custody of the document owner.
Quoting amused “abject ”
Abject is so, so colonial, so, so 18th century.
@sue john | March 10, 2012 at 9:17 PM.
1. “Before passing judgement about the functions of an office one should seek to find out how the list is prepared and sent to be gazetted”. Why? It is incumbent on the Registrar to prepare the list properly!! End of story.
2. “……and I am sure that the affected attorneys received correspondence regarding same”. Ambiguous. Probably deliberately so. Is it PRIOR correspondence telling them they were to be excluded from the Gazette List? OR, is it that the Registrar has FINALLY got around to responding to their letters complaining of exclusion and threatening to sue her ass? Elucidate for us.
3. “There is more in the mortar than the pester.” Is there? What, pray, is a pester when it is at home? I always thought it was a mortar and PESTLE. Perhaps a PESTER is a shortened form of expression that describes a pestilential Registry and Registrar, most of whom should be fired.
4. “The Registrar is the head of the Registration Department and not the Chief Justice he is responsible for the Judges.” So let me get this right. The Registrar adjudicates certain matters that are legally binding, unless they go on appeal. The function of the Registry is to provide support for the Courts. The Court of Appeal has its own Registry to provide support for it. And here I am for over XXX years labouring under what you say is the delusion that the CJ is head of the Judicial System and now you are instructing me that the Registry is not a part of the Judicial System. Really!!!!! So now we have not two, but three independent public bodies. Parliament, the Courts and the Registry. I never knew that. Many counsel will be most interested.
But in the final analysis, it matters naught. The Registrar HAS been called to book for the defamation (and it IS defamation, no matter how the list is prepared, any prior correspondence (which I deny there was) on the list, and, since, according to you, in no way militates against the FACT that the Registrar and the Registry published an official list of attorneys licensed to practice law before the Courts of Barbados which, by the omission of their names from said list, defamed certain counsel.
Perhaps “sue john” is the person responsible for the offending list published in the Gazette.
Amazing to read the Nation newspaper isreporting on what the CJ is said about the huge backlog of cases in our Courts.
Here is the question he asked the audience while delivering a the Fair Trading Commission Lecture last Friday:
He mentioned ADR as a solution and he alluded that the international business sector is being affected by the congestion of case files.
The CJ’s postilion sounds familiar?
Amazing!
Quoting today’s Nation “Barbados’ judicial system is clogged with almost 3 000 unfinished cases…Chief Justice Marston Gibson says he knows the way out, but that attorneys at law might resist, because it could CUT INTO THEIR PROFITS.”
Dear Amused: Please comment.
I think that I am beginning to like this Chief JUstice.
It is high time that somebody cut the arses of a lotta these Bajan lawyers.
@ Random Thoughts | March 11, 2012 at 11:34 AM |
We have heard it all before. Same shit, different day!
This NATO (No Action Talk Only) approach would get us nowhere soon.
The DLP administration was saying the same thing pre January 2008.
Those who can do, those who can’t talk!