Discipline

 

As regulator of Bermuda’s legal profession, the Association is responsible for both the regulation and discipline of members of the legal profession in Bermuda. Barristers & Attorneys admitted to the Bar in Bermuda are held to the same standards as other reputable Commonwealth jurisdictions.

 

Through an elected Bar Council the Bar Association is responsible for matters pertaining to admission to practice law in the jurisdiction and rules of conduct for its members.

 

The Bermuda Bar Association is privileged to be allowed to self-govern. The power to discipline its members is vested in the Bermuda Bar Council by the Bermuda Bar Act 1974.  There is a Code of Conduct that members are expected to abide by.  The Professional Conduct Committee investigates complaints where Barristers & Attorneys admitted to the Bermuda Bar may have failed to meet standards of professional competence, conduct and regrettably in some cases dishonesty. The governing body also prosecutes illegal practitioners who practice law or provide legal services to the public who are not licenced and have not been issued a Practising Certificate (renewal required annually).

 

In addition, in recognition of the fact that the legal profession is self-governing, the Bar Association receives, investigates and adjudicates complaints about its members.

 

In the course of the year, Disciplinary Tribunals have sat with the Chief Justice, or his Puisne Judges presiding. 

 

1 April 2025 through 31 March 2026

Jeffrey Elkinson, Chairman 

Professional Conduct Committee Report 

 

The issue of Professional Conduct is perennial. Even those who have served on the PCC are still surprised, year after year, by the nature of some of the complaints received by the public, the users of our legal services and those whom we serve. The public should have a high expectation from their appointed attorney and even those who are not their attorney. They should be confident that they are with trusted advisors, knowledgeable about the law, and who can help them for a fair fee and who are ethical. Those attorneys who feel they are indeed trusted advisors and that they need to go further and advise on how the client should deal with their money, as a reminder should be aware that they need to make sure that they are licensed to do so.

 

The reality today in Bermuda is that the reputation of attorneys is damaged – there have been too many examples of attorneys who have failed their clients by blatant incompetence, greed and even highly publicized criminal acts. Attorneys seeking a short cut to making money the easiest way possible. We need to not only do better but go beyond that to show that as a profession we can be trusted and that those needing legal advice are in good hands.

 

And now Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) is here. I do not believe that the future of our profession is in jeopardy by the existence of AI – it is in jeopardy if attorneys abuse its power and seek to use it as a short cut to perhaps, by way of example, draft submissions or advices to clients and claiming the work as their own. I am not against the use of AI – properly used it is a great tool. On the other side, attorneys could be doing a disservice to their clients by not using AI in, for example, a large Discovery exercise, manually doing it when the technology could do it in a fraction of the time. The major legal institutions are considering revamping their rules on ethics to capture the issue of the use of AI and to give guidance on that, notably the International Bar Association. Hopefully, Bermuda attorneys will be conscious of their ethical duties when they make use of this extraordinary technology.

 

The Bar Prosecutor, Saul Froomkin KC, in the course of the year continued to prosecute offences, and many thanks to him and our tireless Clerk, Annwen for reducing the number of cases which remain outstanding. Please review the statistics which form part of this report, set out further. The PCC has had the benefit of their assistance and by their hard work they have lightened the load on the committee members. On behalf of the Committee, Susan Davis Crockwell, Larissa Burgess, Loren Wilson, Lovette Tannock and Keith Robinson, thank you. I in turn thank them as the work the Committee does requires sometimes lengthy discussion on varying difficult topics and involves colleagues at the Bar and I don’t recall any meeting where we were not able to reach consensus.

 

Keith Robinson has been on the PCC for some years now as the Bar Council Representative and it is with mixed views that I anticipate and welcome that he will be elected Bar President at the 2026 AGM, having done such a good job since the sad and unexpected passing of Kehinde. I know that the heavy workload of Bar President would make it unfair for him to have the burden of being on PCC also but his contributions to the PCC have been valuable. So I pre-emptively wish him all the best and look forward to welcoming the incoming member who will be appointed directly by the Bar Council as their representative on the PCC.

 

Summary of complaints 2025/2026

 

From 1^st April 2025 through 31^st March 2026, the Professional Conduct Committee (“PCC”) sat with members Susan Davis-Crockwell, Larissa Burgess, Keith Robinson, Lorren Wilson, Saul Froomkin K.C. and newly joined Lovette Tannock, and me as chair. I have chaired eleven meetings since the last report.

There were thirty-two (32) new complaints filed during the year, twenty-one (21) less from the previous year.

Over the year, forty-three (43) complaints were closed, dismissed, admonished, withdrawn or satisfactorily resolved. The Committee is actively investigating remarkably only three (3) open complaints.

 

Tribunal Hearings

 

At the last report, seventeen (17) cases were either pending charges or in progress at the disciplinary tribunal level. As at the 31^st March 2026, ten (10) active matters are at various stages of the disciplinary process (preliminary, mention hearings, further mention hearings and finally the substantive hearing with a decision). Four (4) matters concluded. One (1) matter is pending charges depending on the outcome of a Judicial Review. Charges went unproven against two jointly charged attorneys in one (1) matter. Two (2) attorneys were found guilty of practising law without a licence/Practising Certificate (pending publication by the Registrar). One (1) attorney appealed a guilty tribunal conviction to the COA where the findings were overturned.

 

 

Inspectors appointed to review accounting practices of the firm pursuant to Rule 7 of the Barristers (Accounts and Records) Rules 1976

 

There were eight (8) complaints under the direct review of Deloitte inspectors who have been appointed by Bar Council to investigate forensically the accounting of funds held within a law firm. One (1) has concluded where there were no financial discrepancies highlighted with this particular complainant; however, the attorney was cautioned to ensure there will be no future repeated concerns raised.  

 

Explanation of Professional Conduct Committee’s Mandate and Responsibilities

 

The PCC is the disciplinary body of the Bermuda Bar Association. It was created under the Bermuda Bar Act 1974 and operates under the Bar Professional Conduct Committee Rules 1997 and the Bar Disciplinary Tribunal Rules 1997. Any allegation of improper conduct, as that expression is defined in the Barristers’ Code of Professional Conduct 1981 is dealt with by the PCC. The powers of the PCC are specific and are set out in Section 18A of the Bermuda Bar Act 1974. Broadly speaking, its principal function is to investigate and determine if there is a prima facie case of improper conduct against an attorney. The PCC may also appoint accountants to manage the trust funds of the attorney. If a complaint of improper conduct warrants further disciplinary action, other than the admonishment that the PCC can give, the complaint is referred to a disciplinary tribunal. Complaints which disclose a criminal element may be referred to the Bermuda Police Service for investigation. The disciplinary tribunal has the power to admonish, reprimand, fine, suspend or disbar the attorney.

 

The Complaint Process Explained

 

The PCC consists of one member of the Bar Council and six other members elected by the Council from among the bar membership. The present members of the PCC are Keith Robinson (Bar Council), Lorren Wilson, Saul Froomkin K.C., Susan Davis-Crockwell, Larissa Burgess, Lovette Tannock and I am the chairman. The PCC is assisted by Annwen Stirling. On occasion, members of the Bar are seconded to meet quorum requirements if there are members of the committee conflicted. The PCC meets in-person once a month. This is a busy committee; members take on investigations, report to the committee, on occasion meet with complainants and take statements, draft charges and present complaints at a disciplinary tribunal. The work of the committee is now greatly assisted by the Prosecutor who conducts a majority of the prosecutorial work.  

 

Fees Arbitration Committee Mr. John Riihiluoma (Chairman), Mr. Mark A. C. Diel, Mr. Warren Bank, Mrs. Charlene A. Scott and Ms. Britt Smith (conflicts considered at time of processing Arbitration) 

 

It has become apparent to the PCC that in many instances where fees are an issue, arbitration is offered to the parties. Invariably the complainant agrees to enter into an arbitration, however the attorney rarely agrees. Since both parties must agree the complainant is left without recourse except to refuse to pay and be subjected to litigation. It is the view of the PCC that where it is satisfied that the fees claimed are not “fair or reasonable”, S. 90(i) of the Barristers’ Code of Professional Conduct 1981 the parties should be ordered to go to arbitration. If in fact the arbitrator finds the fees not to be fair & reasonable”, aside from making the appropriate finding, the PCC, based on that finding could proceed against the attorney for a breach of S. 90(i).  

 

The Arbitration Committee (“Committee”) now comprises five members of the Bar Association of which three are selected to hear the matter, namely Mr. John Riihiluoma (Chairman), Mr. Mark A. C. Diel, Mr. Warren Bank, Mrs. Charlene A. Scott and Ms. Britt Smith. No fees are charged for this service. The complainant will not be charged any additional fees from the law firm other than what has already been invoiced. Both parties must agree to be bound by the decision of the Fees Committee prior to the matter being reviewed. Many thanks to those attorneys who have volunteered their service to serve on this Committee.

 

Out of the four (4) complaints invited to a fees arbitration, only one (1) attorney took up the offer to attend arbitration. Mr. John Riihiluoma (Chairman), Mr. Mark A. C. Diel and Mr. Warren Bank heard the matter and found in favour of the complainant where the responding attorney must now return half of the legal fees paid by the complainant although she was entitled to the full amount as no work had been carried out by the attorney, however this is all that the complainant asked to be refunded. The PCC expresses its thanks to the arbitrators for their service.    

 

Generally speaking, the amount of legal fees charged to a client is not a matter governed by the Barristers’ Code of Professional Conduct 1981. Other than in the area of conveyancing, the Bar Council cannot and does not regulate what attorneys charge their clients for their services. The Bar Council does not have any statutory basis to deal with a complaint over fees unless if it is evident that the fee is unfair or unreasonable. In such a case the matter is referred to the PCC as a possible violation of the Code.

 

Where a fees’ inquiry has been raised with Bar Council 

 

Bar Council and the PCC announced in 2020 that the Fees’ Arbitration Committee agreed to extend the scope of their appointment to where clients aggrieved by legal fees charged (where there is no allegation of professional conduct) may now opt to have their matter heard free of charge by the Committee provided that both the law firm and the client agree in writing to be bound by the decision of the Fees’ Arbitration Committee. Arbitration Rules will apply. Either side, after having attempted to resolve the dispute may have the matter adjudicated under a Fees’ Arbitration. Copies of all invoices for work carried out would be provided to the Bar Office together with the narrative as to why there is a dispute. The Committee may impose further requirements as they see fit. A suitable date is then confirmed with both parties to attend a hearing. The complainant will not be charged any additional fees from the law firm other than what they have already been invoiced.

 

Finally, our sincere gratitude goes to the Judges who preside in the disciplinary tribunals and the members of the Bar who are appointed to those tribunal and generously give of their time to serve.

 

Year over year comparison table (3 year):

 

Description:	1 April 2025 through 31 March 2026	1 April 2024 through 31 March 2025	1 April 2023 through 31 March 2024
New complaints (down from last year)	32	53	30
Active on-going investigations	3	14	13
Complaints closed, dismissed, withdrawn, or admonished	43	42	34
Inspector appointed Rule 7 of the Barristers (Accounts and Records) Rules 1976	8 7 carried over & 1 concluded	8 7 carried over & 1 new	7 (carried over)
Fees Arbitration invites	4 2 carried over 2 new	4	2
Tribunals pending/ active/ completed/ abandoned	15 1 pending charges 10 active tribunal hearings 4 concluded	17 3 pending charges 5 active tribunal hearings 5 concluded 4 on hold due to attorney’s diminished capacity were abandoned when official receiver appointed.	24 2 pending charges 13 active tribunal hearings 5 concluded 4 on hold due to attorney’s diminished capacity.

 

The Tribunal Process Explained

 

Once the Professional Conduct Committee (PCC) has made its initial investigation, it determines how best to deal with the complaint.  If minor, the PCC can administer an admonition.  Otherwise, the complaint is referred to a tribunal.  The charges are filed with the Chief Justice. Where a member of the public is the complainant, Bar Council puts forward two active members of the Bar to sit on the tribunal.  When Bar Council is the complainant, the Chief Justice appoints the two members of the Bar to the tribunal.  The tribunal is always chaired by a Supreme Court Judge.  A preliminary hearing is held usually within four to six weeks of receiving the convening notice with the substantial hearing scheduled approximately 6-8 weeks later.  The preliminary hearings are short with the substantial hearings taking anything from a half day to 2 or 3 full days.  The hearings are in private unless the attorney elects to have it dealt with publically.

 

When Bar Council asks members of the Association to sit on a tribunal there is usually a positive response on the part of the member to do so. We have seen more members agreeing to the appointments this year rather than declining. Indeed, it is a privilege to be invited for a panel appointment by the Chief Justice or Bar Council as members who have past, or current infractions recorded against them will not be invited for appointment. ‘Conflict’ has to be considered but simply having a friendly relationship with a colleague who is now a ‘respondent’ is not in itself conflict, otherwise we would be in great difficulty ever forming a tribunal. Additionally, panel members are selected on the basis of similar, or more years of call than the respondent as the respondent is entitled to a jury of his/her peers.

 

Public Hearings, Suspensions & Disbarments

 

On average 3-5 Tribunals are convened each year in this jurisdiction. Please note that only Published Notices appear in this section. In order for a matter to be published, there must be a fine, suspension from practice or disbarment/struck off the Roll imposed.  Of the tribunal hearings held since 1993, the following public notices appeared in the Official Gazette:

 

PUBLIC HEARING AT REQUEST OF RESPONDENT BARRISTER & ATTORNEY: 

• Bar Council & CoH against Eugene Johnston (12 May 2016 - 11 December 2018) Respondent requested a public hearing. Resulted in the Respondent found guilty of breaches to the Barristers' Code of Professional Conduct 1981 Rules 4, 6, 73(v), 103 & 108. The Respondent received an admonishment by the Disciplinary Tribunal, with no fine, suspension or costs awarded. Publishing of the Ruling is under consideration by the Registrar of the Supreme Court.

PUBLISHED NOTICES:

Active Suspensions published in the Official Gazette:

• Keiva Maronie-Durham (6 month suspension expires Sept 2025)   

 

Unable to practice until compliance with order of the Tribunal ruling:

• Wanda Bowen Ebbin against Braxton Philip (11-Jun-14): Breach of Rules 6(ii), 6 (iv) of the Barristers Code of Professional Conduct 1981. Found guilty of Charges and suspended from practicing conveyancing work for 2 years. Ordered to repay legal fees to complainant in the amount of $9, 266.25 Costs awarded to the Prosecutor in the amount of $2, 500. (fees remain unpaid to complainant and cannot practice)
• Francine Hodgson against Braxton Philip (5-Dec-13): Breach of Rules 6(ii), 6 (iv) of the Barristers Code of Professional Conduct 1981. Found guilty of Charges. Ordered to repay legal fees to complainant. Costs awarded to the Prosecutor in the amount of $500. (fees remain unpaid to complainant and cannot practice)

 

Suspension/Admonishment/Fines (Published):

• Clifford Dillas v Nadine Francis, Helen Forrest and Terra Law Limited (March 2025) A complaint was made by Mr. Clifford Dillas (the “Complainant”), against Nadine Francis, Helen Forrest and Terra Law Limited, a professional company in August 2016, which resulted in the following charges being made against the said Nadine Francis, Helen Forrest and Terra Law Limited: (i) Failure to maintain direct supervision over the Senior Property and Estates Manager a staff member who is not a Barrister, contrary to Rule 107 of the Barristers Code of Professional Conduct 1981, and (ii) Engaging in conduct which may otherwise bring the profession of a barrister into disrepute, contrary to Rule 6(ii) of the Barristers Code of Professional Conduct 1981. The particulars of the charges were that the said Nadine Francis, Helen Forrest and Terra Law Limited, during the period of January 2015 to January 2016, they failed to maintain supervision over the Senior Property and Estates Manager as required by the said Rule 107 in that as a result of the failure to directly supervise the staff member, who is not a Barrister and Attorney, they were unaware that the staff member, contrary to representations made by the staff member to the client, had failed to carry out the necessary steps to satisfy client instructions relating to the sale of a property. Further in failing to directly supervise the staff member as regards the said property, they engaged in conduct which brought the profession of a barrister into disrepute. A disciplinary Tribunal sat between the dates of 18 April 2024 through 26 November 2024, and upon the said Nadine Francis, Helen Forrest and Terra Law Limited admitting the foregoing facts, the said Tribunal by its Judgment dated 26 November 2024 the said charges were determined to be proved and being a second conviction accordingly the Tribunal imposed the following penalties: (i) That Nadine Francis, Helen Forrest and Terra Law Limited shall each pay a fine of $1,250.00 in respect of each of said charges, for a total fine of $7,500.00, and (ii) That they collectively pay the Bermuda Bar Association the Sum of $4,000.00 by way of a contribution to the costs of the Professional Conduct Committee. Said sums are to be paid as follows: $5,750.00 within 21 days, the balance of $5,750.00 within 60 days. 

• Bob  Stampfl v Keiva Maronie-Durham (Jan 2025) A complaint was made against Keiva Maronie-Durham, Barrister and Attorney on the 4^th of November 2020 which resulted in the following charges being made against the said Keiva Maronie-Durham. Breach of Section 17 of the Bermuda Bar Act 1974 (“the Act”) arising from conduct unbefitting a barrister as referred to in Section 17(1)(c) of the Act, in particular Rules 6(ii), 6(iv) and 103 of the Barristers Code of Conduct 1981.The particulars of the charges were that Keiva Maronie-Durham, the respondent having been retained by the Complainant in April 2020 in order to bring up to date the Minute Book of his Company, failed to properly and timely respond to the Complainant’s inquiries as to whether or not the work was done, and not withstanding repeated demands failed to return said Minute Book to the Complainant (*returned following hearing). A Disciplinary Tribunal sat on the 19^th of June 2024 and by its judgment on the 14^th of July 2024, the said charges were determined to be proved and subsequently on the 22^nd of October 2024 the Disciplinary Tribunal imposed the following sentence upon the said Keiva Maronie-Durham: (i.) That the said Keiva Maronie-Durham be suspended from practice for a period of six months, said suspension to commence from the date of issue of a practising certificate to her, said suspension to run concurrently on all counts. (ii.) That the Respondent be fined the sum of $1,000.00; (iii.) That the Respondent pay costs in the sum of $3,000.00; (iv.) That the Respondent return to the Complainant the sum of $3,500.00 less such sums that have been paid to the Registrar of Companies on behalf of the Complainant, said sums to be verified by receipts to be provided to the Prosecutor within 14 days hereof. 

• Bar Council v Nadine Francis, Helen Forrest and Terra Law Limited (May 2024): A complaint was made against Nadine Francis, Helen Forrest and Terra Law Limited, a professional company on 9 February 2016, which resulted in the following charges being made against the said Nadine Francis, Helen Forrest and Terra Law Limited: (a) Failure to maintain direct supervision over a staff member who is not a Barrister, contrary to Rule 107 of  the Barristers Code of Professional Conduct 1981, and (b) Engaging in conduct which may otherwise bring the profession of a barrister into disrepute, contrary to Rule 6(ii) of the Barristers Code of Professional Conduct 1981. The particulars of the charges were that the said Nadine Francis, Helen Forrest and Terra Law Limited, during the period of January 2015 to January 2016, they failed to maintain supervision over their the staff member as required by the said Rule 107 in that as a result of the failure to directly supervise the staff member, who is not a Barrister and Attorney, they were unaware that the staff member, contrary to representations made by the staff member to the client, had failed to carry out the necessary steps to satisfy client instructions relating to the purchase of a property. Further in failing to directly supervise the staff member as regards the said property, they engaged in conduct which brought the profession of a barrister into disrepute. A disciplinary Tribunal sat between the dates of 22 November 2021 through 16 May 2024, and upon the said Nadine Francis, Helen Forrest and Terra Law Limited admitting the foregoing facts, the said Tribunal by its Judgment dated 16 May 2024 the said charges were determined to be proved and accordingly the Tribunal imposed the following penalties: (a) That Nadine Francis, Helen Forrest and Terra Law Limited shall each pay within 21 days a fine of $1,250.00 for a total fine of $7,500.00 and, (b) That they collectively pay the Bermuda Bar Association the Sum of $4,000.00 by way of a contribution to the costs of the Professional Conduct Committee.

• Bar Council v John Blackwood (April 2024): On 22 April 2023 the Respondent Mr. John Blackwood was charged with improper conduct to witch conduct unbefitting a barrister contrary to sections 17(1)(e) and 17(1)(d) of the Bermuda Bar Act 1974 as read with Rules 6(ii) and 108 of the Barristers Code of Professional Conduct 1981. Particulars of said charges are that on 9 December 2022, when attending a social function and whilst in an intoxicated condition, he failed to act with good faith and courtesy in his relationship with another barrister; when approaching the Complainant, he repeatedly shouted extremely offensive and expletive-laden words at the Complainant causing her to feel uncomfortable and forcing her to leave the said function. On 18 December 2023, the said John Blackwood appeared before a Bar Disciplinary Tribunal and pleaded guilty to said charges. After hearing submissions on behalf of the Complainant and on behalf of the said Respondent John Blackwood, the said Tribunal ordered that: i) strongly admonished, ii) fined the sum of $3,000, and iii) shall pay the costs of counsel for the complanant together with the admnitratve costs and expenses incurred by the Professional Conduct Committee.

• Roderick Butterfield against Mark Diel (26 July 2022): A Complaint was made against Mark A. C. Diel, Barrister and Attorney, on 28^th February 2019 which resulted in the following charge being made against the said Mark A. C. Diel:- Breach of Section 17 of the Bermuda Bar Act 1974 (“the Act”) arising from conduct unbefitting a barrister as referred to in Section 17(1)(d) of the Act and breach of the Barristers' Code of Professional Conduct 1981as referred to in Section 17(1)(c) of the Act, in particular Rules 6(ii), 15 and 103 of the Barristers' Code of Professional Conduct 1981. The particulars of the charge were that Mark A. C. Diel, the Respondent, as the Managing Partner of Marshall Diel & Myers (the "Firm"), which Firm in acting in matrimonial proceedings on behalf of the former wife of Complainant (the "Proceedings") sent correspondence about the Proceedings to the Human Resources Manager at the Complainant's place of employment. Complainant then made a comment on the social media website, "Maj's List Bermuda" on 20^th February 2019, where he expressed his displeasure at the Firm sending this correspondence. Four people commented on the Complainant's post. Thereafter, Respondent, identifying himself as the Managing Director of the Firm, posted in response on the same website. The Respondent's posting disclosed details of the Proceedings which were confidential. A Disciplinary Tribunal sat on 4^th July 2022 and by its Judgment on 26^th July 2022, the charge was determined to be proved and subsequently, on 31^st August 2022, the Disciplinary Tribunal ordered an admonishment, imposed a fine of $2,500.00 and costs of $12,500 to be paid by Mark A. C. Diel within seven (7) days of 31^st August 2022.

• Bar Council against William Paul King (14-Apr-16). Mr. King self reported trust account deficit to Bar Council. Tribunal panel found Mr. King guilty of breaching Rules 6(ii) and 33 to 35 of the Barristers’ Code of Professional Conduct 1981. In addition, was found guilty of breach of Rules 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8 of the Barristers’ (Accounts and Records) Rules 1976. Suspended from practice for 3 years. Costs awarded $1,000.

• Bar Council & Sharon Swan against Gordon Rick Woolridge Jr: (6 June 2018): On 31^st August 2017 Mr. Gordon Rick Woolridge Jr (“Mr. Woolridge”) was charged on a single complaint of improper conduct contrary to section 17 of the Bermuda Bar Act 1974 together with a breach of Rules 6(ii), 102, and 103 of the Barristers’ Professional Code of Conduct 1981. On 6 June 2018 the Tribunal found that the Respondent was guilty of the charge of engaging in improper conduct, contrary to rules 6(ii), 102, and 103 of the Barristers’ Code of Professional Conduct 1981, namely (1) The Respondent failed to file documents or appear in the underlying case for a client which resulted in the client being put through time and expense of a trial, with the Respondent having failed to establish a defence for the client; (2) The Respondent, as an officer of the court, knowingly failed to comply with court orders in relation to making a good a valid and enforceable debt; (3) The Respondent failed to put in place appropriate procedures to service his client in his absence during periods of illness.The Respondent’s Practice Certificate was suspended for thirty (30) days, or subject to liberty to apply, until documents were filed and approved by the Bar Council. Cost were awarded in the amount of $3,000 to the prosecutor payable in monthly enstallments of $500 

• Bar Council against Kamal Worrell (28 July 2017). The Tribunal found that Mr. Worrell was guilty of the charge of engaging in conduct which was dishonest by falsely stating to the Registrar and the Court of Appeal that his doctor had advised the Respondent to confine himself to bed rest for several days, contrary to rules 6(ii) and 43(iv) of the Barristers’ Code of Professional Conduct 1981. Mr. Worrell is suspended from sole practice for six months from the date of this Order (i.e. from 1^st November 2017 until 30^th April 2018) and shall only be entitled to practise as an employee of a licensed firm or barrister and attorney, subject to certain conditions with liberty to apply in relation to costs and the implementation of the said conditions. Mr. Worrell is to be Supervised by Senior lawyer for period of 12 months from date of Order provided Mr. Worrell receives confidential waiver from clients for whom he acts and obtains the consent of his employer so as to enable Mr. Worrell to fulfil his obligations under the Supervision Agreement. Costs awarded to Prosecutor in the amount of $2,000 

• Tauwana Trott against Karen Williams-Smith (29-Nov-13): Breach of Rule 22 and 24 of the Barristers Code of Professional Conduct 1981. Plead guilty to both Charges. Admonished by Tribunal panel and fined $500 payable to the Crown. Cost awarded to the Prosecutor in the amount of $500 

• Bar Council & Paul Lacy against Llewellyn Peniston (9-Dec-11): Breach of Rules 6(ii), 6 (iii) and 108 of the Barristers Code of Professional Conduct 1981. Found guilty of all three Charges. Practising while suspended, failing to file Barristers Accountants report in timely manner and issuing threats Admonished and suspended from practice for 2 years. No costs sought by Prosecutor.  

• Bar Council against Takiyah Burgess (18-Sep-09): Breach of Rule 6 (ii) and 62 of the Barristers Code of Professional Conduct 1981. Plead guilty to both Charges. Admonished by the tribunal and fine payable to the Crown in the amount of $1,000. No cost application sought by Prosecutor.

• Albert Smith against Llewellyn Peniston (13-Jun-08): Breach of Rule 7 of the Barristers (Accounts and Records) Rules 1976. Suspended from practice for 3 months. Costs awarded to the Prosecutor in the amount of $2, 500 and pay the Inspector which was appointed to review the financial operations of the firm. Mr. Peniston Appealed the decision of the Tribunal and the COA amended the suspension to 30 days.

• Bar Council against Lawrence Scott (18-Jan-07):  Breach of Rule 2 of the Barristers (Accounts and Records) Rules 1976. Found guilty of charge. Reprimanded by the Tribunal panel. Fined $2, 500 payable to the Crown. No costs order sought.

• Rhoda Evans against Lawrence Scott (4-Jun-07): Breach of Rules 6(ii), 6 (iv) and 13 of the Barristers Code of Professional Conduct 1981. Found guilty of Charges. Suspended from all practice for a period of 2 years with additional training required in handling client funds. No costs sought. 

• Mark Koren against Llewellyn Peniston (28-Nov-06): Breach of Rules 4, 6(ii), 6 (iii), 103 and 109 of the Barristers Code of Professional Conduct 1981. Found guilty of Charges. Suspended from practice for 12 months. Costs awarded to the Prosecutor in the amount of $7,500

• Bar Council against Carlsen Philip (9-Jun-05): Breach of Rule 7(3) of the Barristers (Accounts and Records) Rules 1976. Found guilty of Charge. Suspended from practice for 2 years. No costs sought by Prosecutor.

• Bar Council against Lawrence Scott (31-Jan-02): Breach of Rules 34 of the Barristers Code of Professional Conduct 1981 and Breach of Rules 4, 5 (a) through (e) of the Barristers (Accounts and Records) Rules 1976.  Found guilty of Charges. Suspended from practice for 3 months and ordered to establish a system of accounts which complies with Barristers (Accounts & Records) Rules 1976. No costs sought by Prosecutor.  

• Bar Council & Appleby Spurling & Kemp against Murray Kierans (7-May-93) Breach of Rules 6(ii) of the Barristers Code of Professional Conduct 1981. Found guilty of Charge. Fine in the amount of $1,500 payable to the Crown. No cost sought by prosecutor.

 

Disbarment/struck off the Roll of Barristers & Attorneys kept by the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Bermuda

• Bar Council v Nancy Vieira  (10-Jan-2025) Disbarred and struck off the Roll of Barristers & Attorneys. A complaint was made by the Bermuda Bar Council (the “Complainant”) against Nancy Vieira in November 2023 in contravention of section 17(1)(d)of the Bermuda Bar Act 1974 engaged in improper conduct unbefitting a barrister in breach of the Barristers’Code of Professional Conduct 1981, namely Rules 4, 6(i), (ii), and (iii). The particulars of the charges were that the said Nancy Vieira was on the 27^th day of January 2023 convicted before the Hon. Justice Juan P. Wolffe, of the following offences: (i) Obtaining a Money Transfer by Deception, contrary to section 346(1) of the Criminal Code Act 1907, (ii) Theft, contrary to section 337(1) of the Criminal Code Act 1907 (iii) Theft, contrary to section 337(1) of the Criminal Code Act 1907 and was on the 9^th day of May 2023 sentenced by the Court to Count (i) - 5 years imprisonment; Count (ii) - 3 years imprisonment; Count (iii) – 2 years imprisonment - All sentence to run concurrently with one another. Time in custody to be taken into consideration. A Disciplinary Tribunal sat on the 24^th of October 2024, the 2^nd of December 2024, and on 10^th of January 2025, and the said Tribunal, by its Judgment, dated the 10^th of January 2025, determined the said charges to be proven, and ordered that the said Nancy Vieira be Disbarred and Struck off the Roll of Barristers & Attorneys admitted to practice in Bermuda, the Roll kept by the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Bermuda pursuant to s. 54(1) of the Supreme Court Act 1905.

• Bar Council v Myron E. Simmons (Oct 2024): Disbarred and struck off the Roll of Barristers & Attorneys. Control of trust funds to be transferred to Bar Council appointed Accountant and ordered to pay costs of the Bar Association in the amount of $5,000.00. Mr. Simmons pleaded guilty to three counts of various breaches of the Rules of the Barristers' Code of Professional Conduct 1981 namely, Rules 4,6(i), 6(ii), 6(iii), 33, 39, 76, 102, 103, 107, 120 and 126, and Section 17(1)(d) of the Bermuda Bar Act 1974.  

• Irma Burrows against Llewellyn Peniston (8-Dec-2011): Disbarred and struck off the Roll of Barristers & Attorneys. Breach of Rule 6(ii) of the Barristers Code of Professional Conduct 1981. No costs sought by the Prosecutor and no fines imposed.  

• Bar Council against Robert Martyn (27-Nov-2007): Disbarred and struck off the Roll of Barristers & Attorneys. Breach of Rule 6(ii) of the Barristers Code of Professional Conduct 1981. Relied upon criminal conviction. Costs awarded to the Prosecutor in the amount of $2, 500

• Bar Council against Charles Vaucrosson (6-May-1998): Disbarred and struck off the Roll of Barristers & Attorneys. Breach of Rule 6(ii) of the Barristers Code of Professional Conduct 1981. Relied upon criminal conviction. No costs sought by the Prosecutor and no fines imposed.  

• Bar Council against Lawrence Madeiros (16-Feb-1994): Disbarred and struck off the Roll of Barristers & Attorneys. Breach of Rule 47 of the Barristers Code of Professional Conduct 1981. Relied upon criminal conviction. No costs sought by the Prosecutor and no fines imposed.  

The Registrar of the Supreme Court publishes orders that affect the status of a Barrister & Attorney if they are suspended or disbarred. The Chairman of the disciplinary Tribunal will close out the compliant by filing a Chairman’s report which shall remain private.