Lawyers in AG’s former law firm CLIENT SWAPPING
Tweet
Text Size:
SWRHA lawyer in the dark
Anika Gumbs-Sandiford
Published:
Monday, June 20, 2011
Attorney General Anand Ramlogan
A battery of attorneys from Freedom House Law Chambers—the law firm which Attorney General Anand Ramlogan formerly headed—is allegedly engaging in client swapping regarding a number of lawsuits they filed against the South West Regional Health Authority (SWRHA). Attorneys, who initiated legal action against SWRHA on their clients’ behalf, have suddenly ‘jumped ship’, and are now defending the same Regional Health Authority they brought legal action against. While ‘A-Team’ attorney, Gerald Ramdeen—who has been retained by Ramlogan together with Alan Newman, QC, Guyanese Akbar Ali, British forensic accountant Martin Hall, and local attorney Mark Seepersad, to ferret out instances of corruption and malfeasance in state enterprises—is now on record representing several claimants in numerous matters against the SWRHA. Attorneys Cindy Bhagwandeen, Kent Samlal, Rachel Maikhoo and Marissa Ramsoondar who are or were attached to Freedom House Law Chambers, previously represented the claimants.
Settlements
The matter does not end there though. Sunday Guardian investigations have unearthed that settlements are being struck behind the back of Harrikissoon and Company—the law firm that has represented the interest of the SWRHA for the past eight years. The Sunday Guardian has learnt that a retainer is paid to the law firm per month for legal services provided to SWRHA. Approximately five lawsuits per month may be filed against SWRHA by disgruntled patients seeking compensation and damages for loved ones. Sunday Guardian investigations revealed that within recent times, deals are being offered to claimants, the result of which, if accepted, brings litigation to a premature end. Under the Civil Proceedings Rules 1998 as amended, a claimant that is successful in a High Court Action may be entitled to prescribed costs which are usually calculated based on the value of the claim or the amount awarded or the amount agreed between the parties.
Depending on the matter, prescribed cost may vary anywhere from $30,000 to millions of dollars. Not only is the alleged action of some of the attorneys a breach of the Legal Profession Act, sources said, but also a conflict of interest in instances where the said attorneys initiated the matters involved. Section 26 (1) of the Act states: An attorney may represent multiple clients only if he can adequately represent the interest of each and if each consents to such representations after full disclosure of the possible effects of multiple representations. Embroiled at the centre of the controversy is Bhagwandeen, who has been retained by the Authority in a matter involving Tricia Francis against SWRHA and the Attorney General. Documents obtained by Sunday Guardian identifies Bhagwandeen as the instructing attorney in several of the lawsuits filed by Ramlogan against SWRHA before his appointment to the Attorney General’s office. Before Ramlogan’s elevation he was known for his vociferous stance in defending the civil rights of citizens. It was only recently the Attorney General stated that in some instances it was cheaper to settle ongoing matters instead of engaging in lengthy litigation disputes at the cost of taxpayers.
Bhagwandeen now defending SWRHA
Ramlogan, in handing over the Freedom House office, assured his former clients of the confidence he had in Bhagwandeen whom he had chosen to lead the Harris Street, San Fernando law chambers as he embarked on a new career path. However, in an about turn, Bhagwandeen has reportedly now been retained to represent the interests of the SWRHA. Sunday Guardian investigations revealed that sometime around February 22, the Authority retained Bhagwandeen to represent the said client. However, within days of Bhagwandeen’s retention, the firm of Harrikissoon and Company expressed surprise over the move. Concerns were raised on whether the Board was apprised that Bhagwandeen along with other colleagues attached to Freedom House Law Chamber initiated several matters against SWRHA, some of which are completed and some of which are still ongoing. Investigations further revealed that it was noted that given Bhagwandeen’s involvement in the said matters it could be perceived as a conflict on interest. The Authority was also warned of the severe implications such a move can have for both SWRHA and the Attorney General who is also a defendant in this matter and was the former head of Freedom House.
A pre-action protocol letter issued to SWRHA last August objected to the move. An excerpt of the pre-action protocol letter stated: “This matter is against SWRHA and the Attorney General. You are once again reminded of the very severe consequence that will occur as to the selection of Ms Cindy Bhagwandeen to handle the conduct of this matter. The rules quoted in the Legal Profession Act as regards to the selection of attorneys in the conduct of legal matters must be adhered to.” Harrikissoon further noted that based on the medical report dated January 20, 2010, submitted by Dr Hari D Maharaj it can be inferred that the claimant intends to seek a lucrative settlement. He said while the claimant’s attorney did not indicate any specific sum for general or special damages it was suggested that SWRHA should accept liability and then be fixed with an exorbitant claim for damages. Copies of the pre-action protocol letter were also forwarded to secretary of the board, Carol Joseph and the Authority’s fired chief executive officer, Paula Chester-Cumberbatch. No response has been forwarded to the law firm to date regarding the said matter.
Claimants offered deals
Instead, the firm has been placed in a precarious position in a Workman’s Compensation matter involving Andy Joseph against the SWRHA. Sources revealed shocking plans to settle a matter without the necessary information being related to the law firm representing the SWRHA. The claimant’s attorney brought the proposal to the knowledge of Harrikissoon and Company when the matter came up for hearing on May 24. Sources revealed that Harrikissoon objected to the proposal on the basis of two reasons—the said application ran afoul of the limitation period within which such an application can be made and the worker did not qualify under the said application. Insisting that a proposal was offered, Harrikissoon was then advised to contact the Authority’s senior legal officer to confirm the agreement. Harrikissioon confirmed in a document that a directive was given for the matter to be settled at the said hearing or else the file would be forwarded to another attorney. The decision, however, is not sitting well with the law firm as it is on record stating that they failed to concur with the view that the said matter ought to have been settled.
Bodeo brought before Health Minister
In another instance, the Authority’s chairman, Dr Lackram Bodeo was brought to the attention of Health Minister Therese Baptiste-Cornelis in the matter—CV 2011-00443 Jerrick Loutan (a minor by his mother as his next of kin and next friend Mahadaye Boodram) against SWRHA. The Sunday Guardian learnt that the law firm of Harrikissoon and Company received directions from Bodeo that the legal papers in the Jerrick Loutan matter be forwarded to attorney Larry Lalla. But further investigations revealed that Harrikissoon took issue with the stance taken, objecting to the course of action adopted by Bodeo. Citing grounds for dismissing the directive, Harrikissoon informed Bodeo that the Board is the decision maker for the Authority and not an individual member or chairman.
RHA ACT says:
The Regional Health Authority Act Ch 29:05 at Sub Section 20(1) implies that the decision to appoint an attorney to represent SWRHA is to be undertaken by the Board and not an individual director or chairman. The Regional Health Authorities like most other Statutory Corporations acts through its chief executive officers. The members of the Board are not capable of directing and or instructing the employees.
Ramdeen: Whose concern is this?
“If I as an attorney have been briefed by the Government to represent the Government in certain matters relating to probes in the investigations and I have a legal firm what is the difficulty in me suing the Regional Health Authority (RHA). Why is that allegation of any importance to anyone. My entire practice of law has been in the field of public law; my entire reputation has been based on suing the State; I don’t see why anybody is making an issue out of that. “What is the link of being part of the ‘A-Team’ and suing the RHA; the SWRHA is not under investigation.” Asked if he has been retained as the attorney for the claimant, he said: “I would have to check my records and see what matters I am listed in for the claimants. I have a team of attorneys that work with me. The matters before the High Court are matters of public record. Of whose concern is this? It is matter of public record that I represent the Attorney General in a number of matters. I do not see why is that a concern of someone who does not want to divulge what their position is? “I am briefed in a number of matters where I represent Freedom House as counsel. Only last Friday I was briefed in an Appeal to represent Freedom House against the Public Services Commission.”
Comments
Bhagwandeen responds
Confirming she has been retained by SWRHA to represent the Authority in a matter, Bhagwandeen said: “I am no longer on record for any clients who are now suing the SWRHA.” Asked if she was on record for previous clients who filed action against SWRHA, Bhagwandeen responded: “Depends on which clients you are speaking about. Clients have taken their matters elsewhere. I am not on record for any of those clients; they have chosen to take their matters to other attorneys.” Quizzed on whether she is on record for any client suing the SWRHA, Bhagwandeen replied: “I have been briefed in only one matter regarding the SWRHA and that is because I have no clients who are suing the SWRHA; so there is no conflict of interest. All my matters involving clients who had previously sued the SWRHA have been concluded or they have chosen to take their matters to other attorneys which I would have no conflict of because I would have no dealings with those matters. “I have been retained for SWRHA, not the Attorney General, and in one matter. One lonesome brief and one brief is no reason to get rid of the client or anything of the sort. The way how it’s coming across is because you all think it’s because I am affiliated to the Attorney General.”
AG responds
Commenting on the allegations, Ramlogan said: “It would be unethical for any attorney to switch lanes from representing the claimant and, thereafter represent the defendant in the same case. It would be a serious matter that would be in breach of the Legal Profession Act and may warrant disciplinary action by the Law Association if that is the case. If it is not in the same case then the concerns do not arise.” In a follow-up interview, Ramlogan added: “I have checked my own records at the ministry and my information is my former firm and the attorneys there never, never acted for the claimant. They were not retained by the State to represent the Attorney General in this matter. I am advised Bhagwandeen has been retained by SWRHA.”
SWRHA
Chairman of the SWRHA Bodeo in response to the matter via e-mail stated when he took office this Board inherited certain arrangements pertaining to the handling of legal matters in the SWRHA. These arrangements included a monthly retainer, a brief fee, and refresher payments for medical negligence cases. “It was also discovered that one law firm handled virtually all cases in the last eight (8 ) years' despite the recommendation that this firm was to receive only minor briefs and and matters relating to public law,’ Bodoe explained. Fees paid to this firm up to 2009, Bodoe said, represent a substantial sum and some of these legal matters are still ongoing. At the moment the law firm of Harrikissoon and Company, Bodoe stated, holds the briefs for the majority of legal matters. However, the Board is in the process of reviewing all legal matters and is currently compiling a panel of attorneys representing different areas of expertise and legal experience. As a result, different attorneys have been retained in a number of matters. Based on Bhagwandeen’s considerable experience in the field of medical negligence, she was assigned as instructing attorney in the matter involving the SWRHA and Tricia Francis. However, the assignment of any attorney to any case is subject to review pending finalisation of the panel. When the panel is finalised, Bodoe stated that the Board believes that the legal work of the Authority will be more equitably distributed.