Barbara Gayle, Staff Reporter

The General Legal Council (GLC) is challenging a Court of Appeal ruling last year that it is not authorised by law to make regulations requiring attorneys-at-law to submit accounts or accountants' reports to the GLC.

A motion has been filed in the Court of Appeal seeking leave to appeal to the United Kingdom Privy Council against the ruling in December last year. The motion came for hearing on Monday but was put off because the lawyer representing the respondent was not notified of the date for the application to be heard.

Attorney-at-law Antonnette Haughton Cardenas, the respondent, had challenged the GLC's assumed right to make regulations requiring attorneys-at-law to submit yearly accounts or accountants' reports to the GLC.

She was summoned before the disciplinary committee of the GLC on May 20, 2006, for her failure to submit accountants' reports for the years 1999 and 2000. The GLC contended that because of her failure to do so, she might be in breach of the Legal Profession (Canons of Professional Ethics) Rules and the Legal Profession (Accounts and Records) Regulations, 1999. She had produced reports for the years 2001 to 2004.

Attorney-at-law Paul Beswick, who is represen-ting her, took a preliminary point before the committee in July 2006 that the GLC had no power to make regulations requiring lawyers to deliver accounts or accountants' reports to the GLC.

Ruled in attorney's favour

The committee rejected Beswick's submissions and Haughton Cardenas took the issue to the Court of Appeal which, on December 20 last year, ruled in her favour.

Attorney-at-law John Vassell, QC, who represented the GLC, had argued before the Court of Appeal that the question of integrity in the handling of clients' monies was crucial and the regulations were aimed at protecting that. He said the words "take such action" in Section 35 (2) of the Legal Profession Act were wide enough to include the power to make rules or regulations.

President of the Court of Appeal, Seymour Panton, Justice Karl Harrison and Justice Hazel Harris allowed the appeal. The court ruled that "the legislature has clearly demonstrated that the authority to make regulations does not go beyond the maintenance of clients' accounts at banks and the keeping of a record of money transactions for or on account of clients".

The court said that if the legislature had intended the GLC to have the power to make regulations other than in relation to the two areas mentioned, it would have said so in Section 35 (1) of the Legal Profession Act.