Joel, Re [2019] VULCDC 1 (29 April 2019)

Disciplinary Committee Hearing 13 March 2019

Present: Mr G.A. Andrée Wiltens, Chair

Ms S. Shah, Member

Mr F. Gilu, Member

Mr D. Russet, Member

Ms V.M. Trief, Secretary

Mr J-M Pierre, as a witness

Decision: 29 April 2019

Complaint by JM Pierre against Mr ST Joel

1. Introduction
   

1. This complaint was made on 23 March 2018. Mr Pierre alleges that in 2010 he was defamed. He subsequently instructed Mr Joel to sue those he felt responsible for defamation, which Mr Joel duly did. The Claim was subsequently struck out for want of prosecution in 2014. Mr Pierre complains of having received poor service and inadequate attention to his claim.
   
2. Mr Pierre paid VT 110,000 in legal fees for services that he alleges were not rendered professionally, and in circumstances where what he was being told as to progress of his claim by Mr Joel and his staff, in particular Mrs Joel, was simply untrue.
   
3. Mr Joel did not attend the hearing, but he had filed a sworn statement dated 28 November 2018 as his response to the allegations. He does not dispute the majority of the facts alleged. He conceded a breakdown of the client/lawyer relationship, but attributed that largely due to Mr Pierre writing a letter to him dated 24 August 2013 which was highly critical, and which made continuing to represent Mr Pierre difficult. He relies on a letter in response he sent to Mr Pierre dated 13 September 2013, inviting Mr Pierre to collect his file – which letter was not acted upon by Mr Pierre.
   
4. Mr Joel pointed out that he was incapacitated due to poor health from late March 2014 through until August 2014, and he provided the Committee with a medical certificate in support. While so incapacitated, Mr Joel was unable to attend to Mr Pierre’s case, and that was the reason Mr Pierre’s claim was struck out. Mr Joel offered to refund all Mr Pierre’s money paid by way of legal fees.
   
5. Mr Pierre appeared at the hearing. He added little to his written complaint; but he was asked to respond to some matters Mr Joel had put before the Committee. He accepted Mr Joel’s offer of full repayment of the VT 110,000 fees; but wanted the Committee to go on to consider the complaint as he remained dissatisfied at level of legal service he received. He still maintains he had a good case for defamation, but all prospects of holding those responsible accountable for that has evaporated. He remains aggrieved.
   
   2. Background
      
6. In November 2010, the Independent newspaper reported on a Lands case in a manner which Mr Pierre considered to be defamatory of him. He subsequently instructed Mr Joel to sue the newspaper and the author of the allegedly offending article.
   
7. On 20 August 2012, the Claim for damages based on the alleged defamation was filed in the Supreme Court.
   
8. On 24 January 2013, the Supreme Court gave Mr Joel Notice, under Rule 5.3, that as no proof of service had been provided, the Claim was of no effect.
   
9. On 10 September 2013, Mr Joel wrote to the Supreme Court advising that service of the Claim on the defendants had indeed been effected in time, and that a proof of service would be filed shortly.
   
10. On 17 September 2013 proof of service was filed.
    
11. On 4 October 2013 a Defence was filed.
    
12. On 22 April 2014 the Supreme Court called a First Conference to be held on 2 May 2014.
    
13. On 2 May 2014, there was no appearance by Mr Joel. The Court noted that there was also no sworn statement filed in support of the Claim. The Conference was adjourned to 23 May 2014.
    
14. On 23 May 2014, there was no appearance by Mr Joel. The Conference was further adjourned to 12 June 2014, with a direction for Mr Joel to attend and explain why the matter should not be struck out.
    
15. On 12 June 2014, there was no appearance by Mr Joel or his client. There was also still no sworn statement filed in support of the Claim. The Claim was struck out.
    
    100. Discussion
         
16. Mr Joel’s response to the complaint of 28 November 2018 did not directly address the issue of delay and/or disinterest in his dealing with Mr Pierre’s Claim.
    
17. To support the Claim, a sworn statement by Mr Pierre was required. There was no attempt to undertake this necessary step, at any stage, in Mr Joel’s handling of Mr Pierre’s defamation case. Without that, the Claim simply could not proceed beyond the very preliminary stages. Between August 2012 and June 2014, this vital piece of work remained uncompleted.
    
18. There is no explanation why, given that service had been effected in time, no proof of service was filed at Court – a step required to set in motion the filing of a defence and the scheduling of a first conference. Between January and September 2013, nothing appears to have been done to progress the Claim. After 4 October 2013 when the Defence was filed, Mr Joel did not request the Court to schedule a first conference – he simply waited for the Court to act of its own motion.