The eligibility of an attorney to be granted general admission is determinable by a three-pronged test: that he/she meets the qualification under s. 5(1) of the LPO, that he/she has gained the requisite experience under s. 5(2) thereof, and that in the view of the Chief Justice, he/she is a fit and proper person to be so admitted (para 74).
Application for general admission was granted to Mr Mitchell QC. However, in accordance with s 4(2) of the LPO, he is not to be issued with a practicing certificate until one day after the case(s) for which he has been granted limited admission is/are concluded.
The applicant met the training requirements set out in s. 5(2) of the LPO which include not less than three months’ training in the practice of law under the supervision of an Attorney admitted to practice in the Islands for not less than two years. Mrs Brooks, admitted since 2003, swore an affidavit that he received the requisite training under her supervision. The Bar Council, which objected on the ground that the matters stated as training are in fact all matters in respect of which the applicant has been given limited admission, failed to demonstrate that the wide range of matters said to constitute the training in the three month period preceding the bringing of the application are all in fact matters for which the applicant holds limited admission. And in the absence of a sufficient challenge of the assertion that in the applicant did receive the requisite training, the court refused to throw out Mrs Brooks’ affidavit (paras 33-40).
The court accepted Mr Rigby’s argument on behalf of the Bar Council that it would be absurd for the relevant provisions of the LPO to be read to permit the use of the expertise for which a person is given limited admission, as the experience required under s. 5(2) of the LPO. But that is not the situation in this application, where Mrs Brooks’ affidavit deposing to the requisite three months’ training has not been discredited. Further, there is no statute barring the applicant from receiving the requisite training while admitted under a limited admission certificate, but such training ought necessarily to be independent of the matters in respect of which he holds limited admission (paras 43-54).
The court declined to consider the admissions requirements referred to in the draft Legal Profession Regulations as these regulations have not been promulgated by the Chief Justice and therefore do not have the force of Regulations (paras 55-62).
The court found that even though Mrs Brooks, the sponsor and supervisor of the applicant, withdrew from representing him, and that this was a departure from the norm, s. 6 of the LPO does not require an attorney who trained the applicant, or who needs the applicant in his firm, to apply on his behalf. All that is required is proof of supervised training (paras 63-38).
Loading PDF...
This document is 657.3 KB. Do you want to load it?