This is why lawyers left, Senator Tavares-Finson

I have been remiss in not issuing this follow-up post for the benefit of Senator Tavares-Finson. Senator Tavares-Finson would have us believe that the Attorney General is a paragon of virtue who has been unfairly blamed for the exodus from her Chambers. A good friend and supporter of the blog has suggested a few reasons for the exodus. Senator Tavares-Finson might wish to consider them when he is through flying over the AG's nest.


Here goes:


1. The AG directed then Acting SG Patrick Foster to take over a case from Nicole 3Foster Pusey when the latter had argued a point contrary to the JLP's position regarding the election in Eastern Hanover. The point that she argued was accepted by the court as good law. Why would the AG seek to intervene in a case of such a sensitive nature, but more in the "party political" meaning of sensitivity?



2.The AG directed the Executive Committee to cease and desist from making recommendations for appointments and promotions in the Chambers. She later reiterated this view at a general meeting of attorneys where she indicated that she was to be involved in any such decisions. Why would the AG, as a politician, seek to be involved in the staffing of the public service in this way? This was a concern, though she never actually made any recommendations in that area.



3. The AG commanded the Department to take no steps in seeking clarification of Jones J's order in the Lackston Robinson case, despite their being good grounds for seeking this clarification. In the context of at least one other case, Jones J's order was not the model of clarity. Bear in mind that, at the time, Mr. Robinson had two appeals pending against Government in that area. Was it appropriate for him to resume duties in the Department that had conduct of the respondent's case?



4. The AG sought to publicly vilify Prof. Vasciannie in the Senate regarding the Trafigura Affair, for the sin of advising the government on what needed to be done to facilitate an investigation (and for also pointing out the implications of not facilitating the investigation). She certainly broke tradition when she tackled the matter the way she did that day. This may be seen in the context of her opposition to his appointment as SG, and her ceasing to seek his advice thereafter on any matter.



5. The AG ranted at the Acting SG when he recommended that Nicole Foster Pusey act as Deputy SG, while he was acting as SG. When a new SG was appointed the Acting SG would revert to his post as Deputy SG, and Nicole would revert to her post as Director. One does not need to be a particle physicist to see the connection between that and the almost immediate withdrawal, without any reason being given, of the approval previously given to that recommendation, certainly by the Chief Personnel Officer and arguably on behalf of the Public Service Commission, a practice previously sanctioned with respect to acting appointments.



6. the AG insisted that the FINSAC files be retrieved from Mike Hylton (where they were at FINSAC's request) and be dealt with by the Chambers. It became obvious immediately that the Chambers, with its current workload and its depleted staff, could not take those files "cold" and argue the upcoming appeal in the Paul Chen Young case at the designated time, so the matter had to be farmed out to another private lawyer whose first action was, of course, to seek a postponement of the appeal so that he could prepare.



7. The direct, and angry intervention of the AG when Nicole Foster Pusey agreed not to pursue costs against Abe Dabdoub after his victory in the courts over Daryl Vaz. It may be noted that Dabdoub lost on the point involving the Returning Officer and the Chambers. Bear in mind that Dabdoub had actually withdrawn his original Petition and replaced it with one in which he did not actively pursue the case against the Returning Officer and the Attorney General. A question of interest would be: should costs be paid by him in that context?



For the benefit of Senator Tavares-Finson, and others of like mind, it was instances such as these that led some members to reason and ask themselves why should they have to put up with situations like that, particularly when they were being paid quite inadequately for the hard work and level of skill they brought to bear on the work that they were doing.


The AG has not always been an ogre in her dealings with the Chambers. In fact some members of staff have noted that she has been consistently pleasant in her dealings with them. It makes one wonder why she chose to be so unpleasant in her dealings with others and with certain issues. Was that in keeping with her nature, or was she "only obeying orders"?

Read More...

Patrick Foster replies to Tom Tavares-Finson

I am belatedly mentioning that Patrick Foster, QC, replied comprehensively to Tom Tavares-Finson's specious claims about the AG's Chambers. Patrick's letter appeared in the Observer of July 13, 2008:

http://jamaicaobserver.com/letters/html/20080712t220000-0500_137806_obs_so_unfair__senator_tavares_finson_.asp



Patrick asserted that in his "capacity as deputy solicitor-general and acting solicitor-general", he had had "detailed discussions with all the attorneys who have recently resigned from the Chambers and none have indicated to me that their resignations were related to the attorney-general's review of the fee arrangements in the Chambers". Unless Tom Tavares-Finson can demonstrate that Patrick is being untruthful, I do believe he owes an apology (at the very least) to the lawyers of the Chambers.

Patrick indicated that the attorneys left for a variety of reasons, but declined to disclose any of them. I think this is a pity, as I do think that the public does deserve to know in clear and unambiguous terms the reasons for this unprecedented exodus from the AG's Chambers.


Patrick made it clear that none of the attorneys had any objection to the AG's review of the fee-charging practice. Similarly, none of the attorneys had any objection to the AG setting or reviewing policy in this area. He clarified that this practice is authorized by the Staff Orders, a minor detail that Tavares-Finson omitted to mention in his assault on the lawyers of the Chambers. It is curious, but not surprising, that the AG herself is yet to speak on the matter, either to defend her staff or to correct Tom Tavares-Finson's wild allegations.

I am still hoping that former staff lawyers at the AG's Chambers will step forward and disclose precisely what has transpired since Dorothy Lightbourne became AG in September 2007. This is not a private matter, and the public interest demands full disclosure, in my view. I suspect that public servants are loathe to expose malfeasance or abuse of authority occurring in their departments. Presumably, this is in keeping with the culture imposed by the Official Secrets Act. For me, remaining silent is the equivalent of protecting those would abuse the authority that has been entrusted to them by the public.

We will see.

Read More...

One flew over the AG's nest?

JLP Senator Tom Tavares-Finson is a senior lawyer of many years standing. According to the Daily Observer (July 09, 2008), during last Friday's Senate sitting the goodly senator reportedly claimed the existence of "an obvious correlation between recent departures from the Attorney General's Department and the current review of the practice of employees collecting payments for work done for Government agencies."

Senator Tavares-Finson claimed that "Government lawyers were charging fees equivalent to those charged by lawyers in private practice to do Government work and were being paid with taxpayers' money." According to Tavares-Finson J$40.9 million was collected by "a few enterprising senior lawyers (at the AG's Department)." He emphasized that "this money was shared by a few lawyers and, while I have no intention of calling any names, let me say that there seems to me to be an obvious correlation between the recent departures and the beneficiaries of this largesse".



Tavares-Finson then concluded that:

* the review of the earning capacity of senior Government lawyers, as well as the attorney general's decision to review employment practices in the department were at the root of the tensions within the department.

* Efforts to blame resignations on the management style of the attorney general are groundless.

It seems that Tavares-Finson's flight over the AG's nest has rendered him impervious to logic, evidence, or just plain decency. Certainly, given the silence of the AG so far, it is fair to assume that Tavares-Finson views coincide with her own. Essentially, Tavares-Finson has accused government lawyers of running a fee-charging racket on at taxpayers' expense, and then walking away in a huff when the racket was stopped by the AG.

I am reliably informed that Tavares-Finson made no inquiries of any of the senior lawyers at the AG's Chambers about the fees supposedly collected. If indeed the fee-charging scheme is under review, why not wait until the review has been completed and documented before attacking these lawyers? Again, my information is that lawyers who did private work (for statutory bodies, for example) earned no more than J$30,000 (each) per annum, on average. If Tavares-Finson has evidence of lawyers collecting J$40M, does he not have an obligation to produce the evidence? Where would Tavares-Finson get this 'information' from other than Dorothy Lightbourne? It is curious that the AG has never publicly attributed the exodus of lawyers to internal disputes over the fee issue. by innuendo, Tavares-Finson has accused senior lawyers like Stephen Vasciannie, Patrick Foster, Nicole Lambert, et al of (a) being "beneficiaries" of "largesse" and (b) departing when the largesse was supposedly cut off. This is outrageous. I would challenge Tavares-Finson to repeat his claim outside of parliament, where his word would not be protected by absolute privilege.

How can Tavares-Finson credibly exonerate the AG given the history of her tenure at the AG's Chambers? How does Tavares-Finson explain that no AG in Jamaica's history has suffered an exodus of almost 1/3 of their Chambers in under a year? Does he seriously believe that Patrick Foster opted to leave before his contract was up, because he was being deprived of an extra $30,000 per annum? Is Tavares-Finson aware that some lawyers resigned before they had identified an alternative? Is he also aware that the AG pointedly accused some lawyers of being PNP sympathizers? Why does he ignore the fact that the AG contrived to derail Stephen Vasciannie's nomination as SG? What about the withdrawal of Nicole Foster-Pusey's acting appointment? How about the AG's interference in litigation being conducted under the supervision of the then acting Solicitor General? If the AG's management style is so stellar, why hasn't the AG's Chambers so far not succeeded in replacing the lawyers who have departed? Why, for example, is there no replacement yet for Stephen Vasciannie, as head of the international division? Why are there currently no Deputies-Solicitor General? I could go on and on.


Lawyers of the AG's Chambers, past and present, need to stand up and firmly rebuff this scandalous assault on their reputations. Nothing less will suffice.

Read More...