DECISION OF THE DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE OF THE GENERAL LEGAL COUNCIL COMPLAINT 108/99 AND RESPONDENT

Transcription

1 DECISION OF THE DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE OF THE GENERAL LEGAL COUNCIL COMPLAINT 108/99 JAMAICA NATIONAL BUILDING SOCIETY COMPLAINANT KEVIN MARTIN AND RESPONDENT PANEL- PAMELA E. BENKA-COKER Q.C. CHAIRMAN JEROME LEE LEILA PARKER-ROBINSON The complainant was represented by attorney-at-law BYRON WARD The respondent did not appear nor was he represented. Hearing dates - e 8 April and e 15 September 00. HISTORY - The respondent Kevin Martin (hereinafter referred to as e attorney) was an attorney-at-law in private practice wi offices at 10 Swallowfield Road in e parish of St Andrew. The Jamaica National Building Society (herewi referred to as e complainant) is a Building Society duly established under e Building Societies Act. The attorney's work profile, in so far as it is relevant to ese proceedings, is as follows. Prior to his entering private practice, he was employed to e complainant as what is colloquially referred to as an in-house attorney-at-law. During e period of such employment, e complainant permitted him to contract for private legal work. After e attorney left e employ of e complainant and set up his own practice, e complainant continued to give work to e attorney. This work was concentrated in e field of conveyancing. This work involved e preparation and registration of mortgages in favour of e complainant, who would disburse e requisite loan funds to e attorney who was en obliged to pay e funds over to e vendor or his attorney-at-law. There were also situations where e attorney, acting on behalf of e vendor in a sale, would borrow e relevant duplicate certificate of title from e complainant to facilitate completion of e sale. This would be e title on which e complainant had a mortgage registered in its favour. The attorney would of course undertake to pay over to e complainant, e amount of e loan due to e complainant after e sale was completed. If ese sums were not paid over by e attorney, e complainant would be left in e unenviable position of having extinguished its security by e registered mortgage having been discharged, and e loan still remaining outstanding. In or around e year 1998; e complainant, having received letters from mortgagees complaining at alough eir mortgages had been liquidated, ey were still receiving letters from e society at eir mortgages were in arrears, instructed Mr. Delroy Bowen to conduct an investigation into e various mortgages for which funds were outstanding. Mr. Bowen conducted an audit and he discovered certain irregularities in transactions in which e attorney was involved. As a consequence of ese findings, e complainant formally laid is complaint against e attorney, and ese proceedings are being heard as a consequence of is complaint.

2 2 When is matter came up for hearing on e 8 April 00, e attorney failed to appear as required by e Rules under e Legal Profession Act. The panel satisfied itself at e attorney had been effectively served wi e Notice of Hearing and proceeded to adjudicate on e complaint. This course was open to e panel in light of Rule 8 of e four schedule to e Legal Profession Act. THE COMPLAINT - By way of formal application dated e 15 June 1999, e complainant instituted ese disciplinary proceedings against e attorney. The affidavit in support is very detailed and it will be necessary to refer to all e charges outlined erein. At e outset, counsel for e complainant indicated at he would not be proceeding wi e charge identified as (e) in its affidavit in support of e complaint. This particular paragraph refers to a transaction involving one Margaret Stewart. The panel was advised by counsel for e complainant at e sum due in at sale had been paid by e attorney. The remaining charges are as follows: (a) On e 28 October 1998, e complainant instructed e attorney to prepare an instrument of moitgage to secure a loan it had granted to one Phillip Bennett and oers. This mortgage was to be registered against premises known as Lot R54, Sydenham Avenue, Sydenham in e parish of St. Caerine and registered at Volume 954 Folio 235 of e Register Book of Titles. In pursuance of its commitment to e purchasers, e complainant, by letter dated e 23rd December 1998 forwarded e sum of $1,100,000 to e attorney to be paid over to e vendor. This sum represented at portion of e proceeds of sale secured by e mortgage. This sum was not paid over by e attorney to e attorneys-at-law for e vendor, Messers Broderick & Broderick. The complainant was obliged to send a second sum to e attorneys-at-law in e sum of $1,100, in settlement of its mortgage commitment. By letter dated e 15 January 1999, e complainant wrote to attorney asking him for an account of e monies disbursed to him in e transaction. The complainant never received a response from e attorney. (b) By letter dated e 10 November 1998, e complainant instructed e attorney to prepare an Instrument of Mortgage to secure a loan to purchasers Patrick Daley and his wife, and register same against certificate of title registered at Volume 1132 Folio718 of e Register Book of Titles. This premises is known as 1 Kimberly Court, Golden Acres in e parish of St. Andrew. The complainant forwarded its cheque to e attorney in e sum of $2,080, representing e net mortgage proceeds to settle it commitment to e vendor. The vendors advised e complainant on or around January , at ey had not received is sum from e attorney. The complainant en forwarded its cheque to e vendors, Gregory Solomon and his wife in e sum of $2,080, in settlement of e mortgage proceeds. By letter dated e 8 January, 1999, and copy letter dated January 6, e complainant, but no response on account of e monies disbursed to him by e complainant, but no response has ever received from e attorney. (c) By letter dated e 4 December 1997, e complainant instructed e attorney to prepare The Instrument of Mortgage in relation to a loan to Ricket Allen and Rhoma Allen and register e said mortgage against premises known as Lot 4, Past of Rocky Park, in e parish of Manchester and registered at Volume 955 Folio 139 of e Register Book of Titles. By letter dated e 5 February 1998, The complainant forwarded its cheque to e attorney in e sum of $1,200, This sum represented e gross mortgage proceeds to be paid over to e vendor. On or about e 5 February 1999, e complainant was advised at e vendor had not received e sum representing e mortgage proceeds from e attorney. On e 15 April 1999, The complainant paid e sum due to e vendor by sending a cheque in e sum of $1,200, to e vendor. The attorney was convicted in e Resident Magistrate's Court on criminal Charges in relation to is sum and e complainant has received no account of funds from e attorney.

3 3 (d) By letter dated e 13 October 1998, e attorney, acting as e vendor's attorney under an agreement for sale, gave his undertaking to e complainant at he would settle e sum due to e complainant under a mortgage loan which e complainant had made to one Pansy Grant and oers, after e sale had been completed. This mortgage had been secured against premises known as 1 Clievden Close and registered at Volume 1062 Folio 482 of e Register Book of Titles. The relevant duplicate certificate of Title and e Discharge of Mortgage were sent to e attorney on e basis of his undertaking. The complainant's Mortgage against e said property was duly discharged and e premises sold to e new purchasers. The attorney has failed to settle e outstanding balances due to e complainant under e mortgage at was discharged. This sum stood in e amount of$3,854, as of e 29 January Despite several requests to e attorney by e complainant to settle e outstanding sum e attorney has not responded to ese requests. (f) That by letter dated e 7 September 1998, e attorney, acting as e vendor's attorney under an agreement for sale, gave an undertaking to e complainant on behalf of its mortgagors Margaret Barrett and Sonia Ruddock to settle from e proceeds of e sale, eir indebtedness to e complainant in relation to a mortgage loan secured by a mortgage registered against premises known as Apt. No. 25 Tiffany Manor, 5 Kensington Crescent, Kingston 5 in e parish of St. Andrew. On e basis of is undertaking, e complainant forwarded to e attorney e relevant duplicate certificate of title and Discharge of Mortgage and Statements to Close. The complainant's mortgage on e said premises was du1y discharged and e premises sold. The attorney has failed to settle e sum due in e amount $1,200, Despite requests made by e complainant to e attorney, to settle e said mortgage loan, he has failed to do so. That by letter dated e August , e attorney acting on behalf of e vendors in a sale, issued an undertaking to e complainant on behalf of its mortgagors Patrick Blake and Anne-Marie Blake, to settle eir indebtedness to e complainant from e proceeds of sale. This mortgage loan had been secured by mortgages registered against premises known as Lot 355 Azalea Close, Braeton New town, in e parish of St. Caerine and gegistered at Volume 1269 Folio 592 of e Register Book of Titles. In exchange for is undertaking, e complainant sent to e attorney, e relevant duplicate certificate of title, e executed discharges of mortgages, and e statements to close. The complainant's mortgages on e said property were duly discharged, and e property sold. The attorney has failed to pay over e sum of $1,111, at was e amount due to settle e mortgage debt as at e 29 January Despite several requests made by e complainant to e attorney to settle e sums due e attorney has failed to respond. By letter dated e 7 January 1998, e attorney acting as e attorneyat-law for e vendor, gave an undertaking to e complainant on behalf of its mortgagors Sonia Reid and Suzette Parker to settle eir indebtedness to e complainant from e proceeds of sale. The mortgage had been registered against premises known as Lot 16, Part of Waterloo Gardens, Kingston 10 in e parish of St. Andrew, and registered at Volume 959 Folio 336 of e Register Book of Titles. On e basis of e aforesaid undertaking, e complainant sent to e attorney, Duplicate Certificate of title, e relevant Discharge of Mortgage and Statement to Close. The complainant's mortgage on e said security was duly discharged and e security sold by e complainant's mortgagors. The sum due to e complainant to liquidate e said mortgage loan at January stood at $2,660, Despite several requests made by e complainant to e attorney to settle e outstanding mortgage loan, ere has been no response from e attorney and he has not paid e sum due. (g) (h) /

4 4 It is furer stated in e affidavit at at all material times e attorney was e only attorney wi whom e complainant dealt in all e transactions alough e attorney practiced under e name of Kevin Martin & Co. and at e complainant was seeking to recover e sum of $13,833, from e attorney. (This sum is now less due to e widrawal of complaint (e).) The formal charges in e affidavit are as follows: The attorney has failed to provide all information as to e progress of e complainant's business wi due expedition, alough it has reasonably required him to do so. He has not dealt wi complainant's business wi allude expedition. He has acted wi inexcusable or deplorable negligence in e performance of his duties. He has not accounted to e complainant for all monies in his hands for its account or credit, alough it has reasonably required him to do so. THE EVIDENCE ; Mr. Delroy Bowen gave evidence in support of e complaint. He is e same person who swore to e affidavit deposed to by e complainant. He gave evidence at he was employed to e complainant as Executive Officer responsible for compliance and administration. He was asked to carry out an investigation in relation to various mortgages on which monies were outstanding. As a consequence of e audit he was assigned to conduct, e witness had two or ree interviews wi e attorney. He had commenced e audit because of few mortgagors complained at ey were receiving mortgage arrears letters for mortgage loans ey had already repaid. Vendors complained at ey had not received e proceeds of sale of eir properties. These complaints started in or around The attorney had written to e complainant by letter dated e 7 January 1998, advising e complainant at he acted on behalf of e vendors Sonia Reid and Suzette Parker and requested e following documents: Duplicate Certificate of Title Discharge of Mortgage Statement to Close to February It is to be noted at e evidence now being recounted relates to complaint listed as (h) in e affidavit in support of e Application. In e said letter, e attorney undertook e settle e indebtedness of e vendors to e complainant from e sale proceeds. The letter, e Statement to Close, a copy of e Certificate of Title, letter dated e 21 st May 1998 written by e complainant to e attorney, letter dated e 28 October 1999 by e complainant to e attorney, and letter dated e 30 November 1998 from e complainant were tendered as exhibit 1. On an examination of e Certificate of Title registered at Volume 959 Folio 336 of e Register Book of Titles it will be seen at mortga~e No was granted to complainant by e vendors and registered on e 19 April The said mortgage was discharged on e 12 February 1998 and e Transfer registered in e name of e purchasers on e same 12 February In its letter dated e 21 st May 1998, e complainant enquired of e attorney about e delay in e settlement of e mortgage debt. And asked at e documents be returned to e complainant if e sale was not closed by e 30 June A new Statement to Close was also sent to e attorney under cover of at letter. The complainant, in its letter of e 28 October 1998 again queried e status of e sale and made a demand for e return of its documents.

5 5 In his letter of e 30 November 1998, e attorney wrote saying at he was enclosing a cheque in e amount of $285, to payoff e arrears on e mortgage account. This amount was not paid nor did e attorney settle e mortgage account. The witness gave e following evidence in relation to e complaint listed as (a) in e affidavit in support of e complaint. By letter dated e 28 October 1998, e complainant wrote to e attorney instructing him to prepare Instrument of Mortgage in e amount of $2,867, to secure a loan being made to Phillip Bennett et al. This letter along wi letter dated e 27 November 1998, from e attorney to e complainant, letter dated e 15 January 1999 from e complainant to Messers Broderick & Broderick, attorneys-at-law were tendered as exhibit 2 The attorney, under cover of letter dated e 27 November 1998, confirmed at he had duly carried out e complainant's instructions and returned e complaint's documents to it. The mortgage in favour of e complainant was duly registered on e Duplicate Certificate of Title securing e loan granted to e said Phillip Bennett et al. Under cover of letter dated e 23rd December 1998, e complainant sent to e attorney a Statement of Proceeds along wi a cheque in e amount of $1,100, e amount of e mortgage loan. On or around e 12 January 1999, e complainant was advised at e vendors had not received e proceeds of e mortgage loan from e attorney. By letter dated e 15 January 1999, e complainant replaced e sum it had already sent to e attorney by sending cheque No in e sum of $1,100, to Broderick & Broderick. The attorney never refunded is sum to e complainant. Exhibits tendered in evidence as 8 and 8A corroborate is evidence. Exhibit 8, cheque No demonstrates at e attorney negotiated e complainant's cheque in e amount of $1,100, Exhibit 8A is cheque No made payable to Broderick & Broderick in e sum of$i,100, Under e charge numbered (b), e attorney was instructed by e complainant to prepare Instrument of Mortgage to secure a loan to Patrick Daley and his wife. These instructions were contained in e complainant's letter to e attorney dated e 10 November 1998 and all e necessary documentation was sent to e attorney to enable him to fulfill ese instructions. On e 17 December 1998, e complainant sent e mortgage proceeds in e amount of $2,080, to e attorney. This sum should have been paid over to e vendor. The attorney failed to pay over e said sum to e vendor. The complainant paid a second sum in e same amount to e vendor. The complainant subsequently wrote to e attorney enquiring about e status of e matter. The attorney has not responded to is request not has he refunded e sum to e complainant. The following documents were admitted in evidence as exhibit Letter dated e 10 November 1998 by e complainant to e attorney. Letter dated 10 December 1998, e attorney to e complainant. Letter dated e 17 December 1998 from e attorney to e complainant Fax dated e 4 January 1999 from e complainant to e attorney. Two letters dated e 6 January 1999 from e complainant to e vendors. Letter dated e 6 January 1999 to attorneys-at-law Gifford, Thompson & Bright. Complimentary slip from e complainant to e attorney indicating at it had sent copy letters dated e 6 January 1999 to e attorney. In continuing his evidence, Mr. Bowen stated at e complainant instructed e attorney to prepare Instrument of Mortgage on behalf of Rhoma and Rickert Allen. He was auorized to register e said mortgage against premises Lot 4, Part of Rocky Park in e parish of Manchester and registered at Volume 955 Folio 139 of e Register Book of Titles. This mortgage was in e amount of$i,200, The attorney carried out e instructions he was given and provided proof by way of letter dated e 7 January The complainant sent a cheque in e amount of $1,200, to e attorney to be paid over to e vendor.

6 6 This transaction is e one adumbrated in paragraph in e affidavit in support of e complaint, and for which e attorney was convicted. The attorney has never accounted to e complainant for ese funds. Letters dated e 4 December 1997, 7 January 1998, and e 5 February 1998 were admitted in evidence as exhibit 4. Pansy and Washington Grant were mortgagors of e complainant. They sold e property, 1 Clievden Close on which e complainant's mortgage was registered. The attorney acted on behalf of e Grants in is sale. The attorney by letter dated e 13 October 1998, formally requested all relevant documents from e complainant on his undertaking to settle e indebtedness of e Grants to e complainant from e proceeds of sale. The complainant forwarded e documents to e attorney including e duplicate certificate of title registered at Volume 1062 Folio 482 of e Register Book of Titles. The complainant has not yet received e amount of e debt from e attorney. The amount outstanding is $3,854, Letter dated e 13 October 1998, letter dated e 23rd November 1998, Statement to Close dated November , were tendered as exhibit 5. This evidence relates to complaint (d) in e affidavit in support of e complaint. The complaint at paragraph (f) of e affidavit in support of e complaint is similar in circumstances to at at paragraph (d). The attorney had carriage of sale in relation to property registered at Volume 1270 Folio 298,in e names of Sonia Ruddock and Margaret Barrett. The attorney requested at e complainant provide him wi e necessary documentation to complete e sale, on his undertaking to settle e indebtedness of e mortgagors from e sale proceeds. In is instance, e complainant did not forward e documents directly to e attorney but instead secured e services of e firm of Watson & Watson to protect its interests. The relevant documentation was sent to e attorney by e said firm of Watson & Watson on his undertaking not to do anying to e prejudice of e complainant and not to make use of e documents unless he was able to liquidate e total indebtedness of e vendors to e complainant. The property was transferred to e purchasers and e total amount of e mortgage proceeds paid over to e attorney by e National Housing Trust in e amount of $1,200, The exhibits disclose at e attorney was paid ese proceeds on e 8 December 1998, and he acknowledged receipt of is sum on e 14December The attorney has never accounted to e complainant for is amount. Letter dated e 7 September 1998 wi auorisation annexed, Agreement for Sale, letter dated e 17September 1998, Statement to Close, letter dated e 18September 1997, letter from Watson & Watson e attorney which is incorrectly dated, and letter from Watson and Watson to e complainant were admitted in evidence as exhibit 6. Under complaint numbered (g), by letter dated e zo" August 1998, e attorney, acting as e vendor's attorney-at-law, issued an undertaking to e complainant, at he would settle e vendor's indebtedness to e complainant on e completion of e sale. In return for is undertaking he requested from e complainant and obtained inter alia, e duplicate certificate of title registered at Vol Fol. 592 of e Register Book of Titles, and Discharge of Mortgage. These documents were sent to e attorney by e complainant under cover of letter dated e 28August The attorney failed to liquidate e vendors' indebtedness to e complainant from e sale proceeds. The following documents were admitted in evidence as exhibit 7: letters dated e 20 August 1998, e 18August 1998, 28August 1998, and Statement to Close. On e resumption of e hearing of is complaint on e 15September 00, e witness Delroy Bowen continued his evidence. This evidence was largely concerned wi admitting additional documentation in support of e complaints. Cheque No was tendered in evidence as exhibit 9. This is e cheque at e complainant sent to e attorney for him to pay over e mortgage proceeds to e vendor. The attorney failed to pay over e proceeds to e vendor and e complainant had to

7 7 replace e funds by sending cheque No to e vendors Gregory and Alea Salmon. The above cheques related to e charge numbered (b) in e affidavit in support of complaint. A copy of cheque No was admitted in evidence as exhibit 10. This cheque in e amount of $1,200, was paid to e attorney by e complainant to be paid to e vendor. This cheque represented e mortgage proceeds. The attorney did not pay is sum to e vendor and e complainant had to replace is amount. This was done by cheque No This cheque was admitted in evidence as exhibit loa. These exhibits relate to complaint No.. Exhibit 11 is a record of entries made in e current account of e complainant at e National Commercial Bank. This record discloses at at cheque No was lodged to and negotiated rough e account of e complainant. Exhibit 12 is a copy of e certificate of title registered at Volume 1269 Folio 592 of e Register Book of Titles. This exhibit relates to complaint (g). This exhibit confirms at e sale in which e attorney had carriage of sale was completed but e attorney did not settle e vendors' indebtedness to e complainant. Exhibit 13 is a copy of e certificate of title registered at Volume 959 Folio 336 This ex relates to complainant (h). This exhibit discloses at e attorney, having carriage of sale under e relevant transaction, completed e sale. He failed to satisfy e vendors' indebtedness to e complainant. Exhibit 14 is a copy of e certificate of title registered at Volume 1270 Folio 298. This relates to complaint (h). This exhibit confirms at e sale in which e attorney acted on behalf of e vendors was complete but he did not satisfy e vendors' indebtedness to e complainant. The total sum owed by e attorney to e complainant under all e above transactions and for which he has failed to account to e complainant is $17,586, The above is a fair narration of e evidence adduced in support of e complaint by e complainant, e Jamaica National Building Society. As has already been stated e attorney failed to appear at e hearing of is complaint. The only evidence, which is panel has before it is at supplied by e complainant. This is e evidence at e panel is constrained to evaluate. The allegations made against e attorney are very serious ones indeed, and involve impropriety and dishonesty in dealing wi money for which he was liable to account to e complainant. We are mindful of e fact at, in Law e burden of proof rests on e complainant to prove e allegations to e standard of proof demanded in a case such as is. The standard of proof, or level to which e evidence must rise, is "beyond reasonable doubt." This was confirmed in e leading Privy Council decision of Bhandari v Advocates Committee reported at 1956, 3 All E.R. p 743. In e light of e above statements of principle by which we are guided, we have carefully examined e evidence adduced on behalf of e complainant. We have no reason to doubt e veracity of e witness Delroy Bowen. But even more importantly, e complainant, in support of its complaint produced copious and detailed documentary evidence. This documentary evidence corroborated all e charges in e affidavit of e complainant in every material particular. We are of e considered opinion at all e charges listed, at is e charges at paragraphs (a) (b) (c) (d) (f) (g) (h) of e said affidavit have been proven beyond reasonable doubt. There is an abundance of evidence clearly establishing at e attorney committed e various acts of which he stands accused.

8 8 Pursuant to our evaluation, we erefore make e following findings of fact and mixed law and fact as we are obliged to do in keeping wi section 15 of e Legal Profession Act. FINDINGS OF FACT AND MIXED LAW AND FACT 1. The complainant frequently instructed e attorney to effect conveyancing transactions on its behalf. 2. That it instructed e attorney to prepare and register a mortgage in its favour over land being purchased by Phillip Bennett and oers. The attorney registered e mortgage. The complainant sent e mortgage proceeds in e sum of $1, 100, to e attorney to be paid to e vendor. The attorney did not pay is sum to e vendor and e complainant replaced e said sum. The attorney has not accounted to e complainant for is sum. 3. The attorney was instructed by e complainant to prepare and register Instrument of mortgage over land being purchased by Patrick Daley and his wife. The attorney carried out ese instructions. The complainant sent e mortgage proceeds to e attorney to be paid to e vendor in e amount of $2,080, This sum was not paid to e vendor by e attorney. The complainant sent e said amount to e vendors Gregory Salmon and his wife in settlement of eir obligation to e vendors. The attorney has failed to account to e complainant for is sum. 4. The attorney was instructed by e complainant to prepare Instrument of Mortgage over land being purchased by Rickert and Roma Allen. The Attorney carried out ese instructions. The complainant sent e mortgage proceeds to e attorney in e amount of $1,200, to be paid over to e vendors. The attorney did not pay over is sum to e vendors. The attorney was also convicted of a criminal offence in relation to is sum. The complainant also had to replace is sum in satisfaction of its obligation to e vendor. 5. The attorney breached his undertaking to e complainant and failed to pay over e sum of $3,854, in satisfaction of e mortgage debt owed to e complainant by Pansy Grant and her husband after e sale of e subject property had been completed by him. The attorney has not responded to e complainant to its requests for an account of ese sums. 6. The attorney breached his undertaking to e complainant and failed to pay over e sum of $1,200, to e complainant in satisfaction of e mortgage debt which Margaret Barrett and Sonia Ruddock had owed to e complainant. The sale was completed but e attorney has failed to account to e complainant for is sum. 7. The attorney breached his undertaking and failed to pay over to e complainant e sum of $1,111, in satisfaction of e mortgage debt owed to it by Patrick and Anne-Marie Blake. The sale was completed but e attorney has not accounted to e complainant for is sum. 8. The attorney breached his undertaking and failed to pay over to e complainant, e sum of$2,660, in satisfaction of e mortgage debt owed by Sonia Reid and Suzette Parker to e complainant. The sale was completed but e attorney has failed to account to e complainant for is sum. 9. To date e attorney has failed to account to e complainant for a total sum of $17,586, DECISION: The Committee, in applying e law to e facts, and in pursuance of e required standard of proof, is of e unanimous opinion at e attorney is guilty of grave dishonesty and pursued a course of conduct calculated to deprive e complainant of large sums of money lawfully due to it. There is no doubt at all at on ese facts, e attorney is guilty of misconduct in a professional respect. We find at e attorney has breached Canons IV and VII (b) (ii) in at he has failed to provide e complainant wi all information as to e progress of e its business wi due expedition when reasonably required by e complainant to do so. He has also failed to account to e complainant for all monies in his hands for e account or credit of e complainant.

9 9 The Committee makes no findings wi regards to e allegations of negligence and inexcusable delay on e part of e attorney in e conduct of e business of e complainant. Having found e attorney guilty of misconduct in a professional respect, e Committee now has e unenviable task of imposing e appropriate sanction on e attorney. This is always difficult, but on e facts of is case, we are of e view at e attorney must pay e ultimate penalty. No mitigating factors are before us. In keeping wi powers given to us under section 12 (4) of e Legal Profession make e following orders: Act, we 1 That e name of e Attorney Kevin L. Martin be struck from e Roll of Attorneys-at-Law entitled to practise in e several Courts of e Island of Jamaica. 2 That e said Attorney-at-Law Kevin L. Martin pays e sum of $17,586, wi interest, by way of restitution to e complainant e Jamaica National Building Society. The interest will continue to run until e full sum due is liquidated. 3 Costs $50, of be paid to e Complainant by e Attorney Kevin L. Martin. DATEDTHE~4 DAY OF ~d, ~ ~- E:::::.---- AMELA E. BENKA-COKER Q.C. JERO~ LEILA PARKER-ROBINSON