Barbados Court Of Appeal Says Thief Lawyer Mortimer Clarke OK To Practice Law

Barbados Lawyers And Judges Can’t Be Too Hard On Their Own – They Never Know When They Might Need A Light Sentence Too!

True to form, the old boys’ network reluctantly imposed only a nine-month suspension on a Barbados lawyer who was caught stealing $150,000 of client’s money from his “trust” account. Just to put this in perspective, anywhere in the civilized world a lawyer could expect a year or two in jail and permanent disbarment for similar activities. Not so in Barbados where the legal profession is apparently happy to accept Mortimer Clarke back into its welcoming arms after he has a little vacation. (“Pity you had a client complain, Morty old chap. We’ll have to make a show of it for a few months. Hope you understand.”)

By international standards, this laughable “sentence” against Attorney Mortimer Clarke isn’t a “slap on the wrist” – it is a kiss and a hug. But you’d never know that from the Nation News article that declares the decision read by Chief Justice Sir David Simmons was “tough talking”. (link here)

My fellow citizens, a nine-month suspension for a crooked lawyer is a national disgrace. More than that, it threatens our status as an offshore center for finance and corporations and it dirties the reputation of every honest Barbados lawyer.

A teacher who molests students has broken a sacred trust and for this reason is punished more severely than an ordinary person. Similarly a police officer who steals property under his care can look forward to more jail time than an ordinary thief.

There are good reasons for this standard, but in Barbados our lawyers have other standards.

Please take the time to read our original article on the Mortimer Clarke case and then let Barbados lawyers know how you feel about their profession.

BFP, April 24, 2008: Barbados Bar Association Condones Theft From Clients – And Destroys The Reputation Of Honest Bajan Lawyers

Advertisements

53 Comments

Filed under Barbados

53 responses to “Barbados Court Of Appeal Says Thief Lawyer Mortimer Clarke OK To Practice Law

  1. happy

    B-A-N-A-N-A…….small “r” republic…once more the little island just refuses to grow up…tooooo bad

  2. Justice

    “The court made no finding on the question of dishonesty….” how then can you say he stole the money?

  3. crossroads

    I was amazed to read this article in the paper. What a load of nonsense, this man steals money from a client and gets a slap on the wrist.

  4. South

    Justice, the fact that the court made “no finding” on the question of dishonesty is a self-condemnation of the court.

    Old boy network just doing what it does the best.

  5. reality check

    If you set your standards low enough, who knows you could become the Chief Justice?

    With respect to the “no finding” decision, don’t worry—its going to a public inquiry where it will be buried somewhere in between never and the end of time.

  6. Ahh good old Barbados. I hardly knew ye.

  7. Rumplestilskin

    Remember the article in the printed news last year, where the gentleman who was waiting ages for his land title to be cleared, put his gun on the lawyers desk and said that one way or another he would walk out of the lawyers office that day with his title deeds…and he DID!

    Amazing, the lawyer took ages to do nothing and suddenly had everything done in a day?!

    Interesting approach, no? And the guy admitted in the printed news, that he did so to make the lawyer do what he was supposed to.

  8. Rumplestilskin

    Having said that, I am told that there are numerous cases held up for ages by lawyers either syaing that they are not ready or simply do not turn up and delay after delay are granted by the judges, which makes the whole system sluggish and at the whim of the lawyers.

    Mabe there should be some legislation to deal with this. But then, that would mean that the lawyers in Parliament have to pass it.

    Serious question, do we have too many lawyers in Parliament?

  9. Jukecheckedeyskirt

    Do we in Barbados fully understand the gravity to which decisions likes this only further stirs up the”cesspool” stench of our bias justice system. So here is the message we are sending to the world. As long as you are a Liayer ooops lawyer in Barbados it is ok steal large sums of your clients money, even their lands but if you are an ordinary citizen with no law degree or status in this country expect to receive the full arm of the law and sometime up Dodds. Can someone tell me who can we trust and put our faith in the face of obvious and widespread corruption?

  10. Bimbro

    Think Barbadian judiciary and laugh! Sad, but true!

  11. Sad To Say

    I personally know two sitting members of the current parliament who have stolen money from their clients. There are very few honest lawyers around here. These thieves have carried stealing to beyond the stratosphere.

  12. anonlegal

    rumplestilskin:

    Having said that, I am told that there are numerous cases held up for ages by lawyers either syaing that they are not ready or simply do not turn up and delay after delay are granted by the judges, which makes the whole system sluggish and at the whim of the lawyers.
    ———————————-
    new rules of the supreme court have been drafted and should be in force soon (should have been in place already because they were drafted in 2004). these rules will seek to speed up the court system. Under the new rules a lawyer will no longer be able to ask for repeated adjournments because he could be penalised in costs (asked to pay clients expenses incurred at trial).

  13. Fair Play

    BFP
    I tried to bring to your attention how persons in certain groupings always seem to beat the system and remain respected persons in our society. Case in point is Ezra Alleyne a respected lawyer and former parliamentarian who after his drug problems had his clients struggling to find their title deeds, recover money and other documents from him. Over the past ten years he was the well respected constitutional lawyer. Mortimer Clarke is just one of those lawyers like Ezra Alleyne who should be in prison like the many young men who we see sentenced every day on the court pages of the newspaper. He will just suffer a little indignation with this punishment and will be right back in the justice system to continue his dishonest practice.

  14. Bajanboy

    Why wasn’t Mr. Clarke charged with a criminal offense? I heard somewhere that if lawyers are convicted of a criminal act, they are permanently disbarred. I was told this is why lawyers who are homosexuals cannot come out of the closet.

  15. Tony Hall

    This sort of behaviour will continue in Barbados as long as the Bar Association continues to police itself. This should not be an indictment on all lawyers because a lawyer provided some services for me involving a land transaction and bearing in mind that I normally hear negative things about them I was amazed at the speed and professionalism in which he handled my case considering the fact that he knew that I lived overseas. I have had some of my acquaintances use his services and they were very satisfied. HOWEVER, there are some lawyers in Barbados who only know one language, i.e THREATS AND VIOLENCE.

  16. anonlegal

    just out of curiosity, what penalty did you wish the court to impose? I get the impession that peole expected (or thought it appropiate) that the lawyer would be imprisoned. If that was you expectation, I should point out that the court in these circumstances could not imprison the lawyer. These were not criminal proceedings, they were disciplinary proceedings.

    The most stringent penalty would have been to disbar the attorney and ask him to pay back the money owed. The court chose to suspend him and ordered him to pay the money back by July. If he doesnt pay back by July he will be disbarred.

    Whilst the penalty imposed was not the most stringent that they could have been imposed, it was definitely was not the most lenient.

    Regarding the finding of dishonesty, it seems like the attorney claimed that he borrowed the money (I could be wrong). If the court could not make up its mind whether they believed him or not they did not need to make a finding on it because Attorney’s generally should not borrow money from clients (it is not absolutely prohibited but an attorney must advise the client to go to another attorney whenever he eneters into a personal transaction with the client and even then the transaction will be scutinised).

    I should also point out that it is up to the D.P.P. to bring criminal proceedings against the attorney and the DPP is not a member of the judiciary( He is a part of the Executive Branch). It is up to him to institute any criminal proceedings for theft, before the court can impose any jail time (which seems to be what many persons who post here wish to see happen to the attorney in question). My point here is that one should not blame the judiciary for the attorney not being prosecuted for theft.

    *********************

    BFP says,

    Are you on drugs or a crooked lawyer yourself? It is not “borrowing” the money if the client doesn’t give permission and know it has been borrowed!

    Not to mention that this happened NINE BLOODY YEARS AGO AND THE VICTIM IS STILL WAITING FOR HIS MONEY!

    And no, the court couldn’t put him in jail because no criminal charges are ever likely to be laid. Are you kidding? He’s one of the gang! Doan be talkin such foolishness.

    Cha!!!!

  17. Bajanboy

    I wonder if this “borrowing” argument will be used by everyone who is accused of theft and fraud to avoid a criminal charge. Even if the money is paid back in full with all interest and other costs, the police should still investigate this matter as fraud with the DPP following suit with bringing a charge against the lawyer. I suspect, however, as BFP says, that this is all a big cover up. In the end of the day, it seems that the law is applied different depending on who you are.

    *********************

    BFP says,

    The victim was demanding his money for years and the thief couldn’t give it to him because he had used it !!!!

    Such nonsense that a crooked court and a crooked newspaper would expect the people of Barbados to believe this garbage about “borrowing”! See what would happen if one of us nobodys “borrowed” $150,000 from our employer without telling and then didn’t pay it back for years!

    More fairy tales from Chief Justice Simmons. He should be ashamed for putting his name to such a lie.

  18. anonlegal

    Are you on drugs or a crooked lawyer yourself? It is not “borrowing” the money if the client doesn’t know it has been borrowed!

    ———————————-

    BFP, let me make it clear, I dont take anything i read on your website as a fact. I am saying that to say, I dont know whether the man stole the money or not….. I havent heard both sides of the story therefore I am not casting judgement on the man.

    My point was that the court did not need to make a finding of dishonesty in this case in order to impose a penalty because generally an attorney should not borrow money from an existing client (it is presumed in these circumstances that the attorney is taking advantage of the attorney / client relationship).

    And by the way the court did chastise the discplinary committee for taking so long indicating to me that they were just as upset about how this matter was handled as everyone else is. (the court didnt need to critcise the council, especially if ther were trying to hide a conspiracy)

    **********************

    BFP says…

    What part of “Clarke had admitted to misappropriating the funds” don’t you understand? …

    Not to mention that the Chief Justice was probably backed into a corner by all the publicity. We have as much faith in him as when he was Attorney General and still doing property deals on the side while a member of Cabinet!

    From the original article in the Nation News…

    PRESIDENT of the Barbados Bar Association, Wilfred Abrahams, has objected strongly to a recommended reprimand for a lawyer who used a client’s $130 000 for personal reasons.

    Addressing the Court of Appeal yesterday when the matter was called, Abrahams said the interests of the public and attorneys needed to be protected. He added that there was still an outstanding $35 407.04 expense which was incurred in travelling back and forth from England in an attempt to retrieve the money.

    The Disciplinary Committee of the Barbados Bar Association recommended last September that attorney Mortimer Clarke, who was retained by Michael Atkins in a 1999 property transaction, be reprimanded.

    Clarke was Atkins’ attorney for the purchase of a property at Maxwell Coast Road, Christ Church, and received $150 000 for the completion of the purchase.

    However, he only passed on $20 000 in 2002, keeping the other $130 000 to help with the running of his office and circumstances at home, among other things.

    He has repaid $130 000, but still owes $35 407.04 in interest and travel expenses incurred by Atkins who resides in England.

    However, Abrahams said if the matter was terminated with just a reprimand, the issue of the outstanding money would remain live and might end up before the court again. Therefore any sanction passed by the court must take into account the money which was still outstanding.

    Attorneys Cicely Chase-Harding, QC, Andrew Brewster and Shelly Stuart appeared on behalf of the committee; Abrahams for the Bar; and attorneys Donna Brathwaite and Rosalind Jordan for the Attorney-General.

    Clarke’s lawyer was Tyrone Estwick, who was absent from yesterday’s hearing. They have until Thursday to say why the court should not increase or vary the reprimand.

    In her response, Brathwaite also said she did not believe justice would be fully served with a reprimand if funds were still owed.

    The recommendation for the reprimand, said Chase-Harding, was based on the fact that Clarke had admitted to misappropriating the funds and repaid the $130 000.

    However, she said, there was the outstanding $35 407.04.

    Chief Justice Sir David Simmons said he believed that an adjournment was reasonable to allow Clarke and his attorney to prepare a response to Abrahams’ claim.

  19. Red Lake Lassie

    BFP says to anonlegal…

    What part of “Clarke had admitted to misappropriating the funds” don’t you understand? …

    Not to mention that the Chief Justice was probably backed into a corner by all the publicity. We have as much faith in him as when he was Attorney General and still doing property deals on the side while a member of Cabinet!

    ========================

    You tell him BFP!

    The discipline committee lawyers were going to give Clarke a “reprimand” until they were forced to go before the appeal court. Then the Chief Justice give him a little kiss of a vacation for nine months.

    WHO MADE THE DECISION TO NOT LAY CRIMINAL CHARGES?

    That is de big question I want answered! WHO?

    The police? The DPP? The Attorney General?

    WHO?

    Good luck finding the answer to that question. We mortals are not allowed to know such high details of the gods.

  20. Justice

    RLL,

    The Disciplinary C’ttee were not forced to go before the Appeal Court; it is that Court which administers the punishment…And it is the DPP who has responsibility for laying criminal charges. But an important element of a conviction for theft is the intent to deprive the owner PERMANENTLY of his property…and this is to be PROVED not presumed, no matter what BFP thinks.

  21. Twice Shy

    Justice, we have the strange situation where the President of the Bar Association was forced to argue against the recommendation of his own disciplinary committee. Red Lake Lassie might be misunderstanding the details of the process, but she gets the point which is that the Disciplinary Committee gave Clarke nothing at all, a reprimand.

    You Justice must be a lawyer to be splitting hairs so finely. Oh no, Clarke didn’t intend to permanently deprive the poor victim of the money, only take it from him for years.

    Get real! The victim sold a house for $150,000. The crooked lawyer kept the money and then after two years of begging gave the victim $20,000. Then gave the rest back some years later after the process finally started and the victim spent $30,000 more on airfare coming to Barbados to complain and try to get the courts to DO SOMETHING.

    NINE YEARS LATER and the victim still hasn’t all the money!

    And YOU Mr. Lawyer have the NERVE to still try and lawyer it to death even after Clarke confessed to “misappropriating” the client’s money.

    YOU Justice are everything that is wrong with Barbados lawyers.

    You sicken most people who are reading your words but you don’t even know it.

    YOU ARE ONE OF THE SLIMY BARBADOS LAWYERS

  22. Are you mad, anonlegal?

    Anonlegal,

    You have to be a lawyer (crooked one too) or related in some way to Mr. Clarke.
    Clearly the man is a white collared crook. How can you defend him?

  23. passin thru

    Aren’t Barbados lawyers ashamed of this story? What a message to send the world: do a real estate deal for a client, keep the money for years, use it for office and personal expenses – and when the client starts to whine give him a little bit after two years. Nine years later the client is still waiting for the last of his money.

    And the best is that you do backroom lawyer work for nine months while your partners do the up front work and then everything will be fine again.

    No fine. No jail. No problem working as a lawyer again.

    Fair warning to anyone thinking of hiring a Barbados lawyer… the local Bar Association thinks a reprimand is sufficient punishment for not turning over the money from a real estate sale for nine years!

  24. Gabriel the Horn Blower

    Well said Twice Shy. I wonder if the person who stole the $100,000 from QC (as stated in today’s Saturday Sun) will get a reprimand?

  25. Bajanboy

    Does anyone know how to get in contact with the victim, Michael Atkins? Inviting him to post his side of the story and to hear his thoughts on the penalty imposed on his former lawyer would be very interesting indeed.

  26. Rumplestilskin

    Seems to me that the President of the Bar, Mr.Abrahams, has some integrity, conscience and fundamentals of life.

    Also seems to me that he is probably making enemies in the elite, as we speak, by his action in sticking up for what ‘should be’.

    Well done, Sir.

    You at least, shall stand tall.

  27. Justice

    Sticks and stones…., Twice Shy, sticks and stones… Now deal with the facts, not emotion.

  28. Red Lake Lassie

    Justice, What part of “Clarke had admitted to misappropriating the funds” don’t you understand? …

    ?????????

    What facts in the newspaper (Nation) don’t you think are true? You astonish me with your stonewalling refusal to see what is in front of you.

    Oh forget it. No use you talking to you anyway, not going to waste my energy.

  29. Jukecheckedeyskirt

    Do the Bar association and practicing liars (oooppps there I go again…Lawyers) fully recognized that these ‘tell tales’ of purported truths and interpretations, which are to bring clarity to a case that clearly says, ‘Mortimer Clarke thief the friggin money,’ will only make perspective clients think twice about how they will conduct business with lawyers.

    The legal minds trying to bring balance to this situation on the basis of facts while proclamating that the bloggers on this site are moved by emotionalism are only stirring up the stench more for others to see the lengths at which the ‘Liars club’ will go to protect their interests and the club’s pledge(s).

    Lawyers in Barbados do you not know that by the deeds of your colleagues, rather you are a good or bad lawyer/liar (which ever fits) has seriously implicated you to the point that many Barbadians are not comfortable with your level of service, particularly the injustices you mete to them when you use stall tactics? What do you think will be the feel or reasoning of the international community when they read the accounts of our system of justice.

    You are blowing your reputations, belittling the status of our legal system, and showing all right thinking citizens of the soil that your interest lies strictly with power and wealth. You have develope laws and rules that protects the status quo in this country and another law that castigates and imprison all insignificant others. You conduct, surreptitiously, legal proceedings outside the publics domain and undertake processes that have a hint of sinisterism. How do you sleep at night, particularly you Mr. Simmons? COMPLETE SHAME ON ALL OF YOU. What are you going to do to redeem yourselves?

  30. bussa

    is this not the same lawyer that transforms his office into a church on sundays wow check nation article on 2/25/2008

  31. reality check

    justice

    have to prove that someone intended to steal PERMANENTLY

    you have to be kidding—that is an impossible “threshold to prove and completely unnecssary since “he admitted to misappropriation.

    I don’t have the Barbados code in front of me but I quickly acessed the Canadian one and it reads as follows;

    “322. (1) Every one commits theft who fraudulently and without colour of right takes, or fraudulently and without colour of right converts to his use or to the use of another person, anything, whether animate or inanimate, with intent

    (a) to deprive, temporarily or absolutely, the owner of it, or a person who has a special property or interest in it, of the thing or of his property or interest in it;” etc etc

    This man is in a trusted position and needs his license removed plus jail time.

    Who is going to give him his medicine when many of those sitting in judgment are guilty of the same thing?

  32. I'm puzzled

    How is it that a lawyer can steal over $100,000.00 and gets a pat – on – the -back, while someone else steals a bottle of rum and gets 9 months in jail?
    Someone, please explain.

  33. Justice

    For the final time, Mr Clarke was not on trial for theft, it was a disciplinary hearing. If he is to be charged with theft, it is up to the DPP to do so and the DPP will have to prove that he stole the money. The Court of Appeal made no finding as to dishonesty because it was not competent to do so. By the way, are those bank people who actually steal money ever tried for and convicted of theft?

    *******************

    BFP says,

    Give it a rest, Justice. Clarke will never be charged because the old boys’ network doesn’t do that sort of thing. This is a lawless country where the law is whatever the elites say it is on a given day. Rule of Law is a joke in Barbados. If you are a lawyer, you are well aware of that.

  34. I'm puzzled

    BFP,

    I agree with you. Clearly the way the network is set up allows for “colleagues” when in trouble to escape punishment easier than the average Joe.
    For Justice above to talk about Mr. Clarke “not being on trial for theft”and the “DPP being the ones who would have to charge him if they can prove it” is clearly legal jargon. I am convinced Justice is a lawyer and another crooked one too!
    THESE BAD LAWYERS ARE A DISGRACE TO THEIR FRATERNITY. BECAUSE OF THEIR POSITION, THEY SHOULD FEEL THE FULL WEIGHT OF THE LAW.

  35. anonlegal

    a poster stated:

    Anonlegal,

    You have to be a lawyer (crooked one too) or related in some way to Mr. Clarke.
    Clearly the man is a white collared crook. How can you defend him
    ————————————

    If your read the post you will see that I m not defending him. I was merely explaining why he wasn’t “thrown in jail”. I never even heard of this guy. He could be a big crook for all I know.

    ———————————————–
    To Reality Check

    Section 3 of the Barbados Theft Act states:

    A person who dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of that property is guilty of theft and liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for 10 years.

    It is slightly different from the Canadian Act but Justice is correct, The DPP will have to prove all the elements of the offence (including the intent to permanently deprive).
    ——————————————

    It is unfortunate that Justice has been accused of being a crooked lawyer when he was just explaining why Mr. Clarke was not imprisoned.

    *****************************

    BFP SAYS,

    Over the years we have had quite enough explanations from lawyers about why various crooked lawyers and politicians cannot be imprisoned for the same crimes that would send any other person to Dodds for a few years, thank you!

  36. anonlegal

    Without repeating what I said before I will just post the relevent section of the legal profession Act.

    section 21 (1) states:

    Where the [Disciplinary] Committee decides after hearing an application, that a case of professional misconduct has been made out against an attorney-at-law, the Committee shall within twenty-one days of its decision forward to the Chief Justice a report signed by the Chairman, of its findings, with the reasons for its decision, and with any recommendation in relation thereto, as it thinks just, in accordance with subsection (2).

    section 21 (2) states:

    On the hearing of an application, the Committee may, as it thinks just, in its report make any recommendation as to-

    (a) removing from the Roll the name of the attorney-at-law to whom the application relates;

    (b) suspending the attorney-at-law to whom the application relates from practice on such conditions as it may determine;

    (c) imposing on the attorney-at-law to whom the application relates, such fine as it thinks proper;

    (d) subjecting the attorney-at-law to whom the application relates, to a reprimand;

    (e) the payment by any party of costs or such sum as they may consider a reasonable contribution towards costs.

    section 21 (3) states:

    On receipt of the report, the Chief Justice shall cause the report to be set down for the consideration of the Court of Appeal.

    Section 22 (1) states:

    The Court of Appeal on the consideration of any report submitted by the [Disciplinary] Committee may

    (a) dismiss the application;

    (b)order the name of the attorney-at-law to be removed from the Roll ;

    (c) order that the attorney-at-law be suspended from practising law for such period not exceeding three years as it thinks fit;

    (d) impose on the attorney-at-law to whom the report relates such fine as it thinks proper; or

    (e)reprimand the attorney-at-law; and

    (f) make such order as to costs as it thinks fit, and in addition, except where the application is dismissed, the Court may order the attorney-at-law to pay the applicant or person aggrieved such sum by way of compensation and reimbursement and such further sum in respect of expenses incidental to the hearing of the application and the consideration of the report as it thinks fit.

    ————-

    I just posted the above to make the point that the court did not have the jurisdiction to imprison Mr Clarke and to clarify that the discplinary committe is not responsible for imposing penalties (so the name disciplinary committee is a misnomer).

    I suppose if anyone is to blame for Mr Clarke not being imprisoned it would be the DPP for not charging Mr. Clarke, not the Judiciary.

  37. justice

    Thank you, anonlegal, it’s amazing how people behave when they smell blood. They will not listen to reason. Ah well…

  38. J

    Dear Fair Play: Ezra Alleyne is NOT a well respected constitutional lawyer. I do not know of anybody who respects Ezra.
    This is Barbados is all its good and bad ways. Even though the 9 month ban from practising law looks like slight punishment in fact Mortimer’s goose is cooked. He will NEVER be able to earn his living as a lawyer in Barbados again. Barbadians have long, long memories. People will no longer trust him and people won’t hire him.

  39. J - Not necessarily

    J,

    Mr. Clarke can certainly work.
    If he has political clout, he will work “under the radar”, just like some politicians, when they become ministers. You use a front.

  40. Bimbro

    THESE BAD LAWYERS ARE A DISGRACE TO THEIR FRATERNITY. BECAUSE OF THEIR POSITION, THEY SHOULD FEEL THE FULL WEIGHT OF THE LAW.

    *******************

    Seems there’s even more the matter with Bim, than we initially, realised!

    Sigh!

  41. Licky Lickum

    Its just life. The rich has different laws to the poor. Martha Stewart got to choose her prison. I think I will go “borrow” some of my work place money to pay down on a new pickup cause I wrote mine off on Monday.

  42. JC

    ha ha ha dah one bad licky lickum ha ha ha i love your comment cause it is the truth

  43. letty

    well just a slap on the wrist!

  44. Pingback: Crooked Barbados Lawyers: Only One Arrested, Many Others Allowed To Walk Free… Why? « Barbados Free Press

  45. HI IM GOB SMACKED I AM ACTUALY DEALING WITH THIS CORRUPT ARSEHOLE MORTIMER CLARKE SOLICITORS WHO REPRESENT HSBC BANK I HAVE ONE HUNDRED PERSEN EVIDENCE OF SHEER CORRUPTION INVOLVING THE COURTS IN STOURBRIDGE IN THE MIDLANDS AND PROPERTY IS INVOLVED ONCE AGAIN AND A SEVENTEEN THOUSAND POUND LOAN THAT AS HAD ITS STATUS CHANGED TO OVERDRAFT TO ESCAPE THE CRITERIA OF THE 1974 CREDIT CONSUMER ACT ANY ADVICE APART FROM SPLASH HIM ALL OVER THE NET MARTINOS

  46. HI GUYS MORTIMER CLARKE SOLICITORS ARE BASED IN SUSSEX AND WORK HAND IN HAND WITH MARLIN AND PHEONEX RECOVERIES ON BEHALF OF HSBC BANK.
    THE DEBT STRATAGY IS TO BE CORRUPT THE STATEMENT ABOVE IS CORRECT WITH EVIDENCE.
    IF THIS GUY IS RELATED TO THE BARBADOS CASE HE DESERVES WHAT HE GETS IF NOT ITS BAD NEWS BECAUSE IT MEANS THERE ARE TWO CORRUPT ARSEHOLES WITH THE SAME NAME RIPPING THE PUBLIC OF IN BOTH BARBADOS AND ENGLAND IF YOU HAVE HAD PROBLEMS WITH MORTIMER CLARKE WRITE TO US AT M_ARTINOS@YAHOO.CO.UK WE WOULD LOVE TO HERE FROM YOU .
    IT SEEMS THAT THESE SOLICITORS DONT UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RIGHT AND WRONG COME ON EXPOSE THE SCUM WITH NAMES IF POSSIBLE .TAFF

  47. Pingback: Another Barbados lawyer buys his way out of criminal charges. A system rotten to the core. « Barbados Free Press

  48. Pingback: Barbados Bar Association blames public for choosing crooked lawyers “at random” « Barbados Free Press

  49. Pingback: Crooked Bajan lawyer Mortimer Clarke: How much did he steal this time? | Barbados Free Press

  50. Pingback: Barbados Attorney Philip Vernon Nicholls arrested for Money Laundering, Theft of $675,000 from client real estate deal | Barbados Free Press

  51. Pingback: Barbados Speaker of the House Michael Carrington is a crooked lawyer – stole $250,000 from client – disobeyed court order to pay it back | Barbados Free Press

  52. Pingback: How trustworthy are Barbados lawyers? | Barbados Free Press