Guilty Gollop Digs Himself A Deeper Hole – Says He Is Not An Unethical Barbados Attorney – YOU DECIDE

Hal Gollop Uses The Nation News To Reply To A Barbados Free Press Article

Back on June 29, 2008, Barbados Free Press asked Barbados Lawyer Hal Gollop: Is He Unethical? Underhanded? Back-stabbing? … or Perfectly Proper?

The situation we were talking about was that Lawyer Hal Gollop represented contractor Andrew Thomas in a civil dispute involving the SSA and manager Stanton Alleyne… and then later switched sides and represented SSA manager Stanton Alleyne when Alleyne was fired by the SSA over a thousand dollars received from Thomas. Gollop represented Alleyne even as the original dispute between Thomas and the SSA/Alleyne was still ongoing!

Alleyne took two cheques from Thomas and refuses to tell anyone what they were for. Thomas stated in writing that the cheques were a secret “commission” to Alleyne for Thomas being awarded a government contract from the SSA.

And just the week before receiving the money from Thomas, acting SSA manager Stanton Alleyne wrote an official SSA letter to the Caribbean Commercial Bank informing the manager that Thomas had just landed a big SSA government contract!

Andrew Thomas later claimed that he wasn’t paid for the whole contract that Stanton Alleyne detailed in the letter to the bank…. so from the start, Stanton Alleyne was clearly directly involved in circumstances surrounding the dispute between the SSA and Thomas. At the very least Alleyne is a witness, but if Thomas is to be believed, Alleyne is a corrupt government employee and a co-conspirator.

You can see the cheques and the letter for yourself in BFP’s The Cheques That SSA’s Stanton Alleyne Refuses To Explain.

Hal Gollop Avoids The Main Issue – Refuses To Discuss Ethics

In the Nation a few days ago, a very upset Hal Gollop published a reply to Barbados Free Press called Gollop: Facts Speak For Themselves.

After reading Hal Gollop’s Nation News article, all we can say is… yes, the facts sure do speak for themselves! “Guilty Gollop” is an unethical Barbados lawyer.

The title of our piece today is actually misleading… because Hal Gollop does not say in the Nation News that he is not an unethical Barbados attorney. He doesn’t mention ethics at all in his reply to BFP’s charge.

But he does provide enough information about his actions that any legal board in North America or Britain would condemn his lack of judgment and unethical behavior. Of course, this is Barbados where lawyers don’t even get disbarred for stealing over $100,000 from a client, so don’t expect to see Mr. Gollop facing a board of inquiry anytime soon!

In his article, Gollop confesses that he did represent Andrew Thomas from June 19, 2001 to at least October 12, 2001 in the dispute involving the SSA contract (where then acting manager Stanton Alleyne wrote the letter to the bank and then took $1000 “commission”).

Although Gollop calls this letter writing for Andrew Thomas a “purported relationship”, the rest of the world calls it a lawyer writing letters for his client. Mr. Gollop says that Mr. Thomas was less than candid with him and for that reason Gollop ended the “purported relationship” with Thomas after being on the case for some four months!

Then after representing Andrew Thomas for four months, Gollop turns around and represents Stanton Alleyne over the cheques that Thomas gave Alleyne as a secret commission for the contract that is under dispute!

If that isn’t a conflict of interest by Hal Gollop, then I don’t know what the hell you would call it.

Let’s See Those Letters, Gollop!

Were the letters written to Stanton Alleyne? Did they mention him? Did they mention the job or the contract that Alleyne wrote to the Caribbean Commercial Bank? What was Stanton Alleyne’s position with the SSA when the letters were written to the SSA by Gollop?

Yes, Mr. Gollop, the facts surely do speak for themselves.

What do our readers think? The comment section is open, folks!

Here is Gollop’s Nation News Article

Gollop: Facts speak for themselves

Published on: 7/10/08.

ON JUNE 29, 2008, the SUNDAY SUN carried a Front Page story under the bold headline PAY UP! and a sub head: SSA owes me $74 000, says contractor, in which the claim by contractor Andrew Thomas against the Sanitation Service Authority was set out.

This story was written in the aftermath of the events which gave rise to industrial action by workers of the SSA in support of Stanton Alleyne, who was summarily dismissed from his post there.

The story referred to the fact that several attorneys were “retained in the past on his behalf in a quest to claim outstanding monies owed to him” and among them “is senior lawyer Hal Gollop, who was Alleyne’s counsel in the recent impasse”.

I am now aware that the possible innuendo emanating from that report has given rise to wild and reckless speculation and even accusations in a particular medium. Therefore, in the interest of accuracy, I feel constrained to state the facts.

1) By letter of June 19, 2001, on instructions from Andrew Thomas, I wrote the manager of the SSA, requesting a meeting to deal with the claim that there was a debt due and owing by the SSA to Andrew Builders, Thomas’ company;

2) By letter of August 15, 2001, I wrote a follow-up letter reminding the manager of the SSA that he had promised that their lawyer would communicate with me on the matter, but up to that time, he had not. I urged that they communicate with me without further delay, so that we might meet and work towards a resolution of the matter;

3) By letter of October 12, 2001, the lawyer for the SSA wrote to me informing that Thomas had always been represented by Sally Comissiong and that she had filed a number of documents in the High Court (Suit #13 of 2000) on Thomas’ behalf – they were:

i) Writ of Summons filed on January 3, 2000;

ii) List of Interrogatories;

iii) Summons for Directions filed on April 11, 2000;

He further advised that he himself had filed the following documents:

i) Acknowledgement of Service file on January 7, 2000;

ii) Defence filed on March 9, 2000;

iii) Answer to Interrogatories filed on August 16, 2000.

The SSA’s lawyer, Philip Pilgrim, further advised that I should check the pleading “in order to determine the veracity of Thomas’ claim”.

In light of the above facts, he emphasised he saw no need for the SSA to meet with Thomas.

The above chronology should clearly indicate that Thomas approached me to commence negotiations in a matter that was almost ready for trial, 18 months after litigation had begun.

In short, I had been given less than candid instructions on the matter. This gave rise to an immediate end to the purported “relationship”.

Can there be any doubt that these facts speak for themselves?

– HAL GOLLOP,

Attorney-at-law

Letter online (link here)

Advertisements

44 Comments

Filed under Barbados, Corruption, Crime & Law, Ethics

44 responses to “Guilty Gollop Digs Himself A Deeper Hole – Says He Is Not An Unethical Barbados Attorney – YOU DECIDE

  1. passin thru

    Gollop is Guilty of an unethical conflict of interest.

  2. 147.47

    That man is so full of B/S .

    I am glad barbados is finally getting a peek into the true nature of the man.

    The Alleyne/Thomas matter is not the first conflict of interest case involving hal gollop.It would be interesting to hear Mr Gollop speak on whether he has represented a client while at the same time secretly dealing with the insurance company the client was suing.

    I am sure more stories will come out in time.

    Remember he was the blp point man holding the position as chairman of the national housing corporation – when quite a few of the questionable contracts and contractors were in place.

    Things that make you go hmmmm.

  3. 147.47

    BFP

    What are those numbers you are posting to anonymous comments.

    I would suggest that you be very careful with the commenters as you are with your activities.

    Not a statement just a query o.k.

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

    BFP says,

    Either give yourself a handle and stick with it or we give you a number

  4. Red Lake Lassie

    Guilty.

  5. 2damnedThiefin!

    Is the term ‘Ethical Lawyer’ an oxymoron?

    Perhaps not.
    There are still a few good(ethical,straight)ones around.
    Good men like John Hanschell and his ilk.

  6. akabozik

    Gollop is guilt of unethical practice.

  7. Fool me once

    Lawyers in Barbados with good ethics are hard to find. No surprise. I asked two of them if they could provide a copy of their law society rules on the subject. One laughed and one said if I ever got one could I lend it to him!

    With a chief justice that lets them get away with anything and no lawyer ever properly disciplined what do we expect? People at their mercy.

    A good start would be how about they start teaching ethics seriously at UWI?

  8. Anon

    HAL GOLLOP

    Slimy BLP bag man!

  9. Fool me once,

    The public has not yet been officially informed which version of the Constitution of Barbados is valid! Why is the Government of Barbados putting out differing Constitutions? Why does the Caricom copy of the Barbados Constitution state that it has not been proclaimed? (See:
    http://keltruthblog.com/blog/?p=50)
    The response to my concerns was personal attack. The issues were never addressed.

    What is the Government hiding?

    The Constitution is the basis of law. If the “law” is hidden, I am not at all surprised that the “ethics” would also be hidden.

  10. Note: The Caricom site has changed the skewed photocopies of the Barbados Constitution for a more official version.

    On whom should we rely for the correct version?
    Should it be Caricom: http://www.caricomlaw.org/docs/Constitution%20of%20Barbados.pdf

    Or should it be our own Government Information Service? http://www.barbados.gov.bb/bdsconst_chpt7_pt1.htm

  11. BTB

    I believe that Mr. Gollop is unethical. He didn’t have to take Stanton Alleyne as a client. There are many other lawyers who don’t have a potential conflict of interest that Alleyne could hire.

    Gollop knows everything that Andrew Thomas told him when he acted for Thomas. If he is being a lawyer for Alleyne, are we saying that he won’t tell Alleyne what Thomas told him?

    Stinks stinks stinks.

  12. ROBOT

    Hal Gollop is good man
    even though I have wondered about him for some years now. There is ‘something ‘about him that seems questionable but who ‘are’ I to judge

  13. Michael the Sword Bearer

    Here is an example provided by a Bahamian lawyer to illustrate conflict of interest as defined in common law…

    “An attorney or his firm acts for a company either as a retainer or on a dispute with another company or has been retained as an attorney for the company, the attorney or his firm would be precluded from acting for another client if issues in respect of which he acted for the company are likely to arise in a litigation involving another company or if he is likely to draw on or use confidential information that he would have obtained or had access to while acting for the other company as a retainer.”

    He also notes that the duty of confidentiality continues even after the lawyer/client relationship has ended.

    The full article is here http://www.jonesbahamas.com/?c=135&a=15145

    The question is… in doing his best for his current client, could Gollop’s representation of Alleyne in any way result in prejudice to Thomas’ case against SSA.

    Another question is whether this statement from his press release could result in prejudice to Thomas’ case… “I had been given less than candid instructions on the matter. This gave rise to an immediate end to the purported ‘relationship’.”… this sounds a lot like “Thomas misled me, so I quit representing him”.

  14. ROBOT

    Hey whats up wid de above post by Adrian Licorish
    whats going with that
    talk to me somebody

  15. ROBOT

    Is Freudel ‘in the gutter playing important’ Stuart
    ethical ???

    I wonder because I had a matter with him years ago and I am not sure.

  16. Anon

    Lawyers in Barbados have earned a bad reputation. If I could avoid it I would not spend a red cent with any . Gollop who was a teacher and studied law as an old man is one of the worst examples of an unethical lawyer. He is a long time political hack for the labour party.

  17. Sad To Say

    BFP: I edited the following – My inserts are in BOLD. After reading Hal Gollop’s Nation News article, all we can say is… yes, the facts sure do speak for themselves! “Guilty Gollop” is YET ANOTHER unethical Barbados lawyer. WHAT DOES THIS MEAN – > 90% OF BARBADOS’ LAWYERS ARE UNETHICAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  18. reluctant nonbeliever

    “I am now aware that the possible innuendo emanating from that report has given rise to wild and reckless speculation and even accusations in a particular medium”

    “A particular medium”?

    Wonder what medium that would be?

    Congrats, BFP. Gollop can’t even bear to mention you by name!

    Incidentally, you do all know he’s close – even best – buddies with David Simmons, yes? They go back a long way. Ask anyone who knows him.

    He’s done extraordinarily well for himself (have you seen his house??!) in the relatively short time since he was called to the Bar (as poster above says, he was a teacher for many years) thanks to his political connections.

    Also has to be said that on the personal level he’s a nice guy: friendly, easy going, not at all pompous.

    But as a lawyer? No question, his ethics are questionable – to say the very least.

  19. Michael the Sword Bearer

    BFP,

    On June 30 I posted on your blog that the local lawyers’ CoE was available on the Barbados Bar Association’s web site. On the following day that site was taken out of service, and it remains down to this day… coincidence?

    http://www.barbadosbarassociation.com

  20. Pot'n kettle

    Robot, if you want to know about Freundel Stuart, ask the people who trying to get Jippy Doyle to stop disturbing the neighbourhood with the PA system. Stuart was Jippy’s lawyer.

  21. Jason

    The Barbados bar association does not have a written code of ethics.

    Says everything.

  22. Jason

    Same with the Judges’ rules that CJ Simmons said he would publish.

    No rules for Judges either.

    Corrupt banana republic. Can’t say sugar republic anymore.

  23. MtSB: that is very interesting. However, remember that just because something is correlative, does not necessarily mean it’s causal. (Doesn’t mean it isn’t, either… )

    For anyone who’d like to assess the Code of Ethics language, here’s a trick… Search Google for “site:www.barbadosbarassociation.com Ethics”. Then click on the “View as HTML”.

    Or, if you’d like the original PDF file, use the “Internet Archive”: http://web.archive.org/http://www.barbadosbarassociation.com/uploads/files/Legal_Profession_Code_of_Ethics.pdf

    Know your tools….

  24. “The Internet interprets censorship as damage and routes around it.” — John Gilmore, Electronic Frontier Foundation

  25. Anonlegal

    After reviewing the facts as stated by Mr. Gollop, I believe he has received a bad rap in this situation. If what he says is true then there has been no unethical behaviour on his part.

    According to what I have read, Mr Gollop wrote two letters on behalf of Mr Thomas requesting a meeting. The matter involved Mr. Thomas’ company and SSA and concerned an outstanding Debt owed.

    Also, According to what I have read…Mr. Gollop now represents Mr Alleyne in relation to a wrongful dismissal action against SSA. These cases really don’t have much to do with each other from what I can gather unless there is something I am missing. I don’t see what confidential information could have been told to Mr. Gollop that would be relevant to a wrongful dismissal case involving Mr. Alleyne and SSA. In addition, I don’t see how Mr. Alleyne’s interests in the wrongful dismissal suit is adverse to Mr. Thomas’ interest in the debt recovery suit (Mr. Allyene is probably trying to get severance pay from SSA, this will not affect Thomas’ claim in any way).

    It is up to Mr Thomas to show that Mr. Gollop is in possession of confidential information that is relevant to the wrongful dismissal trial and that the information is likely to be used in a way that would be adverse to his interests.

    I have posted below the language of the court on this area of Law:

    “Where a former client establishes that his former solcitor is in possession of information which had been imparted in confidence, that he (the former client) had not consented to its disclosure, and that the solcitor was proposing to act for another client with an interest adverse to his (the former client) in a matter to which the information was or might be relevant, the court would intervene to restrain the solcitior from acting for that other client, unless the solcitior satisfies the court, on the basis of clear and convincing evidence, that effective measures had been taken to ensure that no disclosure would occur.”

    To summarise, The former client must show that:

    a) the former solcitor is in possession of information which had been imparted in confidence.

    b) he had not consented to the disclosure of the information

    c) the solcitor is proposing to act for another client with an interest adverse to the former client’s

    d) the solcitor is proposing to act in a matter to which the information is or might be relevant.

  26. Anonlegal

    For the Barbados code of ethics the link below should work:

    http://axses.com/barbadosbarassociation/code_of_ethics.cfm

  27. Tell me Why

    2 BFP.

    If Mr Gallop and Mr Thomas parted company since 2001 and in 2008 he has been retained by Mr Alleyne, where is the ‘Unethical’ behaviour? We can go further. If a politician is running under a particular party ticket and switch allegiance the next five years, will you call that ‘unethical behaviour’.

    Both scenarios shows the person were committed to a particular party but made a switch. Remember commitment is never everlasting and once both parties accept the reality it becomes ethical and you know that very well BFP.

  28. stoei

    Note the obfuscation by tmw and anonlegal. Alleyne’s dismissal was for his actions when involved with Mr. Thomas. This was the same work and contract that Thomas was suing the SSA for – when Alleyne was acting manager and wrote a letter for Thomas to the bank.

    It is unethical on Gallop’s part to represent one party and then the other – especially when the first dispute by Thomas is still ongoing.

    These excuses by members of the legal profession in Barbados only succeed in showing how bad things are!

  29. Anonlegal

    Stoei, I am not making excuses. I am just telling you the law….I dont make the law, i just refer to it. If Mr Thomas wants to restrain Mr. Gollop from representing Mr Alleyne he must show:

    a) Mr. Gollop is in possession of information which had been imparted in confidence.

    b) he had not consented to the disclosure of the confidential information

    c) Mr Gollop is proposing to act for another client with an interest adverse to the former client’s (in this case Mr. Alleyne)

    d) Mr Gollop is proposing to act in a matter to which the Confidential information is or might be relevant.

    As to the ethics of it all….here is how I look at it:

    The law is trying to prevent an attorney from using confidential information obtained from a former client against that clients interests. How is representing Mr. Alleyene in a wrongful dismissal matter against SSA against the interest of Mr Alleyne?

    From the information provided Mr. Gollop was contracted to write two letters. After that the attorney client relationship ended between him and Mr Thomas. His only duty to Mr. Thomas is not to use confidential information he may have obtained, in a way which is adverse to the interests of Mr Thomas. Is that the case here?

  30. Tell me Why

    These excuses by members of the legal profession in Barbados only succeed in showing how bad things are!
    ………………………………………………………………………………….
    Thanks for elevating me to the legal professional. But, I must disappoint you. I never attented a law course. I decipher the spoken word. Law is not hard, it is how you perceive right from wrong. If you know that a car is not yours, why are you going to try and steal it.

    You must understand that what happened in 2000 -2001 and the separation by the two gentlemen leave an opening for the attorney to represent who soever will. He was not being retained by Mr. Thomas, furthermore the SSA received correspondence from Sally Comisiong stating the complainant will be represented by her. Please remove what you interpret to the facts submitted.

  31. If I May…

    As Lawrence Lessig observed: “Code is law”.

    Law is nothing but software, written in the (unfortunately) imprecise languages of humans…

    Interestingly, this means that software developers (and others) who are used to expressing themselves *precisely* in (any) language can be particularly good at interpreting (and writing) legal language.

    Unfortunately, because Law is “run” upon “Human Processing Units” (HPUs), there is a great deal more uncertainty that the Code will execute as originally intended…

    (For what that’s worth…)

  32. Straight talk

    (For what that’s worth… 😉 Chris,

    Gollop had ample opportunity to make his own judgment upon whether he was party to incriminating allegations against Alleyne.

    Anyone with an ounce of common sense can see the two cases are inextricably linked, and Gollop is using his previous client’s confidential instructions against himself.

    Is he so hard up for briefs that he felt it necessary to take on this potentially controversial case?

    Or was he encouraged by his political masters to mask the corruption so apparent in the tendering process at the SSA?

    Once more I say, forget the legalese and come clean…..what were the cheques for? Simple.

    Why can’t we get a straight answer, Gollop?

  33. stoei

    I am not a lawyer, I am only a citizen and ordinary person. Here is the way I look at it.

    1/ Mr. Alleyne and Mr. Thomas have adverse interests surrounding work that Mr. Thomas did which involved Mr. Alleyne. (reference the letter that Alleyne wrote to the bank for Thomas)

    2/ In 2001, Mr. Gollop acted for Mr. Thomas for a number of months in a situation that originated from when Mr. Thomas and Mr. Alleyne had a professional relationship.

    3/ In 2008, Mr. Gollop acts for Mr. Alleyne in a situation that stems from that same professional relationship between Alleyne and Thomas.

    4/ It is a clear conflict of interest. Gollop should have said “no” to Alleyne…

    BUT HE VALUED HIS SALARY FROM ALLEYNE MORE THAN HE VALUED THE REPUTATION OF THE LEGAL COMMUNITY IN BARBADOS.

    More than justice and how things look.

    Law and rules be damned. The lawyers made the rules so that they could do what they want.

    Gollop is unethical. That is not a legal opinion. It is the opinion of a citizen who is disgusted by Gollop’s actions.

  34. “But, I must disappoint you. I never attented a law course.” This is quite obvious TMW…

    Further, if you think that a politician switching party allegiance is akin to a lawyer acting in a manner that prejudices his former client’s case, then methinks your HPU needs rebooting.

  35. Anonlegal

    michael the sword bearer,

    In your opinion, how is Mr Thomas’ recovery of debt case prjudiced by Mr. Gollop’s representation of Mr Allyene in the wrongful dismissal case?

    That is the only question I ask. The rule relating to former client conflict is seeking to preclude an attorney from using confidential information against the interests of a former client. In this case, what is the confidential information in Mr. Gollop possession which is relevant to the wrongful dismissal claim?

  36. anonlegal,

    you ask a question, state it is the only question you ask, and then immediately pose a second question… LOL

    stoei has already addressed your first question, but maybe this will help you better grasp the issue at hand… do you think that Mr. Gollop accusing Mr. Thomas of being “less than candid” and further indicating that as a result he (Mr. Gollop) immediately thereafter ended their “purported ‘relationship’ ” could possibly prejudice Mr. Thomas’ case?

    I would hate to think that a former attorney who represented me on a case, would make such disparaging remarks about me in connection with the case even while it was still outstanding.

    As for your second question… if I knew what confidential information Mr. Gollop possessed it would not be confidential now would it? LOL

  37. Anonlegal

    Michael the sword bearer said:

    “do you think that Mr. Gollop accusing Mr. Thomas of being “less than candid” and further indicating that as a result he (Mr. Gollop) immediately thereafter ended their “purported ‘relationship’ ” could possibly prejudice Mr. Thomas’ case?”
    ————————

    This is a totally different argument altogether. But I agree that those comments are inappropriate

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

    Michael the sword bearer said:

    If I knew what confidential information Mr. Gollop possessed it would not be confidential now would it? LOL

    ———————-

    I didnt expect you would have an aswer. But the point being made is this: It is unethical behaviour if Mr. Gollop misuses confidential information so as to prejudice the interests of Mr Thomas. According to Mr. Gollop, the extent of his legal work involved writing two pre-action letters requesting a meeting. Unless he is privy to some confidential information that he can misuse in the wrongful dismissal case, the interests of Mr. Thomas are not threatened.

  38. Michael the Sword Bearer

    anon,

    you said: “This is a totally different argument altogether. But I agree that those comments are inappropriate”.

    Actually I am not sure you agree with me at all, as I never suggested that his comments were inappropriate… I suggested that his comments were unethical.

    His comments are in fact entirely appropriate in an environment where there are no disciplinary repercussions for strengthening a current client’s case by casting aspersions on a former client’s credibility and trustworthiness. After all… there is no way his current client could be guilty of accepting graft from someone as dishonest as his former client – and who better to attest to Mr. Thomas’ dishonesty than his former lawyer on the same case in which there was alleged graft. You may not wish to acknowledge the connection between the two cases, but this last statement from Mr. Gollop should crystalize the unequivocal links for those who failed to see them previously.

  39. Anonlegal

    Michael the sword Bearer said:

    Actually I am not sure you agree with me at all, as I never suggested that his comments were inappropriate… I suggested that his comments were unethical.
    ——————

    Boy you really just want to argue…..Okay, The comments were unethical…I never really argued about that, you are the one that brought that up…..In fact, I never really even thought about the comments until you mentioned them.

    ********

    Michael the sword bearer said:

    You may not wish to acknowledge the connection between the two cases.

    ——————

    If what BFP says is correct that he was dismissed because of the transaction with Mr Thomas then there is a connection between the two cases, I wont dispute that….My point is this: merely showing that there is a connection between these two cases does not mean that it is unethical for Mr. Gollop to represent Mr. Alleyne. It is only unethical if he misuses confidential information in a way that is adverse to Mr thomas’ interests. The onus is on Mr. Thomas to show that Mr Gollop is privy to confidential information relevant to the wrongful dismissal case which can be uses against his interests (usually in cases such as these the confidential information is financial information).

    So let me clarify, I am not denying the links between the cases (if indeed the information on this site is accurate). I am just saying that merely showing links does not mean that there has been unethical behaviour on the part of the attorney.

  40. .453

    There is no way that Gollop should have represented Alleyne after representing Thomas.

    Gollop is GUILTY!

    (IMHO)

  41. Licky Lickum

    Ethics has nothing to do about whether he will use the “confidential” information, but it has to do with the fact that since he has that information he should have stayed away from the case. When push comes to shove and he is down to his last card that unethical information will me dealt because he like most other liars….i mean lawyer ARE unethical.

    Ethics has more to do with perception than the rule of law. After all the laws were made by these same unethical lawyers.

  42. Leigh Bourne

    How does Attorney at Law Gollop sleep ?
    He lies on one side – then the other !!

  43. 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

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