Tweet
No action against Brady
No action against Brady
Article Published: Sunday, June 6th, 2010
BY DURRANT PATE
Senior Staff Reporter
Harold Brady
The ruling Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) has signaled its unwillingness to take any action against attorney, Harold Brady, the man at the centre of the Manatt Phelps & Phillips controversy, which has caused the country and the Government grave embarrassment.
It has been publicly admitted by the Government and Prime Minister Bruce Golding, in particular, that Brady misrepresented to the US law firm, Manatt Phelps & Phillips that he was representing the Government of Jamaica rather than the JLP when he hired the firm to lobby the Obama Administration regarding easing its extradition request for Tivoli Gardens strongman, Christopher “Dudus” Coke.
The JLP’s legal advisors have told the party that no criminal action can be taken against Brady, an executive member, but suggested that he could be brought before the General Legal Council of the Jamaican Bar Association on grounds of professional misconduct.
Despite receiving this advice weeks ago, neither the JLP nor the political executive is yet to act on this advice and has not shown an interest in bringing Brady to account for his alleged misrepresentation.
A check with the Disciplinary Committee of the General Legal Council revealed that no complaint has been lodged against Brady and as such the issue of the alleged misrepresentation by him cannot proceed without a complaint being lodged by an aggrieved party.
Section 12 of the Legal Profession Act states, “Any person alleging himself aggrieved by an act of professional misconduct committed by an attorney may apply to the committee (Disciplinary Committee of the General Legal Council) to require the attorney to answer the allegation.”
Aggrieved party
Speaking in Parliament on May 11 when he confessed to sanctioning Brady’s initiative to engage Manatt Phelps & Phillips, Prime Minister Golding declared that no legal action is being contemplated against Brady, but noted that other actions are being considered. Having obtained the legal advice suggesting that a complaint could be brought before the General Legal Council for misrepresentation, the Prime Minister has been mum whether this course would be taken. In the meantime, legal experts say, Opposition Leader, Portia Simpson Miller could lodge a complaint against Brady for his alleged misrepresentation that he was working for the Government of Jamaica when he contracted Manatt Phelps & Phillips, which even today maintains that it was hired by the Jamaican Government through its agent, Brady.
Prominent Kingston-based attorney, Patrick Bailey, noted that section 12 of the Legal Profession Act gives latitude for an individual such as the Opposition Leader to lodge a complaint against Brady since she could be an aggrieved party in this matter.
He noted that the Opposition Leader, in one of her pronouncements, suggested that Brady be brought before the Disciplinary Committee of the General Legal Council and questioned why she hasn’t formally lodge a complaint since no one else has.
Bailey, the senior partner in the law firm, Patrick Bailey & Company contend that Manatt could also be an aggrieved party since the alleged misrepresentation was made to the US lobbyists, which has been forced to justify its claim to have been working for the Jamaican Government when the Prime Minister has said otherwise.
He questioned whether there was money outstanding to Manatt Phelps & Phillips given that only US $50,000 out of the contracted sum of US$400,000 had been paid.
The difficulty
While articulating the merits of bringing an action before the General Legal Council against Brady, Bailey also pointed to the difficulty in making a charge stick given the circumstances of the case.
He argued that Brady could claim that based on conversation with Golding and other highranking officials of the party who are Cabinet ministers Brady could claim to have formed the opinion that they were speaking on behalf of the Government.
According to Bailey, based on the high-ranking state officials which met with Brady and Manatt, the Government is estopped from contending that Brady was not acting on its behalf.
Estoppel is a legal principle, which precludes a person from asserting something, which is contrary to what is implied by a previous action or statement by that person.
Back to articles page
2 Responses to “No action against Brady”
Article Published: Sunday, June 6th, 2010
BY DURRANT PATE
Senior Staff Reporter
Harold Brady
The ruling Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) has signaled its unwillingness to take any action against attorney, Harold Brady, the man at the centre of the Manatt Phelps & Phillips controversy, which has caused the country and the Government grave embarrassment.
It has been publicly admitted by the Government and Prime Minister Bruce Golding, in particular, that Brady misrepresented to the US law firm, Manatt Phelps & Phillips that he was representing the Government of Jamaica rather than the JLP when he hired the firm to lobby the Obama Administration regarding easing its extradition request for Tivoli Gardens strongman, Christopher “Dudus” Coke.
The JLP’s legal advisors have told the party that no criminal action can be taken against Brady, an executive member, but suggested that he could be brought before the General Legal Council of the Jamaican Bar Association on grounds of professional misconduct.
Despite receiving this advice weeks ago, neither the JLP nor the political executive is yet to act on this advice and has not shown an interest in bringing Brady to account for his alleged misrepresentation.
A check with the Disciplinary Committee of the General Legal Council revealed that no complaint has been lodged against Brady and as such the issue of the alleged misrepresentation by him cannot proceed without a complaint being lodged by an aggrieved party.
Section 12 of the Legal Profession Act states, “Any person alleging himself aggrieved by an act of professional misconduct committed by an attorney may apply to the committee (Disciplinary Committee of the General Legal Council) to require the attorney to answer the allegation.”
Aggrieved party
Speaking in Parliament on May 11 when he confessed to sanctioning Brady’s initiative to engage Manatt Phelps & Phillips, Prime Minister Golding declared that no legal action is being contemplated against Brady, but noted that other actions are being considered. Having obtained the legal advice suggesting that a complaint could be brought before the General Legal Council for misrepresentation, the Prime Minister has been mum whether this course would be taken. In the meantime, legal experts say, Opposition Leader, Portia Simpson Miller could lodge a complaint against Brady for his alleged misrepresentation that he was working for the Government of Jamaica when he contracted Manatt Phelps & Phillips, which even today maintains that it was hired by the Jamaican Government through its agent, Brady.
Prominent Kingston-based attorney, Patrick Bailey, noted that section 12 of the Legal Profession Act gives latitude for an individual such as the Opposition Leader to lodge a complaint against Brady since she could be an aggrieved party in this matter.
He noted that the Opposition Leader, in one of her pronouncements, suggested that Brady be brought before the Disciplinary Committee of the General Legal Council and questioned why she hasn’t formally lodge a complaint since no one else has.
Bailey, the senior partner in the law firm, Patrick Bailey & Company contend that Manatt could also be an aggrieved party since the alleged misrepresentation was made to the US lobbyists, which has been forced to justify its claim to have been working for the Jamaican Government when the Prime Minister has said otherwise.
He questioned whether there was money outstanding to Manatt Phelps & Phillips given that only US $50,000 out of the contracted sum of US$400,000 had been paid.
The difficulty
While articulating the merits of bringing an action before the General Legal Council against Brady, Bailey also pointed to the difficulty in making a charge stick given the circumstances of the case.
He argued that Brady could claim that based on conversation with Golding and other highranking officials of the party who are Cabinet ministers Brady could claim to have formed the opinion that they were speaking on behalf of the Government.
According to Bailey, based on the high-ranking state officials which met with Brady and Manatt, the Government is estopped from contending that Brady was not acting on its behalf.
Estoppel is a legal principle, which precludes a person from asserting something, which is contrary to what is implied by a previous action or statement by that person.
Back to articles page
2 Responses to “No action against Brady”