A local barrister has lost an appeal against a Bermuda Bar Council ruling, which resulted in him being banned from practising.

The barrister, who was not identified in the Court of Appeal judgment, was taken before a disciplinary tribunal in 2013 after allegations were made against his conduct in a 2011 complaint.

After hearing evidence, the tribunal found that the barrister had failed to take adequate steps to ensure that the complainant knew that she was acquiring an “extremely unusual legal interest” by purchasing not an apartment but a one half interest in a house consisting of two apartments, one of which she would be able to occupy

The tribunal also found that he had failed to appreciate the basic duties of a conveyancing attorney, demonstrated by his “misconceived insistence” that his only client was the vendor and an “admitted error” in overcharging the complainant.

As a result, they said he had failed to be “competent, diligent and efficient” in his professional activities and ordered that the barrister be suspended from conveyance work for two years. He was further ordered to repay the complainant for the $9,266.25 she spent on legal fees and pay the Bar Association $2,500 within six months of the expiration of his suspension.

The barrister subsequently appealed both the tribunal’s judgement and sentence, taking the matter to the Court of Appeals. He argued that the tribunal had erred in law and was in breach of the rules of natural justice.

Lawyer Saul Froomkin, representing the tribunal, responded that the appeal contained no reasonable grounds upon which the courts could set aside the decision, and that the evidence accepted by the tribunal was “overwhelming”.

In a judgment filed in March, the Court of Appeal supported the tribunal’s judgement, dismissing the barrister’s appeals.

“The gravamen of the complaint before the tribunal and the thrust of the argument before this Court was that there was no material change in the description of the property in the contract and the property interest conveyed.

“The appellant maintained before the tribunal, as he did before us, that there was no difference between the two descriptions. The tribunal described this as being the most unconvincing part of the appellant’s oral evidence, and set out by way of illustration the crucial elements of the two descriptions, and proceeded to declare itself satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that on this basis the appellant was guilty of contravening rule 6 (iv) of the [Barrister’s Code of Conduct].

“We agree both with the tribunal’s conclusion and reasoning, and in relation to the grounds of appeal the Court respectfully agrees with and adopts the reasoning set out in the respondent’s submissions. It follows that the appeal against conviction must fail.”

The court also upheld the tribunal’s sentence, saying that it was entirely within the expected range for such matters.

• It is The Royal Gazette’s policy not to allow comments on stories regarding court cases.