A lawyer who claimed in court that a 14-year-old girl made pregnant by a 27-year-old may have enjoyed “one of the most pleasurable experiences of her life” has been found guilty of scandalous conduct by his professional body.

However, despite being fined $2,500 and reprimanded by the Bermuda Bar Council, Larry Scott stood by his controversial comments. The incident first hit the headlines a year ago when Supreme Court judge Charles Etta Simmons told the defence attorney off for the remarks he made during the sentencing of the man, who was his client.

The court had heard how the underage victim became pregnant during sex with him, and had an abortion.

Mr. Scott remarked of this: “I think in the circumstances it’s important that our medical ability is advanced so that (pregnancy) can be alleviated for a young lady of tender years.

She will also have a memory — but for all of this — of one of the most pleasurable experiences of her life.”

Mrs. Justice Simmons reprimanded him, saying, “That’s scandalous. A man cannot have lawful sex with a girl of 14. A girl is protected and it would be scandalous for you to stand before the court and tell the court that the young lady enjoyed it.”

The Women’s Resource Centre subsequently complained to the Bermuda Bar Association — although according to Mr. Scott, the finding of improper conduct against him stemmed from the Bar Council also launching its own complaint.

Through the elected Council the Association is responsible for matters pertaining to rules of conduct for its members. A three-person Council tribunal — named by Mr. Scott as Puisne Justice Geoffrey Bell and lawyers Elizabeth Christopher and Delroy Duncan — heard the complaint against him in January.

An official notice of their findings this week stated Mr. Scott was guilty of making a “scandalous” comment that was “an expression of his personal opinions and beliefs” contrary to Bar rules.

It went on to say that the statement “did not assist in maintaining the integrity and reputation of the profession” and ordered that he should pay the fine and also be reprimanded.

It said Mr. Scott should be “advised to act only on the basis of instructions from his client and to distinguish between his personal beliefs and his duties to his clients and the court in future.”

Responding to the news, Mr. Scott said: “I defended my position before the Council. I said then and say now I stand by what I said. The Council found as they did and I must abide by their ruling (as) they are my governing body. I didn’t appeal their ruling.”

He added: “Once the complaint was lodged by the Council I felt it was a fait accompli, and it’s now time to move on. They have made their ruling, it’s what I expected, and the matter is now dead as far as I’m concerned.”

Penny Dill, executive director of the Women’s Resource Centre, said in the letter of complaint about Mr. Scott to the Bar Association: “We are amazed that Mr. Scott would not understand the ramifications of his remarks, which only serve to legitimise sexual exploitation of girls and women. In court cases dealing with unlawful carnal knowledge it is becoming acceptable to view these incidents as the fault of the young person. The remarks made by Mr. Scott contribute to this disturbing trend and make our difficult job — as an organisation that supports victims and seeks protection for women — even harder.”

She said of the Bar Council ruling: “I think it’s a very satisfactory outcome.”

Well known for his flamboyant style in court, Mr. Scott spent five years as a United Bermuda Party Senator. Having previously qualified as an attorney at the Norman Manley Law School, Jamaica, in 1996, he began his law career after the UBP was voted out of government in 1998. He opened a law firm in Somerset with brother Michael — a Progressive Labour Party MP — before striking out on his own to set up his current firm in Hamilton, keeping the name Scott and Scott.

Bar Council reprimands lawyer