Rose­marie Sant

At­tor­neys for the Law As­so­ci­a­tion of T&T (LATT) have told Chief Jus­tice Ivor Archie’s at­tor­neys he is not above the law and as with all pub­lic of­fi­cials, is sub­ject to pub­lic scruti­ny. As such, con­trary to the CJ’s po­si­tion, the as­so­ci­a­tion, through its at­tor­neys, says it is act­ing with­in its re­mit to “pro­tect the in­ter­est of the le­gal pro­fes­sion in Trinidad and To­ba­go” by prob­ing al­le­ga­tion against the CJ.

LATT at­tor­neys met yes­ter­day’s dead­line set by the CJ’s at­tor­neys to re­spond to a pre-ac­tion pro­to­col let­ter which the CJ’s le­gal team, led by John Je­re­mie SC, sent on Wednes­day. That pro­to­col let­ter al­leged the LATT, by its in­ves­ti­ga­tion, had “un­der­mined, and in fu­ture will fur­ther un­der­mine the con­fi­dence in, pub­lic opin­ion and sup­port for the ad­min­is­tra­tion of jus­tice.”

The CJ’s at­tor­neys pro­posed to is­sue pro­ceed­ings on or be­fore Feb­ru­ary 26 and asked that the as­so­ci­a­tion “take no steps to fur­ther your en­quiry or in­ves­ti­ga­tion un­til the court has pro­nounced up­on the le­gal and con­sti­tu­tion­al pro­pri­ety of your pro­posed ac­tions.”

The CJ’s at­tor­neys in­di­cat­ed they would be ask­ing the court to de­ter­mine whether the as­so­ci­a­tion is em­pow­ered un­der the Le­gal Pro­fes­sion Act (LPA) in gen­er­al or sec­tion 5 of the act in par­tic­u­lar to con­duct, as­cer­tain or es­tab­lish the ba­sis of al­le­ga­tions made against the CJ.

In its re­sponse the LATT said un­der sec­tion 5 of the LPA, it is re­quired to “rep­re­sent and pro­tect the in­ter­ests of the le­gal pro­fes­sion,” and where al­le­ga­tions have been made con­cern­ing the con­duct of the CJ, which have the “po­ten­tial to neg­a­tive­ly im­pact con­fi­dence in the ad­min­is­tra­tion of Jus­tice and the rule of law,” the LATT is “en­ti­tled” and has a “re­spon­si­bil­i­ty to ex­am­ine those al­le­ga­tions.”

It said de­pend­ing on the re­sults of such an ex­am­i­na­tion, it is en­ti­tled to take any steps which it may deem ap­pro­pri­ate to “pro­mote, main­tain and sup­port the ad­min­is­tra­tion of jus­tice and the rule of law.”

LATT at­tor­neys said the mat­ter can go one of two ways. Af­ter ex­am­i­na­tion by the as­so­ci­a­tion, it may be de­ter­mined that the al­le­ga­tions have no mer­it and pro­vide no ba­sis for con­cern or, on the oth­er end of the spec­trum, it may re­fer a com­plaint to the Prime Min­is­ter for him to treat with as he deems fit.

At­tor­neys for LATT re­ject­ed the sug­ges­tion that sec­tion 137 of the Con­sti­tu­tion es­tab­lish­es “an ex­clu­sive pro­ce­dure for the ex­am­i­na­tion of the con­duct of the CJ,” which pro­hibits or dis­en­ti­tles the law as­so­ci­a­tion and oth­er per­sons or or­gan­i­sa­tions from ex­am­in­ing or form­ing a view about the CJ.

“As with all pub­lic of­fi­cials, your client’s con­duct is sub­ject to pub­lic scruti­ny. The Chief Jus­tice is no ex­cep­tion to this rule,”

LATT at­tor­neys told the CJ’s at­tor­neys.

LATT at­tor­neys added that there was noth­ing in sec­tion 137 of the Con­sti­tu­tion “that im­mu­nis­es” the CJ from such scruti­ny “in the way that you con­tend.

LATT al­so re­ject­ed the sug­ges­tion from the CJ’s at­tor­neys that the “fair-mind­ed and in­formed ob­serv­er” would con­clude that there was a re­al pos­si­bil­i­ty that LATT’s in­sis­tence on con­duct­ing the in­ves­ti­ga­tion is mo­ti­vat­ed by a pre-con­ceived dis­po­si­tion against the CJ, as is re­flect­ed in a mo­tion of no con­fi­dence.

At­tor­neys for LATT said in­stead of fo­cus­ing on launch­ing le­gal pro­ceed­ings to pre­vent the as­so­ci­a­tion from com­ply­ing with its re­spon­si­bil­i­ty, the CJ should “in­stead con­sid­er em­brac­ing the op­por­tu­ni­ty that presents it­self” for him to re­spond to the al­le­ga­tions made against him.

If, how­ev­er, the CJ pro­ceeds with the le­gal ac­tion, LATT’s at­tor­neys are ask­ing that the CJ’s at­tor­neys draw to the at­ten­tion of the court their re­sponse to his pre-ac­tion let­ter. LATT’s at­tor­neys say they are pre­pared to “op­pose any re­lief that may be sought” against their client.