Case Explained: Court reinstates lawyer who was removed as legal aid attorney – Legal Perspective

A Grand Court judge has ordered the reinstatement of attorney Keith Myers to the list of lawyers who can appear in legal aid cases after he was removed following allegations of misconduct.

Justice Marlene Carter in a written judgment, dated 21 Jan., on a judicial review filed by Myers, ruled that Director of Legal Aid Stacy Parke had “overstepped” when she removed him from the list in October 2024.

The director had struck Myers from the list after Court of Appeal judges in April 2024 overturned an unlawful wounding conviction of a woman – for whom Myers had acted as legal aid defence attorney – had earlier been convicted and sentenced to a prison term.

In her appeal, the woman, who provided WhatsApp messages from Myers as evidence, had claimed that he had acted in a sexual manner towards her and had not properly prepared her case. Myers had denied this in an affidavit presented to the court.

In delivering their verdict on that case, the appeals court justices at the time wrote, “This is a very troubling case. On the face of it, Mr. Myers’ conduct was indefensible. The contents of his affidavit in the face of the WhatsApp messages raises very serious issues which require investigation by the police.” The judges went on to direct the director of public prosecutions to “ensure this matter is taken forward”.

The Court of Appeal judges also called for the matter to be “drawn to the attention of the authorities with responsibility for the professional conduct of advocates both in the Cayman Islands and in England and Wales.”

Following the Court of Appeal judgement, Parke wrote to Myers, telling him she was considering removing him from the list of legal aid lawyers “due to serious concerns you have acted in a professionally questionable and potentially unlawful manner in a matter in which you appeared on legal aid”.

Myers’ attorneys responded that they were taking instructions from their client and invited the legal aid director to stay her inquiry pending any disciplinary proceedings under the Legal Practitioners Act. When no response was forthcoming from the director, the court heard, Myers proceeded on the basis that Parke had granted the stay sought by his attorneys.

On 23 July 2024, Chief Justice Margaret Ramsay-Hale wrote to Myers regarding his professional conduct in light of the Court of Appeal ruling.

The director of legal aid contacted him on 1 Oct. indicating that within two weeks, he would be removed from the list, stating that this decision was final and advising Myers he had a right to appeal. From 14 Oct. 2024, Myers received no more legal aid cases.

Carter noted that, in her letter to Myers, the director had indicated other allegations but did not provide details of those.

‘No right to remove lawyer for disciplinary reasons’

Myers’ attorneys argued that, under the Legal Aid Act, the director did not have the right to remove a lawyer from list for disciplinary reasons or as a sanction for misconduct.

They claimed that if Parke has legitimate concerns about an attorney’s conduct or competence, the only course of action open to her under the legislation is to refer the matter to the chief justice to raise those concerns or make a complaint of professional misconduct. While this is being done, Myers’ legal team argued, the director must permit that attorney to remain on the legal aid list.

They argued that it was “absurd” that a lawyer could be banned from practising in legal aid cases, if removed from the list by the director, but still be able to act in private practice criminal cases.

Attorneys acting for the legal aid director in the case, however, told the judge that Parke did have a duty to keep and continually review the list of practising lawyers who were willing and able to represent applicants. They argued that the use of the word ‘able’ in the legislation “must necessarily encompass both technical competence and the ethical integrity essential to the proper discharge of an attorney’s obligation in this role”.

They told the judge, “The Director’s power to maintain a list of competent attorneys is essential to maintain public confidence in the scheme. An absence of oversight in the provision of legal aid would be antithetical to the purposes of the Act.”

They asked the court to consider the effect of denying the legal aid director the ability to remove an attorney for “serious professional failings”, saying she would be compelled to retain practitioners on the list who are “incompetent, dishonest, or unwilling to comply with legal aid guidelines”.

The attorneys said the director had followed the principles of “natural justice” when she found that Myers’ relationship with his legal aid client had “improperly cross the boundary line between professional and personal”, and that “the WhatsApp messages, read together with Mr. Myers’ affidavit to the Court of Appeal, demonstrate that Mr. Myers lied to the Court of Appeal”.

The director’s lawyers conceded, however, that she had not adequately detailed, nor allowed Myers the chance to respond to, the “new” allegations she referred to in her letter to him.

Justice Carter, in her ruling, agreed with Myers’ counsel that the Legal Aid Act did not give the director an express power to investigate and make findings regarding the professional conduct of attorneys.

She noted that a lawyer can be removed from the court rolls by a judge, under the Legal Practitioners Act, and under Practice Directions relating to that segment of the act, the chief justice, in consultation with the attorney general, should be involved when a disciplinary complaint is made against an attorney. She added, “The procedure allows for trial if the matter is taken forward, where the burden and standard of proof is to the criminal standard.”

Carter said it was “instructive” that the Court of Appeal, in its ruling, did not itself make a finding of misconduct in its ruling nor seek to impose a sanction against Myers, and she noted that it was the appeals court judgment that had led Parke to make a finding of professional misconduct and remove the lawyer from the legal aid list.

The judge ruled that the legal aid director had “overstepped”, and that she “did not have the remit to make a final assessment and determination” for failings in professional conduct, integrity or ethics.

Carter allowed the judicial review and ordered that Myers be reinstated to the legal aid list.

Parke, when asked by the Compass for a response to the Grand Court ruling, said her office was “reviewing the ruling and have no comment at this time”.

The Compass reached out to Director of Public Prosecutions Simon Davis for an update on the investigation that the Court of Appeal had called for. He said, “I understand that the matter is still being investigated by the RCIPS.”

The RCIPS confirmed that an investigation into the matter is “ongoing”.