“Bizarre and factually incorrect” – suspended lawyer slams disciplinary process

Thursday 08 October 2015

The lawyer suspended for misleading the Court of Appeal says that the process against him was “bizarre” and says that key evidence supporting his actions was left out or ignored by the Jersey courts.

Advocate Philip Sinel has issued a public statement in response to the court judgment which announced his suspension for four months – and which rebuked his colleague Advocate Steven Chiddicks – saying that the judgment is slanted and incorrect.

And he says that the case against him “is a worrying development for lawyers, investors and litigants alike”.

In the statement issued in response to the judgment, Advocate Sinel wrote: “We strongly disagree with the judgment received, we did no more and no less than honour our professional obligations to client and Court by asking for an indication as to when the judgment would be available; hardly surprising given that the litigation was in its sixth year through no fault of ours or of our client.

“The client was so dismayed by the Jersey judicial system that it had made a complaint to the Ministry of Justice.

“Such requests, for an indication of timing, are routine. The appeal process had been ongoing for many months. The response is bizarre and cannot properly be related to the facts at issue.”

The case concerns the fact that neither lawyer told the Court of Appeal during proceedings during long-running litigation involving Leeds United in 2011 that a writ stopping a time-bar - effectively a deadline to take action - on applications before the English courts had been filed.

That writ was filed in October 2011 during argument on whether Jersey or England was the right place for the case to be heard – Advocates Sinel and Chiddicks were trying to persuade the court to hear the case in Jersey.

In a hearing the following January, they cited the time-bar in English cases which in some cases restricts actions for fraud to six years, but never said that the filing of the writ had effectively “stopped the clock”.

But Advocate Sinel said that the disciplinary process against him and his colleague Advocate Chiddicks – which started with the Law Society, and went up to the Royal Court and Court of Appeal – was unfair.

He wrote: “Key and undisputed and indisputable evidence that should be taken to exonerate us and shows that we acted in no other way other than properly and responsibly, namely ensuring that correspondence with the Court was vetted by English Counsel, Mr Collingwood of Serle Court, as to its accuracy on English legal process. The Court of Appeal declined to rectify these important matters pre-publication despite requests.

“This case is a worrying development for lawyers, investors and litigants alike. This will not affect our ability or desire to provide robust advice and representation to our clients. We have brought the litigation to a successful conclusion for our clients.”