Royal Court requests lawyer be reviewed by Law Society

Thursday 03 September 2020

A Jersey lawyer has been referred by the Royal Court for a review of his conduct by the Law Society, following a case where he reportedly “wholly failed to engage” to a series of e-mails despite being constantly chased.

Advocate Andrew Philip Begg, of Andrew Begg and Co., was representing a defendant in relation to an estate dispute.

Though there was correspondence between Begg and the plaintiffs' lawyer throughout 2017, communications suddenly broke down in April 2018.

In a written judgement published this week, Matthew John Thompson, Master of the Royal Court, said that from 9 April 2018, “no substantive correspondence was received from Advocate Begg for the defendant until April 2019." 

“Various explanations were offered for the failure to reply during this time including absences on holiday and pressure due to other matters but the matter did not progress,” he said.

According to the judgment, Advocate Begg also claimed that the “breakdown in communications” had been to do with an incorrect e-mail being used. 

However, Master Thompson did not accept this, stating: “The delays and the excuses repeatedly advanced of being on holiday and pressure of work are simply not acceptable. Neither is blaming an email address when that address ends begg-law.com.”

Pictured: The written judgement said that "no substantive correspondence was received from Advocate Begg for the defendant until April 2019."  

The Master further stated that “Advocate Begg wholly failed to engage from April 2018, apart from one substantive response, until after proceedings were commenced over a year later. Even then there were further unnecessary delays which justified the plaintiffs both taking further steps in the proceedings and chasing Advocate Begg."

He then said that he did not “propose to express any further criticism beyond this because I consider that the entirety of Advocate Begg’s file in this matter should be reviewed by the Law Society, to consider whether his conduct of this matter complies with the requirements set out in the Law Society Code of Conduct", adding: "I am therefore referring Advocate Begg’s conduct to the Law Society."

A spokesperson for the Law Society commented: “While it is not appropriate to comment on any complaints or referrals received, we can confirm that the Law Society has, through the issue of the judgment, been requested by the Royal Court to review the conduct of Advocate Begg in this matter. 

“No further comment will be issued.” 

The Law Society is able to deal with upheld complaints in several ways, including a private rebuke or public reprimand and a fine of up to £10,000.

It can also refer the matter to the Attorney General, who can in turn bring it before the Royal Court.

If the Royal Court upholds the complaint, it has the ability to issue a public rebuke, impose a fine of any amount, suspend a practitioner or their firm for a specified period of up to 12 months or even order that a practitioner's name be removed from the roll of advocates or solicitors.

It is not the first time Advocate Begg has had his conduct scrutinised. He was fined £25,000 in the Royal Court in 2012 for "serious professional misconduct" following a referral by the Disciplinary Committee of the Law Society.

In 2014, he was fined £15,000 for misconduct after he attempted to invoice a client of “limited means” £31,192, over six times the value of her initial disputed loan.