Court of Appeal upholds misconduct ruling against senior attorney in property transfer case 

The Court of Appeal has upheld a professional misconduct finding against attorney-at-law Anthony Armstrong, dismissing his appeal against a decision that he falsely attested to witnessing a property transfer document. 

The May 1 ruling affirmed the decision of the Disciplinary Committee of the General Legal Council (GLC) that Armstrong had breached Canon I(b) of the Legal Profession (Canons of Professional Ethics) Rules. That provision requires attorneys to maintain the honour and dignity of the profession and abstain from behaviour that may tend to discredit it. 

Armstrong is a former Director of Public Prosecutions in Antigua and Barbuda. 

The appeal was heard in May 2024. 

The case arose from a complaint filed in June 2019 by Michael Adams, who alleged that Armstrong had sold three of his properties in Jamaica without his knowledge or authorisation while he was serving a prison sentence in the United States on drug-related convictions.

The properties, located at Columbus Heights, Brompton Road, and Fairview Court, were sold between 2004 and 2005.

The discipinary committee found that the allegations of fraudulent conduct were not proved beyond a reasonable doubt, and that Adams had, in fact, authorised the sales.

However, Armstrong admitted during cross-examination before the committee that he had signed the instruments of transfer as a witness to Adams' signature, despite Adams not being physically present before him when the documents were executed.

The Court of Appeal, comprising Justices Carol Edwards, Marcia Dunbar Green, and Georgiana Fraser agreed with the committee that Armstrong broke the rules. 

"A false attestation, even where the signature is genuine, undermines the reliability of legal documents and erodes public confidence in the profession," said Justice Dunbar Green who wrote the court's 52-page opinion. 

The court rejected Armstrong's argument that his familiarity with Adams' signature, acquired through a prior transaction, rendered his attestation acceptable: "Attestation is not a speculative exercise in signature recognition; it is a solemn affirmation of presence and observation."

The disciplinary committee, which had described the conduct as "the height of recklessness", reprimanded Armstrong, fined him $250,000, and ordered him to pay costs of $30,000 to the GLC. The appeal court did not disturb those findings and sanctions.  

Armstrong had challenged the ruling on eight grounds, including alleged abuse of process due to a 15-year delay between the property sales and the filing of the complaint, his temporary exclusion from parts of the disciplinary hearing conducted via Zoom, alleged witness interference by the complainant's attorney, purported bias on the part of the panel's chairperson, and the conduct of the hearing in private rather than in public.

All eight grounds failed.
 

The GLC, through its attorney King's Counsel Sandra Minott-Phillips, argued at appeal that its finding professional misconduct was "unimpeachable, particularly in the light of the appellant’s own admission of dishonest conduct," according to the judgment. 
 

Minott Phillips also argued that when an attorney attests to a signature, the attorney is not merely witnessing the act but affirming its authenticity and representing that the signature was personally observed. She contended that where such a representation is knowingly false, it can have serious consequences for parties relying on the document and amounts to professional misconduct.

On the question of delay, the court found that while the passage of time was inordinate, it caused no substantial prejudice to Armstrong, whose admission of false attestation was made directly and required no documentary reconstruction.

Regarding the temporary exclusions from the Zoom hearing, the court held that Armstrong's attorney Hugh Wildman remained present and engaged throughout, that no evidence was taken in his absence, and that no prejudice resulted.

The allegation of witness interference in that the complainant's attorney had contacted a potential witness for Armstrong, who subsequently became uncooperative, was also dismissed. The court found no evidence that the contact deterred the witness or influenced his evidence, and noted that the content of the communication was never examined.

The bias allegation against the panel's chairperson, who was a partner at a firm that had acted in an earlier unrelated property transaction, was similarly rejected. The court found no pecuniary interest and no circumstances that would lead a fair-minded observer to perceive a real possibility of bias.

On the private hearing, the court held that Rule 14 of the Legal Profession (Disciplinary Proceedings) Rules, which mandates private hearings but public pronouncement of findings, was constitutionally permissible under the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms.

The GLC was represented by King's Counsel Sandra Minott-Phillips and Jamaiq Charles. Armstrong is to pay the GLC's legal fees. 

Follow The Gleaner on X and Instagram @JamaicaGleaner and on Facebook @GleanerJamaica. Send us a message on WhatsApp at 1-876-499-0169 or email us at onlinefeedback@gleanerjm.com or editors@gleanerjm.com.