Judge slams ex-ILP leader for 'unfathomable' land transfer

DISAPPOINTING, disturbing, unfathomable, troubling and unpleasant were the words used by a High Court judge to describe a legal transaction by senior attorney and former Independent Liberal Party (ILP) political leader Rekha Ramjit for a Tobago man in 2019.

On Friday, Justice Frank Seepersad set aside a will prepared by Ramjit as well as a deed of conveyance for property used to pay for her legal services.

Seepersad also referred his ruling and the evidence in the case to the Disciplinary Committee of the Law Association, the police and the Director of Public Prosecutions.

He the case was “quite troubling” and an unpleasant experience.

"It showed how easy it is for attorneys to exploit and take advantage of citizens."

Seepersad was ruling on a lawsuit against Ramjit and her daughter Gina Ramjohn, also an attorney, brought by Alicia Campbell Rogers, the widow of Richard Rogers who died in October 2019.

The lawsuit centred around a will the attorneys prepared for Rogers' husband and the transfer of one of his properties to Ramjit as payment for legal services in another matter.

In her claim, Campbell Rogers asked the judge to set aside the will prepared by Ramjit for her husband in 2019 as well as the deed of conveyance for one of his properties in Tobago which was transferred to Ramjit’s name.

She claimed that after her husband died, she learned of the existence of a will which named Ramjit as executor. She and her daughter were only left with the matrimonial home although, she claimed, her husband told if he died, she would be a rich woman.

She also found out one of his properties, which he co-owned with his brother, Robert, was transferred to Rajmit on April 30, 2019, the same day the will was purportedly executed.

She asked the court to invalidate both documents and force Ramjit to hand over $744,000 in rent she collected from her husband’s other properties.

In his ruling, Seepersad said some of the evidence relating to the execution of the will raised the court’s suspicions.

“It was sufficient to cast doubt on whether the document was lawfully executed.”

However, he did not rule that Campbell Rogers' husband died intestate (not having made a will before death) as he pointed out that he could not say conclusively that Richard did not have a will prepared before the one purportedly prepared by Ramjit which was complained of in the case.

In her defence, Ramjit denied any wrongdoing in relation to the documents and contended that the property transfer was due to the inability of Rogers' husband to pay the $300,000 in legal fees she was owed for pursuing a lawsuit against a person who was squatting on another of his and his brother's properties. That case was filed but is yet to go on trial.

In his ruling, Seepersad said Ramjit collected substantial sums of money on trust for Rogers’s beneficiaries. He ordered she prepare an account of all sums she collected as executor and in 28 days, hand over the rental money she collected to the Registrar of the High Court to be held in escrow until after Campbell Rogers' husband's estate is divided.

As he analysed the evidence, which included discrepancies on where the will was executed – Ramjit claimed it was at Rogers’ home while a witness said it was at Ramjit’s office in Scarborough, Tobago – as well as handwritten instructions which were also inconsistent with a typed version of how Rogers’ properties were to be distributed according to the will.

On the transfer of the property for legal services, Seepersad said the fees charged by Ramjit were too high.

"It is rather unfortunate that the court must say it forms the view that the fees referenced are exorbitant and unreasonable as they go against responsibilities imposed on attorneys-at-law.”

He admitted there was no legislation for the transfer of property for payment of legal fees but said attorneys could hold clients’ property as security.

However, he said in this case, the value of the property transferred to Ramjit exceeded the “unjustified and exorbitant” fees she charged for her legal services.

Seepersad said attorneys must abide by the code of conduct set out under the Legal Profession Act.

While he empathised with Ramjit and the effect his ruling would have on her professional reputation, he said attorneys had an obligation to treat clients in a fair manner. He also said there was a time when the legal profession was once considered an honourable one.

However, he said attorneys were now viewed as scamps and dishonest people.

He also suggested that attorneys undergo mandatory periodic ethics training.

"The Law Association must do a more proactive job advising citizens on the fees that attorneys should charge," he said.

“The quest for material gain does not trump your obligations as an attorney.”

Campbell Rogers was represented by Samantha Lawson, while Carol-Ann Bernard represented Ramjit. Ramjohn did not participate in the case and was unrepresented.