Attorney appeals judge's referral to Law Association disciplinary committee

ATTORNEY Varun Debideen has appealed the ruling of a High Court judge who referred him to the disciplinary committee of the Law Association for his role in allegedly preparing a loan agreement for a client.

On April 1, Justice Frank Seepersad directed the Registrar of the Supreme Court to send his ruling in a lawsuit involving a business against a contractor and two other parties to recover $7 million in funds for a construction project that did not materialise.

The judge’s order was for a possible enquiry into Debideen’s preparation and execution of a loan agreement between the parties.

Seepersad held that the loan agreement was fraudulent and a “sham document designed to deceive.”

Debideen was initially one of eight defendants, including two banks, in Advanced Hose’s lawsuit. In November 2023, Seepersad froze his assets and bank account. The case against the others was subsequently withdrawn against the others, including Debideen.

In his appeal, his attorneys, led by British King’s Counsel Tom Richards, argue that Seepersad had no jurisdiction under the Legal Profession Act, “or at all,” to make any reference to the Disciplinary Committee in the absence of a finding of professional misconduct or a criminal offence. Debideen’s appeal said the judge made no such finding, holding only that the attorney “may possibly have engaged” in actions constituting professional misconduct.

Debideen’s attorneys also contended that the judge acted outside his jurisdiction by referring the matter under the act, which only permits complaints to be made by application, not referrals for investigation. They contended that the judge was not “constrained” to make such a referral, as the provision grants discretionary power, even in cases of alleged professional misconduct.

It was further submitted that the judge erred by making the referral without first allowing Debideen to be heard, which, they contend, was procedurally unfair and unlawful.

The attorneys also contend that the judge had no grounds to make findings about Debideen’s understanding of the loan agreement, given that he (Debideen) did not testify and the matter against him had been resolved by compromise and later discontinued.

The appeal also contends there was no justification for the drawing of adverse inferences because of Debideen’s absence at trial.

Debideen’s attorneys argued that the legal conditions for a referral under section 37(2) had not been met.

The appeal seeks to have the relevant portions of the judge’s order set aside.

In justifying his decision to appeal, Debideen said the judge’s findings against him were “wholly erroneous, irrational and inconsistent with the law, facts and evidence” that was before the court.

“It is incomprehensible how such findings could have been made given the evidence in the case, which always supported my pleaded case and my innocence.

Given the circumstances and the quick release of the judgment to the press on a holiday, it would seem that the purpose of this judgment was primarily suited to grab headlines and attention.”