Mr. Pettingill is a Lawyer his political grounds has no bearing on his professional career. He was not against Dr. Brown “when he was Premier” personally he stood on the other side of the floor politically.

This is a legal case and yes Mr. Pettingill is against government corruption as are all Government officials (a least they should be) but in law all persons brought before the court are innocent until proven guilty. For Mr. Pettingill to be going against what he believes in he would have to know for a fact that Dr. Brown is wrong and since none of us know we can not speak on weather Mr. Pettingill is going against what he believes.

So just as Dr. Brown is not at a conflict of interest if he were to treat Mr. Pettingill because his job is not to make his political opponent sick Mr. Pettingill is not at a conflict of interest because his job is not to label without proof his political opponents guilty of crime.

That is my point

but i can understand the potential for a mental one, how how some people would become confused by the two.

Best comment I have read all week. Congratulations.

the issue here is that Pettingills political position is generally arguing against Dr Brown (when he was in power), and try to attack his character or his policy. his law career puts him in a position to do the exact opposite, argue for dr brown, support his character, and make it known that his policy (in this case conduct) is not corrupt.

your example of dr brown being able to deny medical service to pettingill professionaly would only apply if dr browns political position/job was to actually make his political opponents sick…

the conflict of interest isnt because they are/were political opponents, its because what he does politically and what he does professionaly in this case are two sides of the same coin..

“why Pettingill decided to take the case????”
Come On People WAKE THE HELL UP!!!!!!

(and yes, this is semi-sarcastic, before it gets jumped on)

ya def love the news.. but at the end of the day, these are things people have suspected anyway, its just never been outright said under oath..this is no surprise.. and its also no surprise that nothing will come of it, neither proving it, nor disproving it.

even if it is found to be true, the same head-butting comments will come up where anti-browners will say “we told you so” and pro-browners will say “the investigation is a conspiracy to bring down a strong black leader..”

Neo: Who are you?

The Architect: I am the Architect. I created the Matrix. I’ve been waiting for you. You have many questions, and although the process has altered your consciousness, you remain irrevocably human. Ergo, some of my answers you will understand, and some of them you will not. Concordantly, while your first question may be the most pertinent, you may or may not realize it is also the most irrelevant.

Or maybe it was just for practical reasons and we shouldn’t be cynical and see sinister intentions when there may not be any; maybe Dr Brown genuinely thought Mr Pettingill was the best person to represent him, or maybe he was the only one who had time or who wasn’t swamped with work? Or maybe he wanted to take advantage of Mr Pettingill’s new relationship with a London-based Chambers so he could easily get the assistance of a Queen’s Counsel?

So hard to speculate.

“A barrister has a duty to uphold the interest of his client without regard to his own interest or to any consequences to himself or to other person.”

And paragraph 80:

“Subject to the provisions of this Code, a barrister may not decline to defend any person on whose behalf he is instructed on a criminal charge because of any belief or opinion which he may have formed as to the guilt or innocence of that person.”

What this generally means is that even in your hypothetical example re: defending someone who has robbed Mr Pettingill, he may still be duty bound to represent that individual. There may be some scope to refuse if it might affect his ability to defend the accused, but on the flip side, if you chose to take that brief, there’s nothing compelling you to refuse to act.

I’m actually more familiar with practice at the English Bar which is far stricter on these sorts of matters, so I’d rather defer to a Bermudian lawyer who knows how the Code works in practice. The rules behind representation are mainly designed to ensure that if someone wants legal representation, they will get it. If you don’t like someone because you don’t share their same political opinions, basically tough on you. And any interests you have have to be put to the side because you’re there to put someone’s case across to the court.

By way of example consider this: Michael Mansfield QC is one of Britain’s top defence lawyers. In the 1970s, at the height of the troubles with Northern Ireland, there were a series of terrorist blasts across London. One targeted the Old Bailey. Mr Mansfield was also targeted and his car blew up, though luckily, he himself was not in the car. At the time, when some of these Irish terrorists were being put on trial, very few defence lawyers wanted anything to do with these men. Mr Mansfield, however, took it upon himself to ensure that these chaps had access to counsel and represented one of the alleged masterminds of the bombing campaign at trial. He didn’t have to give evidence himself since there was nothing he could give on issue.

Not precisely on point and probably an extreme example but this was the origin of the cab rank rule in the UK. I hope it gives a flavour as to just how importantly the Bar regards access to legal counsel.

LOL

There are a myriad of lawyers within the PLP, so my mind was wrestling with issues like: “doesn’t Dr. Brown trust the skills of his own followers,” and “is Dr. Brown being Machiavellian here and trying to create more confusion?”

Now I understand that neither of them had a choice.

We’d have to ask questions about..oh I don’t know…cruise ship terminals, land swaps, MRI scanners, yachts and ferries, tour boat operations. There’s lots of “grey” out there that needs to be discussed.

Maybe he ego and vanity will be his undoing?

But to try and gag the media on the statement and then turn around and attack says to me it must be true.

I’m pretty much delighted that Brown’s alleged MO is seeing daylight. I suspect though, that through the “friends and family” plan, those involved will keep quiet. Nothing will come of this.

Beyond that, other comments on Brown’s alleged MO, anecdotal evidence for example, will be censored.

Bermudian’s are largely blind to this because “the UBP did it..blah blah”…

“A barrister should not refuse to act for a person merely because that person is unpopular or notorious or because he is espousing an unpopular cause or because he is charged with a particular criminal offence; nor should he be affected by the fact that powerful interests may be involved in the matter in respect of which he is asked to act.”