by Linda Straker
- Lawyer Brenda Wardally–Beaumont ordered struck off
- Found guilty of professional misconduct
- Wardally–Beaumont claimed her office administrator failed to make payment
On 15 November 2022, two High Court Judges ordered that 71-year-old lawyer Brenda Wardally–Beaumont be struck off the court’s roll of attorneys-at-law in Grenada.
They agreed that she was guilty of professional misconduct in the discharge of her duties as an attorney-at-law when she failed to return the sum of EC$304,419.99 which she held in trust for her client, Joel Ganpot.
It is not clear if the matter will be appealed to the OECS Court of Appeal.
Justices Raulston LA Glasgow and Victoria Charles–Clarke also ruled that Wardally-Beaumont shall pay all outstanding monies together with accrued interest due and owing to Ganpot, in accordance with the consent order dated 13 July 2009, within 6 months of 15 November 2022.
“The Registrar of the High Court shall effect the appropriate changes to the court’s roll of attorneys-at-law and shall cause the requisite notices to be published in the Official Gazette,” said the ruling.
According to the background of the matter, Wardally–Beaumont in or about April 1999, represented Ganpot in matrimonial proceedings. As part of ancillary relief proceedings brought further to the matrimonial proceedings, he was ordered to transfer his interest in the matrimonial home at True Blue to his former wife, Mrs Lester Ganpot. The house was valued in the sum of $304,419.99.
In April 2005, Wardally–Beaumont, as the attorney for Ganpot, received the sum of $304,419.99 on his behalf which represented monies he was entitled to as part of the settlement of the ancillary relief proceedings.
Between the period June 2006 and June 2007, Ganpot caused letters to be sent to Wardally–Beaumont demanding payment of the settlement sum. However, Wardally-Beaumont failed to pay the settlement sum as demanded.
On 5 June 2007, approximately 2 years after Wardally–Beaumont received the money, Ganpot filed a claim against her seeking payment of the sum of $304,419.99 together with interest and costs. On 13 July 2007, judgment in default of defence was entered for Ganpot against Wardally– Beaumont in the sum of $308,248.69. Thereafter, Wardally–Beaumont applied to set aside the default judgment. On 3 October 2007, Master Cheryl Mathurin refused the application to set aside the default judgment and awarded Ganpot $600 in costs.
Between the period 4 October 2007 and January 2009, Wardally–Beaumont made sporadic payments towards the judgment debt. On 13 January 2009, a consent order was entered before Cumberbatch J. His Lordship ordered that: “[t]he Defendant is to pay the sum of $10,000.00 every quarter until judgment in the sum of $300,971.11 together with all costs awarded to the Claimant and interest at 6% per annum is paid in full, commencing the 30th day of April 2009,” but the payment halted after some time.
In her affidavit explaining why the money was not deposited to her client’s account, Wardally–Beaumont claimed it was her office administrator who failed to make the payment.
“With respect to the deposit of the money, she did not personally deposit the money into her client’s account at Republic Bank. She says that it was the responsibility of one Patricia Cadore Charles, (Ms. Charles), who was, at the time, the office administrator in her firm, to deposit monies into the client’s account and to distribute monies to clients,” said the ruling.
“When she made inquiries into her client’s account she discovered that the balance was insufficient to make the payment to Mr Ganpot and as a result, she decided to trace where the funds went. She avers that this was not the first occasion that client’s money went missing from her office,” said the affidavit.
How could same individual, under a different, but new title, still handle real estate issues. Citizens cannot help but reflect on the disbarred situation, as a a loophle, allowing the avenue, to be continued. Are citizens not right, in thinking, that after all said, and done, how is it misconduct, is not misconduct? Why would her resistance, to hand up funds, not be repeated, re: real estate and paralegal services, she has now embarked on? Would that loophole, not open more irresponsible, non-accountable doors, for her still, to pursue her repititious, dishonest real estate, and paralegal services/habits? How could she herself, candidly, and conveniently downsize her own, alleged once SAYING alleged professional career, (**by literally circumventing, getting around, what looks like, and is refered to as another term, (**PARA-LEGAL, TOO? **) How could, and why, should she be allowed to conveniently shield her habits, behind the downsizing? Why, in pursuit of related work? THINK! Would her habits, not transend into future debatable expected, non-trustworthy, performance, if she is still pursuing the same sector? Citizens really, question accountability, reponsibility, in her newly adapted business outlet! How, and what is the difference between practicing as an attorney, re: real estate related issues, and that of (**selling properties, again, REAL ESTATE related,**) as a sales person? Someone, please, clarify the difference, in her getting, finding money via her new outlet? God, please help the unsuspecting victims. NOT TRYING TO CRUCIFY HER WORKING (**for cash!**) TOO BAD SHE WAS NOT THROWN INTO (**A MANDATORY ETHICS PROGRAM, FOR LIFE.**) WHAT IMPACT WOULD THIS (**DRIP DROP DELAYED PAYMENT**) HAS HAD ON THIS MAN’S LIFE? ADD THE STRESS, TOO! THINK SERIOUSLY, THE (**INHUMANENESS!**) HOW JUST, IS JUSTICE, IN THE MIDST OF ONE’S PROLONGED SUFFERING. DIVORCE IS NO PIECE OF CAKE, NOR DOES THIS ONSLAUGHT OFFER ANY PEACE OF MIND. WE PRAY. GOD PLEASE ADD SENSITIVITY, TO HER HEART. THANKS. AMEN AND AMEN.
That’s all the crooked lawyer got? Why not jail her like all the petty thieves?
Finally, the crook gets her justice