Senior Reporter
derek.achong@guardian.co.tt
A High Court Judge has asked the Disciplinary Committee of the Law Association, the T&T Police Service (TTPS), and the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) to look into the conduct of former Independent Liberal Party (ILP) political leader Rekha Ramjit and her daughter about questionable legal transactions they provided to a now-deceased man of Tobago.
Justice Frank Seepersad made the request on Friday as he upheld a lawsuit brought by the man’s widow, Alicia Campbell Rogers, against Ramjit and her daughter Gina Ramjohn.
The lawsuit centred around a will they allegedly prepared for Rogers’ husband Richard and the transfer of one of his properties to Ramjit as payment for legal services she provided before his death in 2019.
Delivering an oral judgment after a trial, which began earlier this week and ended yesterday, Justice Seepersad agreed to set aside the will as well as the deed related to the property transfer based on the suspicious activity he found concerning the preparation of both.
According to the evidence in the case, Rogers claimed that she was in a common-law relationship with her husband and had a child together in 2010 before they eventually got married three years later.
She claimed that her husband met Ramjit at the Scarborough Magistrates’ Court in late 2018.
Rogers admitted that before her husband passed away in October 2019, Ramjit visited their home on several occasions to deliver legal documents to him.
She claimed that after her husband died, she learned of the existence of a will, which named Ramjit as the executor and only left the couple’s matrimonial home to her and her daughter.
She also learned that one of the properties, which her husband owned with his brother Robert, was transferred to Ramjit on April 30, 2019, which was the same date that the will was purportedly prepared.
Through the lawsuit, Rogers sought to invalidate both legal documents and force Ramjit to hand over the $774,000 in rent, she collected from the properties—jointly owned by her husband and brother-in-law as executor—to her husband’s estate for eventual distribution to his beneficiaries.
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 he and his brother’s properties. That case was filed but is yet to go to trial.
In considering the will, Justice Seepersad took issue with the fact that while both Rogers and Ramjit claimed that it was executed at the couple’s home, the purported witness to the document claimed it was done at Ramjit’s office in Scarborough, Tobago.
“In the court’s view that material inconsistency caused a deeply-rooted sense of suspicion,” Justice Seepersad said.
He also pointed out that the handwritten instructions, which Ramjit claimed Rogers’ husband gave her about the will, were inconsistent with the typed version in terms of how his property interests were to be distributed to his beneficiaries under the will.
While Justice Seepersad agreed to set aside the will, he did not rule that Rogers’ husband died intestate as he pointed out that he could not say conclusively that he (Rogers’ husband) did not have another will prepared before the one in contention in the case.
Dealing with the deed of conveyance, Justice Seepersad took issue with the fact that while Rogers’ brother-in-law purportedly signed it on April 30, 2019, travel document evidence provided by Rogers showed that he had already returned to the United States by then.
He also rejected Ramjit’s claim that he forgot to date the document when he signed it and she subsequently entered the wrong date as he pointed out that her daughter prepared the document.
He also questioned why Ramjit’s son, who served as a witness to the signing of the document, claimed that Rogers’ brother-in-law signed it on the date he was abroad.
Dealing with the legal fees which Ramjit claimed that the property sought to cover, Justice Seepersad stated they were too high based on the nature of the legal work she performed.
“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,” Justice Seepersad said.
While Justice Seepersad noted that attorneys could hold clients’ property as security for their legal fees, he noted that there was no legislative or regulatory framework for transferring clients’ property in lieu of payment.
Stating that the evidence in the case was both disappointing and disturbing, Justice Seepersad said, “It showed how easy it is for attorneys to exploit and take advantage of citizens.”
He also suggested that attorneys should be made to undergo mandatory periodic ethics training.
“The Law Association must do a more proactive job in terms of advising citizens on the fees that should be charged by attorneys,” he said.
He also lamented the impact Ramjit’s actions, as a senior attorney, could have on public trust and confidence in the legal profession.
“It has been an unpleasant experience for the court to review,” Justice Seepersad said.
As part of his decision in the case, Justice Seepersad ordered Ramjit to hand over the rent she collected to the Supreme Court Registrar. The money will be held in escrow until after Rogers’ husband’s estate is divided.
Rogers was represented by Samantha Lawson, while Carol-Ann Bernard represented Ramjit. Ramjohn did not participate in the case and was unrepresented.
