UK lawyer claims local firms are breaking LPL
Paul Garlick QC
(CNS): Advice from a British lawyer instructed by a group of MLAs has fuelled further controversies surrounding the Legal Practitioners Law. The QC from London chambers claims that local law firms are breaching the existing legislation and conspiring to employ overseas lawyers unlawfully. The advice from Paul Garlick QC, set out in correspondence read to the Legislative Assembly on Friday by East End MLA Arden McLean, concluded that the law firms are breaking several sections of the current law, which has caused more uncertainty over the passage of the new legislation.
The legal opinion was read as part of a personal explanation as the LA resumed following committee deliberations. McLean said that during the debate on the legislation last week, Attorney General Samuel Bulgin had stated that firms were not breaking the law by practicing overseas. However, McLean said that the independent members had sought their own opinion, which offered a very different position.
MLAs were set to debate the legislation on Friday in committee, which after weeks of wrangling had passed through its second reading unanimously. But the advice read to the parliament derailed plans to go through the suggested changes and agreed compromises. With just two days left before the Legislative Assembly is dissolved ahead of Nomination Day and other laws still to be dealt with, the new law is now in jeopardy.
For more than ten years, successive governments have failed to arrive at a piece of legislation that meets the long-standing conflict in the profession: on one side the need for protectionism for Caymanian attorneys and a way to provide a path to the top of the sector, and on the other side the desire by the leading offshore firms to have the freedom to choose who they recruit and promote, regardless of the immigration law, and their goal of practicing Cayman law anywhere overseas.
With a pressing need for a professional code of conduct and changes to the old law to ensure that the jurisdiction passes its next Financial Action Task Force review, Financial Service Minister Wayne Panton has tried to find that compromise in order to get backing from the entire House. However, the opposition benches and some local attorneys have stood hard and fast against the proposed law, which has dominated this final sitting of the Legislative Assembly ahead of the election.
While the independent MLAs who have been focusing on this law have denied that they are using it as a political target to defeat the government, Panton believes their constant allegations that the major local law firms are breaking the law is purely political and is undermining the financial services sector, which remains the backbone of the country’s economic fortunes.
Following the reading of Garlick’s legal opinion, the attorney general said he stands by his original opinion. The MLAs then returned to the committee proceedings to deal with the planning minister’s various pieces of legislation.
Government has almost completed all of its other legislation but the LPL was expected to be dealt with today (Monday 27 March).
See the advice given on the Legal Practitioners Bill in the CNS Library and the relevant LA proceedings below
The Brits threw a tantrum over fears of legally-allowed “immigrants” (aka expats) taking low-paid and relatively insignificant cashier, bar staff, store clerk and construction jobs – to the extent of pulling out of a regional economic, migration, and trade union.
Just Imagine if they had to contend with actual and legally-categorised “foreigners” taking the top-paying and influential jobs in their country and having to fight against nefariously constructed hurdles and barriers to obtain said jobs for themselves.
Cayman, never forget to apply a GLOBAL CONTEXT to the domestic issues at hand. Arm yourselves with the facts of today’s geopolitical reality in the battle for justice, self-respect, and national pride.
Happy Article 50 Day everyone!
– Whodatis
P.S. Standby for the hypocritical and intellectually dishonest retorts … :-/
#Xeno50Day
#mybritishgreatgranddaddywasacoalminersowhyamiunemployedin2017
#nigeriantundethrivesinlondonwhilebrexitsupporternigellivesonthedoleinhull
What point was Who making here? It just looks like words strung together to look like there is a point being made.
8:56 am answered your PS to a T.
So does this mean those responsible may face prosecution for breaking the law?
A rubbish opinion. Stop this stupid attack on the horse that laid the golden eggs and has made so many of our people very rich.
Law firms are not perfect. But neither is any our industry.
If you want to fight something take on the construction industry and the garages which has been ripping us off for years.
$500 for an tune up really.
Sam Bulgin has never been right about anything. Don’t know how the king of under performers has been employed this long. Just speaks to the slackness of Government officials to demand accountability.
what the fuss about…government always do….and support the rich???
Having read the opinion is does not say what the headline says it says. It is a misleading and self-serving document because of the irrelevant question put to Mr Garlick which was designed to produce an answer the MLAs wanted but the question is irrelevant. None of the persons working out of Cayman are employed by a Cayman firm, which is the predicate assumption in paragraph 1 of the opinion and which shows the ignorant fallacy upon which this debate has taken place in the LA and beyond. Mr Garlick did not have the constitutional documents of all the international firms so that he could consider the issue in the context of the different legal entities involved and their connections with each other. Having read that opinion it appears to confirm what everyone already knew, namely that there is no evidence of a criminal offence having been committed by the firms.
There are clearly some big gaps in that opinion. First and most obviously, the definition of “practise law” is extremely limited – it is just preparing instruments for the transfer of movable or immovable property EXCLUDING agreements under hand and stock transfer forms. So pretty much only deeds relating to real estate. I don’t think anyone does much of that in Hong Kong.
See how a little carefully placed ink can cause a major shitstorm?
Time for Johhny English to pay his bill $$$$$$ wha happen running down Cayman no longer a hobby Feel the heat in unnah draws seat Bigg Up Winston and Da boys Driftwood need Fire Bun dem!
You missed “Caveman” in front of your name.
Law is all about “Interpretation” same as Religion.
The Law Lords will disagree over the same matter in law and so do the Biblical Scholars over the same passage in the Bible.
Ever wonder why topics can be so heated and controversial such as Abortion, Terrorism, Racism, Sexual Orientation, Right to Bear Arms, Reparations etc….
Sad how you all are tearing up our elected politicians that are trying to secure caymans future and it’s next generation. I dare ask in this public domain to name one country head that is a born caymanian of Cayman’s premier financial industry and the same for tourism. Our two major industries that our country was built on and not one caymanian at the helm of these industries. Sad, sad, sad. Fight on minister McLean, miller, suckoo and Connolly. Just remember discrimination is not only in the legal fraternity, it’s in banking and in the tourism industry.
Under which law is Mr Garlick qualified to give this opinion?
You can always find a lawyer who will give you an opposing opinion. It’s what they do.
But was the same question asked?
Well the wrong question was asked of the QC by the MLAs since those working abroad are never employed by a Cayman firm.
Oh really? That’s not what the Law Society has been saying!
Be honest. Whose advice would you place reliance on?
It’s a bit like these so called expert witnesses called in court cases, their opinion is always based on who pays the piper.
And what facts/fiction they provide in the brief.
Q: what’s the best way to get bad legal advice? A: Ask the wrong question. The legal advice refers to overseas lawyers but ‘in the Cayman Islands’. That is not the question at hand. The advice should have dealt with overseas lawyers outside the Cayman Islands.
Those being lawyers not employed by a Cayman firm, in contrast to the assumption upon which the entire opinion was based.
CNS: Is this QC admitted in the Cayman Islands? If not, does it not breach the law.
You will recall that Operation Tempura UK attorney was disbarred see https://www.caymancompass.com/2009/12/11/tempura-attorney-disbarred-2/
So the MLAs are taking advice from a lawyer based in London who isn’t legally qualified to practice law in the Cayman Islands?
based on the MLAs own advice then they are guilty of conspiracy haha
Brilliant 1.39! Hypocrites caught by the short and curlies…
If you looked at the law you’d know where the loopholes are. Pretty sure the opposition figures that out
what a bunch of crock from you 1:39 and others of the iame persuasion, what hinders a lawyer from another jurisdiction giving an opinion on a matter that is researched , absolutely nothing, ITS JUST AN OPINION. IN a matter such as that of the discussion, an inquiry AS IS BEING REQUESTED THE END RESULT DETERMINES THE LEGALITY OR ILLEGALITY OF THE MATTER. .
STOP YA BULLSHIT STIRRING UP GARBAGE, THE LAW FIRMS ARE COMMITTING AN OFFENSE THEN LET THE INQUIRY PROVE THAT THEY ARE NOT. TIRED OF ONA TIME FOR A SERIOUS CHANGE IN THIS COUNTRY ONA BETTER WATCH IT.
People who shout 8.23, rarely have anything worthy listening too.
I disagree, shouting sometimes comes from a place of passion which has its place. I ca see how this could be a heated topic to discuss….
When you type it in ‘all caps’ it makes you sound more erudite and sane and not at all like a ranting loon. I infer from your willingness to comment on the legal issues that you are a lawyer? Please tell me you’re not one of the Caymanian lawyers being held back for no apparent reason.
Its not ONLY Cayman lawyers being held back..Caymanian everything…even the iguanas, trees, roads, rocks from seven mile, dump excavation, jobs for school leavers, trade-schools for juveniles and much more!
Trust me im no lawyer, but im certainly not a blind resident either.
8:23 Read the story. It states, ‘Advice from a British lawyer INSTRUCTED (my turn to shout!) by a group of MLAs.’ In simple English he was employed to make a determination on the legality of something under Cayman Islands law and he for sure didn’t take that on pro bono. So although he’s not licenced to practice law here he’s been employed to offer legal advice to the MLAs. An old saying about the pot calling the kettle black comes to mind here.
How can they be against the law when there is no laws in place to govern such activity?
I could be wrong.
But one of the main purpose of this bill is to have a law in place so that such activity can be concluded as moral or legal.
Moral and Legal are completely different in the court of law.
A le doesn’t have to spell out everything that is not allowed. Basic statutory interpretation provides that if the law says you need a practicing certificate to practice law then it can safely be presumed that is because you can’t practice inside or outside cayman without one. If we had to spell out everything you cannot do we’d never finish drafting laws
Actually, Arden’s Advice didn’t hinge on the practicing certificate. So you’re wrong.
This could not be more wrong. Criminal statutes certainly do need to spell out everything which is prohibited. To the extent “basic statutory interpretation” is relevant here, you may want to familiarize yourself with the rule that statutes are presumed not to have extra territorial effect. So, there is currently no law which prohibits the practice of Cayman Islands law from outside the Cayman Islands.
Actually morals are a major component of the law. Anybody who held themselves out as a cayman attorney when they were not is not a fit and proper person to be an officer of the court and should never be granted a practicing certificate in the future
The existing legal practitioners law clearly contends that the practice of Cayman Law without a practising certificate is an offense. It also confirms that expatriates must swear an affidavit of residence in the Cayman Islands to renew a practising certificate each year. The result is that the law clearly preserves the right to practice Cayman Law overseas in the hands of Caymanians. That may be unpopular and inconvenient, but it is the Law!
What exactly do you mean by “The result is that the law clearly preserves the right to practice Cayman Law overseas in the hands of Caymanians.”? And, how did you get to that conclusion?
Section 12(2) of the existing law provides that for an expatriate to have their annual practising certificate renewed they must swear an affidavit of residence in the Cayman Islands. This must be done each year. There is no corresponding requirement for Caymanians to swear an affidavit of residence. Accordingly Caymanians and only Caymanians can have a valid practising certificate whilst residing overseas. The law firms can have lots of Caymanians with valid practising certificates in their overseas offices. They choose not to. They have made their bed and should be forced to lay in it.
Isn’t a UK lawyer giving advice on Cayman Law exactly what these MLA’s are complaining about?
As a BTO isn’t the only recourse through the British legal system when matters cannot be settled at the highest court here? Where laws and regulations do not exist isn’t it usual for the Cayman legal system to follow English law? Therefore it makes sense to go to the UK when no law exists to address the issue here. But the advice very much depends on the instructions provided, and if they are as fictional as some of the things being said in this debate, then the advice is as much use as a chocolate fireguard.
All I see here is politicians positioning themselves in the usual popularity race leading to elections making laws about issues of jurisdiction and practice which (rather embarrassingly) they clearly do not understand at all.
The bill is far behind other jurisdictions in terms of recognition of other legal professionals, although the introduction of CPDs and code of conduct (standard practice elsewhere for decades) is welcomed.
Is the QC from London who offered the opinion also breaking the law?
No. The QC didn’t say it was illegal either. That’s what Arden wants it to read.
Read the laws and you’ll figure out why he’s not
So how exactly is this guy qualified to given an opinion on Cayman Islands Law? Has he done his time at the local law school?
The local law school offers the LLB from the University of Liverpool so each law student is taught UK statute not Cayman law. Using your logic should me zero migrant lawyers should be able to practice in Cayman because they didn’t attend law school here. I know the knee jerk reaction is to be negative and shoot the messenger but you are an imbecile.
Many Cayman lawyers who attended the local law school and are actually trained and actually qualified in local law share his interpretation.
Do lawyers who practice Cayman law have to sit a Cayman law bar exam and be admitted accordingly, just like someone who is practicing NY law has to do and how someone who is practicing UK law has to do? If not, there is NO reason that this is not implemented the same way other jurisdiction do.
The constant thread of “breaking the backbone of the financial industry” is laughable at best, especially considering that 2 or 3 of the biggest law firms on Island are basically advising whatever is in their own best interest. Of course anything that may be reigning them in a bit is considered dooms day!
Of course the overseas offices are good for business, but they provide services which lead to entity formations in Cayman with attendant annual registration fees to CIG PLUS employment of many Caymanians who work both in the legal profession and for the corporate service providers which provide those entities’ registered offices. Without the Cayman firms’ overseas offices, that work may very well go to competitor jurisdictions. Do you understand what that means for the local economy?
You are missing the point – none of this has anything to do with the fact that someone who is practicing Cayman law can’t sit a test to be “official” admitted to the Cayman bar. Other countries do it, why can’t the same principal applied to Cayman? There is no reason why a Chinese national working in a London law firm practicing Cayman law can’t sit a Cayman law bar test.
Yes there is. The legal practitioners law requires him or her to be resident here. May be unpopular, but that is what it says. Only exception is for Caymanians.
There is no such thing as a “Caymanian”
Aha! Now no one can conclude its hogwash just because a bunch of locals are saying so. Coming from Arden it wasn’t given credence but this is from one of their own. Sue them!
Not sure why a lawyer in Britain whose expertise is in extradition, human rights, fraud, bribery and corruption is qualified to pass judgement on the proposed law.
Haha you’re desperately stretching for a glimmer of hope that all this s@@@ won’t fall on you aren’t you?
“A lawyer whose expertise is in…fraud” – you answered your own question.
There seems to be more dispute over the facts than the law. The only facts so far are rumor and hearsay.
Of course they are breaking the law! Imagine you went to someone who claimed to be a neurosurgeon but was actually a dentist or worse yet not a doctor at all! Same thing! Just because the firms are “powerful” doesn’t put them above the law. I don’t think the independents are playing politics.. it was me panton who left this law for the last sitting of the la and now he may have to pay the political price! Also wasn’t he a partner at a firm that he overseas attorneys practicing without certificates?? Would he really say then that this was illegal?!?
Imagine going to a neurosurgeon in Azerbaijan only to discover when you returned home to Bali that the person had actually only stayed at a Holiday Inn Express the night before and that Holiday Inn is based in Columbia. And then you accused the ‘doctor’ of breaking the Law in Columbia. Same thing!
A true imbecile.