Attorney Warren Cassell
At a special sitting of the High Court on October 2, 2014 presided over by two High Court Judges, the court ruled that they are unable to grant an application of the Attorney-General to prevent Warren Cassell from practicing law.
Meantime Cassell, represented by Attorney Dr. David Dorsette of Antigua had filed an application which was consequently not granted, on the same ground that the AG’s latest application to suspend Cassell from practicing could not proceed.
On April 19, 2013 the Honourable Attorney-General brought an application to have Warren Cassell struck off the Roll as a Barrister. The special court had convened on August 9, 2013 and adjourned the matter pending the outcome of Mr. Cassell’s Appeal to the Privy Council against his conviction and sentence for fraud.
This past July, the Attorney General sought to have Mr. Cassell suspended until the original application to have him struck off could be heard.
Cassell was in early 2012 convicted of Conspiracy and Money Laundering and served 16 months in prison. The Eastern Caribbean Court of Appeal subsequently quashed the Money Laundering conviction and Cassell is currently awaiting an appeal from the Privy Council.
In considering the application, the court ruled that the recently passed Legal Profession Act 2014 which took effect on October 1, 2014 had overtaken the circumstances. As a result the court was unable to grant the Attorney General’s application.
In the meantime, the court also for the same reason it gave, that the Legal Professions Act 2014 was now in force it would not consider any action brought as a result of the AG’s actions; and that they in any case did not consider the action of April 2013 and the action of July 2014 “alike”.
Dr. Dorsette had argued that the outcome of both actions of April 2013 and July 2014 were the same, and was seeking an order to enforce the undertaking given by the Attorney General that it would not take any steps in the proceedings commenced in April 2013 on the ground that at the time when the undertaking was given, disciplinary proceedings were governed by section 75 of the Supreme Court Act as it was in that context that the undertaking was given.
Mr. Cassell who currently represents several persons, continues to practice as an attorney at law as provided under the laws of Montserrat.
The court in the end also determined that with the new Act in place, “if there are any other applications which were brought before the Court for the Court’s consideration,” they too will be considered at such time…”
However, during the arguments, deliberations in the court, it became clear that before any disciplinary proceedings are brought, there were conditions such as setting up of Committees etc. that would have to be met under the new Act.
