Speech delivered (in abbreviated form) at the Dinner of the Law Association held on Friday 25th November, 2011
It is my pleasant duty to say a few words on behalf of the group of five of us who are being honoured tonight by the Law Association for having completed fifty years at the Bar. I would like first of all on behalf of the group to thank the Law Association for their hospitality this evening and for affording us this opportunity of celebrating with you a significant milestone in our professional lives. A 50th anniversary in any context is always an occasion for celebration and reflection. The practice which was initiated some years ago by the Law Association of recognising the 50th Anniversary of one‟s admission to practice is a commendable one and we are happy this evening to be the beneficiaries of it.
Fifty years in any context is a long time. It does seem, however, much shorter when one is looking back. If any of us fifty years ago had looked forward to the year 2011, it would have been like looking through the wrong end of a telescope. 2011 would have seemed so remote that we would not even have been alarmed by the thought that by then we might not be around. When we look back, however, we are now looking through the right end of the telescope and the distance which in time measures 50 years, seems much shorter. It is I suppose one of the illusions of old age that Carnival and Christmas come around much more quickly than they used to.
1
This no doubt accounts for the freshness with which I recollect some of my earliest experiences in practice. Perhaps I may be allowed to share one or two of them with you.
My first 16 months in practice were spent as Crown Counsel in the AG‟s department. At that time there were some formidable judges and counsel around.
Mr Justice
Clement Phillips was still in the High Court. He had a most forbidding demeanour which was sometimes matched by the sharpness of his tongue. When appearing before him on one occasion I was reprimanded by him because, as he put it, he was “seeing too much shirt”. In the heat of battle my jacket had become unbuttoned. As the suit I was wearing had been bought at Burtons of London, it had three pieces which included a waistcoat. I took the precaution of putting on the waistcoat before I re-appeared before the judge that afternoon. (It was the practice in those days for the courts to sit after lunch). In August 1962 I was assigned to prosecute at the Assizes in Tobago. The presiding judge again was Mr Justice Clement Phillips. During the course of the month, I was pleasantly surprised to be invited by the Judge to join him and a relative who practiced as a doctor in Tobago, for dinner. That evening I saw a totally different side of the Judge. He was an extremely gracious and friendly host and in fact he indicated his approval of my efforts at prosecuting – an approval I might add of which the Judge had given no hint in court.
It is important sometimes for counsel to remember that judges often do have „another side‟.
2
As a brash young lawyer, I managed to incur the wrath of at least two of the leaders of the Bar at that time. One was Malcolm Butt Q.C. and the other, Hugh Wooding Q.C. as he then was. I would not say I had „run-ins‟ with these gentlemen - it would be more accurate to say I was „run over‟ by them. In Butt‟s case, we were rather unequally opposed in a case in which it was claimed that a policeman had caused an accident by stepping off the pavement at night and holding up his hand in order to stop an oncoming vehicle. That vehicle swerved to avoid hitting him and crashed into another vehicle travelling in the opposite direction. Butt who was for the occupants and owner of the vehicle that swerved, announced to the judge that the claim for his client‟s motor-car had been settled and so was not being pursued. I rose and stated that the claim for the motor-car had not been settled by the defendant policeman or the Attorney-General for whom I appeared. Butt took exception to my intervention as being both unnecessary and somewhat impertinent.
In the case of Wooding, he apparently took the view that I was over-zealous in pursuing a disciplinary charge against a client of his who had been charged in connection with a transformer that fell off a railway wagon on its way by rail to Penal. He expressed that view rather scathingly in his closing submissions to the disciplinary tribunal.
Both these incidents, however, may be said to have had happy endings. Not long after the Butt incident I received a phone call while in the AG‟s department from Butt‟s chambers and was asked to come down there to see him. I remember thinking at the time that I was going to get a further chiding from the great man and I was very
3
apprehensive about what lay in store for me. It was with amazement and relief that I received from Butt not a scolding but an invitation to join his chambers, an invitation which I eventually accepted.
In the case of Wooding, many years later when I was a member of the Constitution Commission of which he was the Chairman, I was driving Sir Hugh to a country meeting of the Commission when out of the blue, he said to me: “You know Michael, I was wrong to criticise you in that railway case, you were only doing your job and it was unfair of me.” That unsolicited apology enhanced my respect for Hugh Wooding tremendously.
Sir Courtney Hannays Q.C had his own unique way of disarming his opponents. I remember appearing against Sir Courtney in the Chamber court before Mr Justice Achong. I was being led by the late Algernon „Pope‟ Wharton Q.C. The Public Service Association for whom we appeared, was challenging the appointment of the Mbanefo Commission of Enquiry. There was a preliminary point which I had been asked by my leader to argue. I was in the midst of my submissions, sitting (since we were in Chambers) between Pope Wharton and Sir Courtney when Sir Courtney extended his arm in front of and across me and shook Wharton‟s hand. „Pope‟ looked at him and asked: “What‟s this about?” Hannays replied: “I am congratulating you, Wharton.” Pope asked: “On what?” Hannays replied: “On not arguing this point yourself.” This was spoken by Hannays in a very audible whisper, easily heard by everyone in court. It is perhaps unnecessary to mention that my preliminary point failed.
4
On an occasion like this it may not be out of place to take at least a quick look at some of the changes that have been wrought in the legal profession over the last fifty years. The first one I would mention, and possibly the most significant, is what I would respectfully call the „feminisation‟ of the legal profession. Fifty years ago there were very few women practising law in Trinidad and Tobago; the legal profession tended to be very much a male preserve, especially in the field of advocacy. Today happily the wheel has turned – not quite full circle -and women, I suspect, probably outnumber men on the roll of practitioners or will soon do so and are being rewarded in increasing numbers for their performance by appointment to the Bench of the Supreme Court and other important judicial and legal offices. This is a long overdue development which has strengthened the profession and the judiciary immeasurably. I hope I won‟t be accused of disrespect if I suggest that incidentally it has also improved the aesthetics of both Bench and Bar!
The practice of having an annual dinner was one which was observed by the predecessor organizations of the Law Association.
I refer to the Law Society and the Bar
Association. In their case, the dinners were „stag‟, that is, attended by men only. Nowadays such events have become so rare that the term „stag‟ has to be explained. In the light of the post-prandial shenanigans which I have been told were sometimes engaged in by some of the eminent participants in these stag events, it is probably as well that they have become an historical curiosity.
5
The other fundamental development which has taken place in the legal profession in the last fifty years is what I would call the „indeginisation‟ of the profession. This was the result principally of the establishment of a comprehensive system of legal education within the region. This system was constituted by the Law Faculties of the University of the West Indies and the University of Guyana and the Law Schools set up in Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago and the Bahamas. Once a unified system of legal education was established for all who wished to practise law, it was inevitable that the profession should be fused by the abolition of the distinction between solicitors and barristers, and this duly came to pass. Barristers and solicitors were replaced by attorneys who could perform the functions previously performed by both branches of the profession. The conversion of Trinidad and Tobago from a monarchy to a republic in 1976 served further to mark the fact that as a country we had separated from our colonial heritage and had acquired a national identity of our own.
A necessary consequence of these developments was the replacement of the Bar Association and the Law Society by the Law Association of Trinidad and Tobago in 1987. I was honoured to be the President of the new Association for the first three years of its existence.
Previously in the 1960s I had served as Treasurer of the Bar
Association and I can tell you from first hand experience that the old association was as vulnerable to intrigue as anything that followed it. In those days you could have voted in the annual election of officers without attending in person by simply sending in a ballot paper, provided you had paid up your subscription to the Association. There was at the time I was Treasurer, a High Commissioner for Jamaica who was a lawyer and
6
who had been entered on the roll of barristers in Trinidad and Tobago. I met him by chance one day and he told me that he would like to become a paid-up member of the Bar Association and wanted to know how to go about this. I was forced to tell him that not only was he a paid-up member of the Association but he had voted in a recent election of officers! He asked me who had paid his subscription as he wanted to reimburse him, but although I had a shrewd idea who that person was, I did not think I should tell him.
Once fusion had taken place, wigs became an anomaly but it was with some reluctance that they were finally discarded by some members of the profession. What is perhaps significant is that for some considerable time after wigs had been abandoned in the courts in Trinidad & Tobago, they continued to be required wear for those appearing in our highest court, that is, the Privy Council. I remember well appearing in that forum on one occasion and forgetting to put on my wig after the luncheon break. In fact I had left it in the robing- room. When I attempted to address their Lordships on the resumption, it was made clear to me that something was amiss and in one way or another the absence of the wig was drawn to my attention. I then had to excuse myself, hurriedly dash up the corridor to the robing-room, plant the wig on my head and rush back into court to resume my address. I find it hard to believe that their Lordships at the time were so unaware of what transpired in Trinidad & Tobago that they did not know that we had ceased wearing wigs. The requirement that we should adopt the full regalia of English barristers in order to appear in our own final court was, I suppose, one of the incongruities that flowed from retaining appeals to a foreign court.
7
I understand that
more recently our attorneys have been allowed to appear in the Privy Council without wigs, although they are still required of English barristers appearing in the Privy Council in appeals from Trinidad and Tobago. The result is that there are effectively two categories of lawyers appearing in our final court - those who are bewigged and those who are bare-headed! It is difficult to find a rationale for the distinction.
It is the responsibility of each generation of lawyers to pass on to those who follow the traditions and ethical standards of the legal profession. This they must do not so much by precept as by example. In other words by what they practice as well as what they preach. Lawyers put a high value on precedent. For the purpose of establishing and upholding the principles and rules that govern practice as a lawyer, we are the precedents. That is especially true of those who achieve some degree of visibility. One of the traditions of the Bar is that senior lawyers help their juniors. They may do so by providing advice and mentoring when requested or by offering them a „leg-up‟ in any of a myriad ways or simply by being a role model for them. I would like this evening to acknowledge that I have benefited richly from all these types of help from my seniors. It would take too long to provide an exhaustive list of these benefactors but I would like to mention at least a few of them. In more or less chronological order, the first was the late Sir Ellis Clarke who took a chance on me by providing me at a time when I was not personally known to him, with a very generous recommendation for the purpose of gaining admission to Grays Inn. It was he also who persuaded me to return to Trinidad and Tobago after five years in England to take up an appointment as Crown Counsel, a decision which I was never to regret.
8
Then there was the late Mr Justice Clement Philips of whom I have already spoken. It was his advice that I sought and obtained before making what I considered at the time to be a brave decision to leave the security of Government service and a monthly salary for private practice with no guarantees at all.
Then there was Sir Hugh Wooding, a man with great reverence for the law which he expounded from the bench with eloquence and erudition. Through our association on the Commission which he chaired, I had the privilege of becoming his friend.
Then there was Telford Georges, a man for whom I had great admiration and affection and for whose judgement in matters legal as well as non-legal alike, I had the greatest respect. Up to today, when faced with a difficult situation, I often ask myself: „how would Telford have dealt with this?‟
The person I learnt the most from in relation to ethical behaviour was „Pope‟ Wharton. Pope had an unerring sense of what was or was not appropriate or acceptable in practice as an advocate and there was never any question that he would follow anything other than the best practice.
A few months after I joined his Chambers, Malcolm Butt left Trinidad and Tobago for good and E.H. Hamel Wells Q.C. took over as head of Chambers. Being in „Teddy‟ Wells‟ Chambers was a great advantage to me not only because of what I learnt from
9
him about my trade as a lawyer but also because of the opportunities which being in his Chambers afforded to build a practice of one‟s own. When Teddy was forced by illness to retire prematurely from practice, an illness which brought about his untimely death, it was his ample shoes that I attempted to fill as head of Chambers and as standing counsel to a couple of major corporate clients.
Finally, it would be remiss of me not to mention my indebtedness to and appreciation of Tajmool Hosein Q.C. Unfortunately I found myself more often opposed to Tajmool than being led by him. Opposing Tajmool certainly brought out the best in you. He had, and I am sure still has, one of the sharpest minds that I have encountered. One of the things I learnt from him was the importance of thorough preparation of a case, even for someone as gifted as him.
In any Caribbean pantheon of legal giants Tajmool
undoubtedly deserves a place of honour.
I apologise to the many others who have helped me in my career both at the Bar and on the Bench during the last fifty years but whom I have not mentioned simply because of the constraints of time and the limits of your patience.
Hopefully, those of us who are being honoured tonight have contributed in some small way to preserving the professional values and standards which we were taught and have at some stage assisted a younger colleague in the achievement of his or her professional aspirations. If we have, then that would be some justification for the recognition you have given us.
10
I close as I began, by expressing on behalf of those of us who have survived 50 years in the service of the law, our sincere thanks and appreciation to the Law Association for helping us to make this a truly memorable milestone in the chronology of our careers and indeed our lives.
Thank you all.
11
